Correcting a link. |
|||
Line 463: | Line 463: | ||
::::The [[WP:CGTW#1|First Law]] might be even more applicable here: If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
::::The [[WP:CGTW#1|First Law]] might be even more applicable here: If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::Yep. I wrestled with a basset hound once: it was a dumb idea. But MastCell, I think Malik was goaded in a way that you or I probably can't be--I'm assuming you're white too. That insult combined racism with utter disrespect, in a word that has centuries of history in American racist speak. Then again, I never had Malik's patience; it takes a lot less to get me riled up. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:51, 18 August 2015
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Comment
Drmies, i just wanted to say that i appreciated your kind note to DeBerryTexas. Soham321 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Section blanking
You're an admin. You know that blanking on a 1RR page without discussion on talk is disruptive. If you want to propose article improvements discuss on Talk:Center for Medical Progress (political organization). Do not violate 1RR. -- Callinus (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're a fool. There is no 1R established for that article. The stuff you cited, that's essays, not policy. Calling my edit "vandalism", on the other hand, violates actual policy. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Request for advice on whether to report potential edit warring
I would like to ask your advice on whether or not I should report Ring Cinema for edit warring, since his editing may not explicitly violate the 3RR, but as I understand it you have had to warn him for edit warring before (around September 19, 2014 that was not an explict violation of that rule. The edits in question revolve around two Michael Caine films, Deathtrap (film) and Sleuth (1972 film) Two days ago I added a sentence to the leads of both of these article noting the similarities of these films, and providing citations of reviews by Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin that explicitly mention the similarities between these films, as well as three published books that mention the similarities. Yesterday Ring Cinema repeatedly reverted these changes on the Deathtrap article. At that point, I attempted to start a discussion with him. Since then, he has reverted the change again. This is his third revert. His first revert was 16:25, 4 August 2015, and his last revert was 16:51, 5 August 2015. At 16:51, 5 August 2015, he also reverted the almost exact same sentence in the Sleuth article. So while it's two different articles, it is the exact same issue with the exact same editors in the two articles, and he is at 4 reverts of it in barely over 24 hours. This feels like edit warring if not a cut-and-dried violation of 3RR. I have opened a discussion of the content dispute on WP:DRN, but do you think I should also go to ANI/3rr? Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ha, I responded on Winkelvi's talk page. Hope it's of some use to you. I'd check the edit myself, but it's time for a dip in the pool. Admin privilege, you know. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, it is helpful, I appreciate it. After reviewing WP:FILMLEAD I got an idea of how I could change my sentence so that it does double duty of talking about critic reaction, which WP:FILMLEAD encourages in the lead, while acknowledging that part of the critics' reaction was to note similarities to the other film. My hope is that Ring Cinema will recognize that as a reasonable compromise, so I'm going to wait and see, and not take further action unless he starts reverting again. I also think if I do have to go to the edit warning ANI board, it'll show I was making good-faith efforts to find a middle ground, not just reverting back and forth. Thanks again. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like he has decided to persist in reverting on both pages, so I have decided to go ahead and file a report. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey Drmies, I'm bringing this to you as the issue at hand strikes me as urgent and possibly representative of a major abuse of an article by an extremist group, but my time today is extremely constrained, so I'm looking for some administrative input here in how best to address the matter. This issue concerns Military activities of ISIL and what I fear may be sock-puppet supported efforts to force content into it which glamourizes the organization and their military strength and influence. Over the last couple of days, user LightandDark2000 has re-introduced a lot of content that was previously removed to bring the article in line with encyclopedic tone, and contested a clear consensus on the renaming of the article.
I left the majority of his reverts unchanged until I have time to RfC them or otherwise invite comment to a talk page that has been very quiet since the changes LightandDark is reverting or contesting were first implemented. But one seemed so obviously and completely in contradiction of basic and unambigous policies on what constitutes encyclopedic summary of a topic and the format that content ought to take, that I reverted it back to the stable version and then went to the talk page to post a thread on the issue. Within a moment, while I was composing that thread, the change was reverted by "another" editor with a name strikingly similar to that of LightandDark2000 (LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774). Aside from the similarity of the names and the fact that the revert came instantly, my suspicions are heightened further by the fact that LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 shows detailed understanding of policy despite the fact that the account is not yet two months old and the content of their user page doesn't do a whole lot in assuring me as to their neutral point of view on the topic of Islamist movements.
I think there's more than enough to pass the duck test here, and normally I'd take this to SPI, but for two critical factors. One, my time for pursuing that course and presenting the requisite argument and investigation into the account (which from a cursory examination do seem to be concerned with largely the same general type of topic) is incredibly limited just now. The other factor is the seriousness of the circumstances and the possibility that one of our articles might be co-opped by an extremist group with a massive and aggressive online presence in order to exalt it's military strength for those who would be drawn to such a display; certainly the edit in question seems to me to be a kind of military fetishism that goes well beyond what we accept even for our articles on formal militaries that dwarf ISIL in scope.
Under the circumstances, I was considering taking the matter and my concerns directly to ANI, so that others with more time than I have at present might look into the issue in detail -- so the entire purpose of my post here and elucidating the details of the matter is to get your impression on whether you thought I'd be jumping the gun in doing so. Normally I'd wait days or weeks through the content dispute process (or at least pursue a sock investigation) before even considering such a move, but given the profile of the article and the nature of the content, my thinking is that every moment it stays up represents a significant issue for the integrity of the project and the possibility that we are being leveraged to try to legitimize the group, at least insofar as celebrating their military strength by representing in in a non-neutral and non-encyclopedic fashion. Any advice would be appreciated. Snow let's rap 23:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting, Snow Rise. Ha, "military fetishism"--don't let the folks at MILHIST hear that term. (I sure hope The ed17 is not listening.) Personally I think that such a list is indeed just that, but if other, comparable articles have it, well, then military fetishism is wiki-allowed. (Ed, is this accepted widely?) Now, if there's a clear consensus, somewhere on the talk page, reverting "per consensus" is fine--"stable version" is, for better or for worse, not widely accepted, as I'm sure you understand.
The socking business is probably more straightforward and you could simply file an WP:SPI, briefly present some behavioral evidence (and you want to look for similar phrasing, similar edit summaries, same sources, same spelling habits, etc.) and ask for CU to look into it. That may take a day or two (or three, if Bbb23 and Ponyo haven't returned from their tryst in the South Pacific, or wherever CUs go), but if it turns out your hunch was right then the sock will be blocked and the master too--and if the master isn't blocked, at least they will have lost all credibility.
That's two cents. I'm working on a big plate of sweet potatoes and hot sauce, with pulled pork and jalapenos, and will be glad to look more carefully in a little bit. This is important enough for us to pay attention to. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there's this. BTW, all those flags--that's fetishism too, as if weapons somehow "represent" the countries they were made in. It's like the Olympics of guns. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- As for an SPI--this is a ridiculous amount of overlap, considering the Limitations account is what, two weeks old. And I think they might be playing good hand, bad hand on Light's talk page. Go ahead and file it, and ask for CU. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- (EC) Thanks for the attention and the advice. As you feel that SPI is a better first step than ANI, I'll proceed in that fashion and try to find time to format and open the request later tonight or tomorrow morning. I do have a concern that if this is a socking issue and an effort at direct propaganda -- and to be clear, I'm not certain that even if it is that the parties in question would be directly involved with ISIL; I AGF on the intent of any parties for the moment -- but were it a matter of socking by someone working on that group's behalf, I should think they would have the technical skills necessary to complicate a CU. But I suppose that doesn't mean it shouldn't come first in any event. As to the military fetishism aspect, I don't think that all of this content needs to necessarily go away part and parcel; I proposed on the talk page that it be summarized in prose and that this, depending on how it was approached, would likely constitute useful and neutrally-presented information for our readers. But these massive tables, complete with images for every form of armament, large or small, that any single source has speculated ISIL might have, are way overboard and, I suspect, meant to sell an image of righteous warriors, and I know of no article under the umbrella of MILHIST that uses this approach, even those for major modern militaries. There's a few different sections that violate WP:PROSE that LightandDark2000 is reverting back into the article, but these are the most problematic. Snow let's rap 00:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. And meating is a possibility too, of course. Perhaps (since Ed hasn't shown up--perhaps his bike had a flat tire) you can leave a note on the MILHIST talk page. And perhaps sourcing is a serious problem as well. I mean, if basically all your organization does is steal other people's shit, we might as well list all the shit in the world, no? My typical advice in such cases, if we want to AGF and call it a simple content dispute, is to get an RfC, a decent and clear consensus on the talk page, and take it from there. Good luck with it, and keep me posted if you like. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- {Surprisingly?) there's no Military of ISIS article, so I think the list is good to have in this article. It's a pretty common list in military articles. No flat tire, just three sets of tennis. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but there's some obvious problems here, if you get your stuff by stealing it (at least partly). Really? Y'all are cool with those lists, with pictures and all? Who writes these articles and sets these guidelines, Ed? Thirteen-year olds who still play with their plastic war toys? (I always thought the MP44 was the coolest gun in the world.) And I'm glad you got some exercise--editing Wikipedia makes one pudgy, as my doctor indicated today. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- @The ed17:, a few thoughts in this context. A) the reason that there is no "Military of ISIS" article is because consensus from recurrent discussion on the topic has consistently found that this would be in blatant violation of WP:V/WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT; there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of sources on the topic of ISIS, and yet it's almost impossible to find a reference which represents a WP:RS that classifies their fighting force as a military; they are referenced as militants or terrorists primarily and a whole slew of other terminology but (presumably because the world community and nearly all sources do not consider ISIL a state) their armed wing is not regarded or referenced as a military, by either primary or secondary sources.
- (EC) Thanks for the attention and the advice. As you feel that SPI is a better first step than ANI, I'll proceed in that fashion and try to find time to format and open the request later tonight or tomorrow morning. I do have a concern that if this is a socking issue and an effort at direct propaganda -- and to be clear, I'm not certain that even if it is that the parties in question would be directly involved with ISIL; I AGF on the intent of any parties for the moment -- but were it a matter of socking by someone working on that group's behalf, I should think they would have the technical skills necessary to complicate a CU. But I suppose that doesn't mean it shouldn't come first in any event. As to the military fetishism aspect, I don't think that all of this content needs to necessarily go away part and parcel; I proposed on the talk page that it be summarized in prose and that this, depending on how it was approached, would likely constitute useful and neutrally-presented information for our readers. But these massive tables, complete with images for every form of armament, large or small, that any single source has speculated ISIL might have, are way overboard and, I suspect, meant to sell an image of righteous warriors, and I know of no article under the umbrella of MILHIST that uses this approach, even those for major modern militaries. There's a few different sections that violate WP:PROSE that LightandDark2000 is reverting back into the article, but these are the most problematic. Snow let's rap 00:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- B) What other military articles contain lists of this nature, other than those for which the explicit topic is military hardware. We're not talking about an article like List of assault rifles, which is 1) a list article and 2) specifically about military hardware. We're talking about a military force, and as far as I've been able to discern, there isn't a single article on this manner of topic on all of en.wikipedia that contains such an exhaustive list. Let's look at our articles for the worlds top ten largest militaries: Military of the United States, Military of Russia, Military of China, Military of Saudi Arabia, Military of the United Kingdom, Military of South Korea, Military of Germany, Military of Japan, Military of France, and Military of India. These are all high-quality articles on important topics of deep interest to a great many of our readers and editors and correspondingly they are massive, including in-depth detail on these institutions, but not a single one of them attempts the kind of exhaustive list-style approach of detailing their armaments in the non-contextual and military "eye-candy" approach of the content which this editor is trying to force into the ISIL article. And as well they should not. These articles are meant to supply an encyclopedic and neutral summary of these armed forces and their social and military relevance as human institutions, not revel in the minutia of their hardware in a manner that is quite clearly in contradiction to numerous principles of WP:What Wikipedia is not. These are military forces that dwarf ISIL's in scope, in history, in direct ties to military engineering and, crucially with regard to sourcing which confirms their hard assets. If it is not appropriate to create such an exhaustive list in these top ten cases, surely it's not for an encyclopedic summary of ISIL's military strength. This is not a list article; any discussion of the group's military hardware should be presented in WP:PROSE and should be limited, per WP:WEIGHT to a summary of the major points of their acquisitions as verified by multiple reliable sources.
- C) We have a clear obligation here not to allow our articles to be skewed towards non-neutral representation, especially when we're talking about an article about an extremist group being bent towards what looks like a subtle advertisement for the group, by fetishizing it's military hardware for those who might be inclined to view this as a sign of strength and legitmacy. I honestly cannot imagine content that is less neutral and less appropriate for an article of this nature. And frankly, I'm surprised you don't see it the same way as I'd expect editors with a strong interest in military history to be more likely to see these issues, not less. Do you really want there to be even the slightest potential for one of our military articles becoming a promotional tool for such an organization?
- I have split the military-fetishistic wankage to Military equipment of ISIL, following the pattern of many such articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- It should, like all those articles, come with a parental warning. Thanks. Yes, Snow Rise, I think the pings have been working. Ha, I'm glad they're putting so many of our weapons to use; it would be a shame if they'd just be sitting gathering dust and rust. I think we need to make and export more weapons and give them away--no one should be deprived of them, the right to bear arms should be universal, like the right to healthcare and education. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a good split, although I'd disagree that it's "military-fetishistic wankage." It's basic statistics akin to listing the contributors to a tv show or a list of cities in a geographical area. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- @The ed17: I was joking a bit about that. These lists can be useful, although sometimes I have to wonder about the selection of information. It's highly relevant (and upsetting) to know ISIL might have 52 M198 howitzers, but most of the SALW stuff is cruft - who cares if they use AKMs or M16s? I wouldn't want to remove that information, but it's only likely to interest buffs. Also, it's fine to say that they have 200 or so tanks, but I'm sure they don't have the logistical capacity to operate more than a few, so this gives me no indication of how many they are actually using. These lists also often omit some of the most highly relevant but less sexy equipment, like radios and other electronics. And pistols, really? Might as well tell us what brand socks they wear. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a good split, although I'd disagree that it's "military-fetishistic wankage." It's basic statistics akin to listing the contributors to a tv show or a list of cities in a geographical area. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- It should, like all those articles, come with a parental warning. Thanks. Yes, Snow Rise, I think the pings have been working. Ha, I'm glad they're putting so many of our weapons to use; it would be a shame if they'd just be sitting gathering dust and rust. I think we need to make and export more weapons and give them away--no one should be deprived of them, the right to bear arms should be universal, like the right to healthcare and education. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have split the military-fetishistic wankage to Military equipment of ISIL, following the pattern of many such articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Update on this affair: a new suspicious account (Dannis243) has begun reverting still more changes, including Sammy1339's move of the article to a new location, per the consensus reached here; said consensus was overwhelming and the policies in this regard are pretty unambiguous in any event. In reverting this, I made a right mess of the move on a technical level but the article, TP, and redirects should all be in order now, except that the new home is "Military activity of ISIL" (as opposed to "activities"; activity was the result of a mistake, but I felt it worked just as well or better, so left it there). I continue to feel that the behaviours of these accounts are highly suspect and I'll be launching the SPI (and probably ANI discussion) without a doubt if there is further revert against consensus. I've only held off as long as I have because my time is incredibly limited right now, and, as you know, I allowed myself to get distracted by an issue that was less deserving of attention than this serious concern. Hopefully, these users (or user, if they are in fact one party) take the warning to heart this time, but I am not optimistic. In the meantime, Drmies, it's worth at least one admin being aware of the continued activities there. Snow let's rap 06:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Problematic IP editor
I'm sorry to bother you with drama, but I'm having some issues with 203.109.161.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who you may have seen pop up in Basic income in the Netherlands. The editor is removing categories, templates, and stub tags, then edit warring to maintain these changes. The changes are not really major, but it's turning into petty disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Who is right and who is wrong? 203.109.161.2 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the edit warrior can be right in the edit and wrong to edit war over it. NinjaRobotPirate, in Basic income, Category:Income distribution is already "under" Category:Income (see WP:DIFFUSE). Same with the other one. As for the stubs, I looked at one article where they instated or reinstated stubs, but having more than one is fine. IP editor, I don't know which category shortcut you meant to link to. Y'all, please, it's a shitty day on Wikipedia already. Let's not make it worse. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously not what I would have said, but alright. I'll drop it. It's pointless to argue over this, as any edit I make will just end up reverted by the IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the edit warrior can be right in the edit and wrong to edit war over it. NinjaRobotPirate, in Basic income, Category:Income distribution is already "under" Category:Income (see WP:DIFFUSE). Same with the other one. As for the stubs, I looked at one article where they instated or reinstated stubs, but having more than one is fine. IP editor, I don't know which category shortcut you meant to link to. Y'all, please, it's a shitty day on Wikipedia already. Let's not make it worse. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: I see now that you've been doing this for a couple of days
- I see now that you've been doing this for a couple of days, under different IPs. I'm going to semi-protect the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it has been very satisfying to do so. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.119.138 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- You see, I just don't see how something like that is satisfying. It's not like you're sticking it to the man. You're just wasting electricity, and in a dishonest way--"please discuss on talkspace". But then, I also don't understand video games, or 4chan, or fishing. Flags. Baseball. Margarine. Manga. Monster trucks. The weather. Patriotism. Truckballs. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it has been very satisfying to do so. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.119.138 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- yes, true it is slightly dishonest and a definite waste of electricity on an Energy Flex Alert day. Cheers friend, --User sometimes known as 66,87,119, (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: Charles' edits
Charles is pretty adamant that his colors are right... even when there is a contrast issue. In my opinion, if the Snook tool says "sort of...", then I take that as a "no". In the Boise State–Idaho football rivalry article, this edit is hard to read. I think it is hard to read Idaho's colors as well. I'm not sure how many times it has to be told to Charles, but apparently he still doesn't get it. It is starting to get old and I'm tired of dealing with it. I know other users have taken notice of this issue as well. Corkythehornetfan 02:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I agree: "sort of" means "no". I'm going to wait and see if they're maybe giving my comments some thought. But isn't it funny, the visibility he desires for the colors makes the actual text illegible for those who can't easily see colors anyway. I've gone through dozens of college football articles, and I'm sick of the Crayola culture in them. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your advice. I hope I can manage the slight change of emphasis without messing up the basic factual content of the article. I've discussed this with John Wells and he has encouraged me to go ahead. RoachPeter (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent, RoachPeter, thanks for your note. FWIW, I wish my school still cared for linguistics; I guess it's only the big schools that still have certified linguists on faculty. We're a dying breed, since we don't train students in it, and if we don't teach the classes, no one is going to be interested in its academic pursuit... Drmies (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swati Maliwal and subsequent WP:G4 deletion
Pinging @Rahul89f:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @ChunnuBhai: as well.
Drmies,
I didn't particpate in the AfD.
The article was created again, then deleted under WP:G4 by me.
While I might possibly disagree with the outcome of the AfD, as an admin I must follow the consensus.
As an alternative to the niceties and nastities of Wikipedia:Deletion review, should we perhaps create Draft:Swati Maliwal and see what the independent WP:AFC assessors have to say?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
ps: <belated 2014 FIFA World Cup observation> I was hoping the Final would be between Netherlands and France. Instead of the trophy, the winner could have Belgium. </belated 2014 FIFA World Cup observation>
- This was the forth attempt to create this article as shown by deleted logs. Also another page with title Swati Jaihind was also deleted earlier on. Pinging @Jimfbleak: and @NawlinWiki: ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for ping. The version I deleted was tagged for SD by @SpacemanSpiff: and notability didn't come into it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I had deleted Swati JaiHind once under G11, but my participation at the AfD is when I got involved with the subject. The coverage is all about a controversy on her appointment to the post and as I opined at the AfD that sort of content belongs in the organization/chief minister's article, not in a page about her.—SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Do you know what was that? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, not really, but it's true--I am of Earth. And I wouldn't call that trolling, necessarily, but maybe I have a higher threshold for that sort of thing, haha. Anyone who actually responds and shows a sense of humor isn't much of a troll: trolls are assholes. Note they made an account. Perhaps they have changed their evil, evil ways! Thanks Staszek Lem, Drmies (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's clear that he's the only one so he should have his own category. The rest of us are all from elsewhere. Geoff | Who, me? 21:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Dutch article
Aidan Mikdad, a 13-year old pianist, doesn't look notable to me. However, several of the articles listed are in Dutch. Could you check it out.
On another note, I was reading on Mentalfloss the other day that Ilan Mitchell-Smith, one of the stars of Weird Science is professor of medieval English literature at Cal State Long Beach. Bgwhite (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Bg, that's not easy. The only reliable one is this (it's highly reliable), but all it does is cite the jury report, "astonishing musical comprehensiveness". He's been on Pauw & Witteman, but that's just another TV show (I mean, it's huge for him, but it's not much in the grand scheme of things). I found one more article from Het Parool, this one, and it's much more extensive--it's an actual portrait of him. He seems to be an audience favorite. Now, if this was AfD, it would boil down to whether those awards make him notable. They all seem to be decent; they don't have articles here, but that's just a lack of globalization. And he has won three, not just one. I wonder if Gerda Arendt has anything to offer here. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, not really, offer I mean. Audience favorites don't need an article, no? Well known anyway. But I never supported a Delete. The article should have a shorter lead and don't use first name only, but I have more than enough other topics ;) - We can still dig up treasures. For years a list here had a work by Glazunow: Cantata after Pushkin, for women's choir et. al.. The DYK on the composer's 150th birthday will say that is is not after Pushkin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not factor Talk pages
Please do not factor Talk pages as you did here.
Regarding the current storm in a tea cup at Featured Pictures you seem intent on bringing to the WP dramah boards, I responded to Crisco here and copy it below for the benefit of your page followers:
- My reply was this:
- There's no block evasion. I have a legitimate account. But after the histrionics over the WPPilot business, no user would want to trust their account to this user's threats and histrionics. That's a legitimate use of an IP to be found in WP guidance. Stop blocking me or I will take you to an ANI. As for that user an obvious diva is obvious and it's high time he was put to the test and asked to explain himself. It's simple too. 138.199.77.183 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
138.199.75.213 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Amsterdam)
- I see Drmies has protected the page. Really I should bring this to ANI, but I am frankly concerned for the well being of the user concerned. Really I would prefer to keep this within Featured Pictures. I shall wait until the nomination finishes and then decide what to do. Unless this user has made a satisfactory explanation and made (if need be, but it surely must needs be) an adequate apology, then I don't see how I can do else but bring the matter to the attention of the larger community. An obvious cabal is obvious. 138.199.75.213 (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Amsterdam)
In my view this user is extremely vulnerable. He hasn't edited since I first brought the issue up, and while evading scrutiny by absenting himself is past pattern behaviour, on this occasion I do feel a degree of alarm. He has been indulged far too much for far too long by a group of editors and I fear his world is collapsing around him and he can't cope.
I should have hoped for a more mature response from you. 138.199.69.243 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Amsterdam, @ a big office - walk long enough in the same direction and you come back to where you started)
- Ah, Amsterdam, a lovely city--the most beautiful in the world. Of course, I've never been to Rome, Venice, Naples, Barcelona... Let's pretend I don't know who you are, and that you actually have a legitimate account. And let's pretend that WPPilot was not blocked for egregious violations of just about everything, and let's give "this user", Hafspajen, a name, and let's make clear that they are not guilty of "threats". This is all very strange, you know. You speak of Drmies as if you're not talking to me, and you talk about "this user" who is extremely vulnerable--that "this user", is that Hafspajen you're analyzing/baiting? I suppose that NeilN is part of the cabal too.
Now, I'll be glad to engage you in conversation, the moment you stop talking shit about me off-wiki. A little birdy has told me that you said on a certain website that a certain someone is getting paid by the WMF to get their students to write articles for Wikipedia as mandatory assignments/unpaid labor. You're too smart to believe that, but do you think your audience is really dumb enough to believe it? Enjoy your time in Amsterdam. Get out of the office if you can (I hope it's not in Zuidoost or Diemen) and try out the nieuwe haring. Consider attending service in the Westerkerk this Sunday, with soprano Elena van Slogteren and Jos van der Kooy on organ. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is (and I've been to all those other places). I have a home there and also Dordrecht, which is where my family on my mother's side hails from. We go back generations. Amongst other things we helped construct the Kinderdijk polder system. We came over to England during the last war and I'm British. I'm not WPPIlot, though I do know the drama. When I was referring to "Drmies" I wasn't being schizoid. That's a copy of stuff I sent Crisco. And I do damn well have a legitimate account (several). I don't talk shit about you off-wiki. You need to replenish your aviary. I never said that about you, although the thought has crossed my mind looking at other university instructors of Wikipedia who require their students to write an article.
- As for H (and he does make threats), I do think he needs counselling. It's hard to know whether this latest effort of his is an editorial lapse or a deliberate hoax. I see he's still absenting himself. Don't feel bad about not engaging in conversation with me. 138.199.74.200 (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I got a bit confused by the royal "we". BTW, I didn't live on the Prinsengracht, but I appreciate you following me so closely. Badmouthing me behind my back with half-truths and innuendo--well, aren't you glad someone invented the internet? Drmies (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Stupid cunt"? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Input Requested
Hello, I noticed you recently edited La Salle College High School. I have created a talk page discussion to discuss the issues related to the page, including the Public Relations campaign waged by the school and the "pool mass" topic. Your input would be appreciated. Talk:La Salle College High School
Thanks! 70.192.131.83 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ethnicity of other editors
I need your advice. One editor (Joy) wrote a comment in which he wrote his speculation about my ethnicity (diff). Let me remind you that this editor was blocked after I pointed (diff) at the issue with his actions. He reported me immediately after he was unblocked, and based on his report I was banned. I politely asked if it is allowed to comment other editors i.e. their ethnicity. Based on his reply I conclude that he believes that it is allowed to write comments about my ethnicity/nationality (diff) because of the topic area of the ban. Is he correct? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I find that very, very problematic. I mean, it's one thing to say "Antidiskriminator is clearly biased towards Serbs [insert group], because their edits prove it", and quite another to say "Antidiskriminator is clearly biased towards Serbs, because they're Serbian". "Some Serbian people (including AD)" seems to me to be on the edge, since no direct accusation is made of cause and effect, but, Joy, I believe you should stay well away from that edge, if only because it invalidates your argument. Speaking personally, I detest such generalizing (by ethnicity, class, gender, etc.), esp. on the internet. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Drmies. What about speculations about ethnicity of other editors? Is Joy really right when he say that he is allowed to speculate about my ethnicity because of the topic area of the ban? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow! This is completely nuts! There was nothing improper about mentioning that factoid, because that is the locus of the dispute - whether AD's ban for pushing egregious Serbian nationalist tripe on Wikipedia should be rescinded or not. To anyone who has ever dealt with AD on Wikipedia, there's no doubt that they're Serbian. He edits extensively in the topic area, frequently cites Serbian (Cyrillic) sources, etc. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of that per se, because there's literally hundreds or thousands of people like that. On the other hand, to anyone who has ever dealt with AD on Wikipedia, there's also no doubt that he espouses the positions of a Serbian nationalist, and the case in point is a perfect demonstration - he has advocated the stance that Pavle Đurišić has not received that Nazi decoration and caused massive disruption on the article and its talk page. It's not possible to characterize this position fairly as anything other than a product of some misguided effort to whitewash the history of this Serbian person during WWII, a well-known flash point of contentiousness in the topic area from which AD was banned.
Please don't fall for this cheap trick, a piece of wikilawyering that tries to smear me for no reason other than to avoid talking about the actual relevant facts and circumstances of the topic ban.
Heck, this pattern of abuse, goading me just before I was blocked (for overzealously enforcing policies against Croatian+Serbian nationalist edit warring at the Vukovar article, another well-known flamewar target) and now using it again as a talking point - this basically confirms that AD has been engaging in a WP:DEPE campaign against me. If I wasn't such a thick-skinned old fart in terms of withstanding Wikipedia abuse, I'd actually be upset. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Joy, if you cannot differentiate between "Editor X is obviously German" and "Editor X obviously edits with a bias that makes him promote German", you have no business discussing bias. You can argue the latter kind of thing, not the former. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- I can differentiate between the two, but the distinction is meaningless in this particular case. I was not making any sweeping statements about ethnicity or bias, I was referring to specific facts of the matter at hand. AD himself talked about this controversial issue and introduced several purported sources to advance his position, but they were all Serbian and they were not deemed reliable enough to be able to contradict the preponderance of other sources, which were definitely not all Serbian. From the information the user presented, it was apparent that they were trying to make Wikipedia rely on Serbian sources. I don't remember any other more generic but still distinct unifying characteristic of those sources other than that, so I mentioned that characteristic. If there is one, I'm perfectly willing to use one.
- You can read more about the specific issue that I was talking about at Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4#Iron cross controversy, where incidentally my sole contribution at the end was actually to lend a bit of conditional support to one of AD's sources! I was trying to explain how they can make sure they find a source that is comparatively reliable, in a manner that adheres to both the text and the spirit of relevant Wikipedia policies. (As opposed to the flawed way AD was introducing that source, which in turn is why it was rejected.)
- If this was any other discussion, with any reasonable person, who also assumes good faith, nobody would take such an trivial description and grouping as an insult. This case is special because AD seems to like to grandstand, and disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Note that he still hasn't responded with anything useful, no admission of guilt, no remorse, no promise to reform. Just more of this.
- Thanks for reading. I imagine this must be very tiring to follow. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- "To anyone who has ever dealt with AD on Wikipedia, there's no doubt that they're Serbian." (diff) wrote Joy after you stated that speculations about ethnicity of other editors are not allowed and after you advised him to stay away from ethnicity based generalisations. Drmies, can you please advise me what to do now? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is this edit (diff) of Joy another comment which contains speculation about my ethnicity?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I kindly remind you about my above question? After your warning Joy again wrote a comment with speculation about my ethnicity(diff). Whether X people include me or not is none of his business, as I explained to him (diff). He has a history of comments about other editors' ethnicity (diff), link, ... and apparently refuses to stop with it. What is the purpose of warning if you don't act againt it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. My answer is no, Joy is commenting on aspects of the discussion. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please take a closer look. Are you sure that comment " some Serbian people (including AD)" does not contain speculation about my ethnicity? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Joy is quoting from an earlier discussion, I assume, or he doesn't know how to use quotation marks. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- So his comment does contain speculation about my ethnicity? Is he allowed to repeatedly post comments with speculations about ethnicity of other editors as long as it is quote of his comment from earlier discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- The question does not pertain. There is no king of France. Antidiskriminator, you've taken this line of questioning as far as you could have taken it, and then you took it a little farther. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Two of us disagree here. One of us is right. I appologize if am wrong here. I will respect WP:DR and seek for third opinion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- The question does not pertain. There is no king of France. Antidiskriminator, you've taken this line of questioning as far as you could have taken it, and then you took it a little farther. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- So his comment does contain speculation about my ethnicity? Is he allowed to repeatedly post comments with speculations about ethnicity of other editors as long as it is quote of his comment from earlier discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Joy is quoting from an earlier discussion, I assume, or he doesn't know how to use quotation marks. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please take a closer look. Are you sure that comment " some Serbian people (including AD)" does not contain speculation about my ethnicity? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. My answer is no, Joy is commenting on aspects of the discussion. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I kindly remind you about my above question? After your warning Joy again wrote a comment with speculation about my ethnicity(diff). Whether X people include me or not is none of his business, as I explained to him (diff). He has a history of comments about other editors' ethnicity (diff), link, ... and apparently refuses to stop with it. What is the purpose of warning if you don't act againt it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is this edit (diff) of Joy another comment which contains speculation about my ethnicity?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- And, I might add, editors that openly speculate that I must be Croatian because of any number of reasons they've dreamed up in their heads. Strangely, only those who take a consistently pro-Serb POV ever clash with me. I work well with several editors who claim to be fluent in Serbian Cyrillic, it's just that they accept consensus, don't flame war, and discuss calmly without edit-warring. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: An editor involved in this discussion has made a request for a Third Opinion (3O), which has been removed (i.e. declined) because like DRN and MEDCOM, 3O does not handle cases which are primarily disputes involving the conduct of an editor. For conduct disputes, refer the matter to an adminstrator or to ANI, AN, or ARBCOM (or one of its subforums for amendment or enforcement). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)
ANI headings
This puzzled me. Every ANI heading is an assertion of misconduct, by its nature non-neutral, to be disputed by the other party. Could you clarify this for me? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Ethnic slur" is a really loaded term, and in fact my attention was drawn to the thread when I saw an edit in that section (by Abecedare, I think) go by in Recent changes. Naming it thus, as if it's a fact, is of course not neutral. "Accusation of" would be be much better. I will grant you that frequently ANI headings are not neutral, and I've probably made some non-neutral ones myself, and I will grant you also that this was a judgment call: in my judgment, that particular heading was too assertive. In the current climate, the accusation of having made an ethnic slur is very loaded. Does that help? I can't hope to fully convince you and everyone else, of course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh I have no objection to changing the heading, I was just puzzled by the statement that "they should be neutral" given that ANI headings are routinely non-neutral in my experience. Just look at the current TOC. Thanks for the clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- In this matter, there is a middle ground between neutral and inflammatory. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think there's a significant difference between that one and "Editor X refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page" or "Bad faith editing at TV articles by User:Y". Sure, one could say those aren't neutral, but the charges there are more directly related to the edits, to the project. Ideally, those could all do with some tweaking, sure. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Selective redaction.
You redact this and leave the main section-title List of highest grossest Indian films, which insults 1.2 Billion Indians, alone !!! J'accuse !!!! Admin abuse !!!!! Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Aiaiai. Don't tell SpacemanSpiff, or he'll stop sending me Diwali cards... Drmies (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Until today's ANI I didn't realize that this movie was causing so much ethnic conflict. Perhaps I should see it! Doc, you can earn your Diwali card this year by visiting the Kapoor family. —SpacemanSpiff 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I cain't visit them no more, Spiffy--surely you heard about me and that daughter... Drmies (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, Spifsterix, your turn: references, please, for Trilok Kapoor. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Until today's ANI I didn't realize that this movie was causing so much ethnic conflict. Perhaps I should see it! Doc, you can earn your Diwali card this year by visiting the Kapoor family. —SpacemanSpiff 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
A question
Hi Drmies, I came across 2015 Miss Supertalent of the World Season 6 today, and wondered if it's substantially the same as this [1], with the attendant blocked user issues. For when you have the time. And hello, it's 99, looking for something to do while under the weather. Best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ha, only half an hour ago, when I was cleaning the pool in a zen-like state, I was thinking of you. Good to hear from you. Why ask me? You're usually right! Get well soon. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Article deleted, sock blocked, SPI filed (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misssupertalent). Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- First: Thank you. I asked you because you deleted and blocked previously, which turned out to be a convenient rationale for saying hello. Also, you'd be able to see the old deleted article, whereas I can only have a hunch as to whether it's the same; likewise the identity of the editor. Potentially disturbing for this editor is the knowledge that skimming algae off the top of your pool's water somehow evokes a memory of me. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ha, worse: from the bottom. (Which is good, cause that means it's dead.) I think I was thinking about editors I've invited to join me here. Writ Keeper is another, as is Dennis Brown. But I suppose I'm too far south for y'all. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's not something to take personally; I grew up much farther south, and make the trek a few times a year for family reasons only. Some friends from Tennessee--one of whom I'm writing an article about for publication right now--just visited here, which reminds me that a nice case of ale is always at the ready, should you decide to journey northward. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Only if Mandarax can come too. He lives out west, of course, and so he probably has a Tesla and it'd be cool to hitch a ride with him. Make sure, please, that you stack up on vegetarian pork rinds. But yes, 99, it's a fun thing to contemplate. Many people here, particularly old Mandarax, I've known for years. With Kelapstick I have the feeling that we used to hang out or something like that. Maybe we should all meet up somewhere in the middle, though halfway between Kelapstick and me is still South Dakota or some other bleak place in Canada. Halfway between you and me (or between you and I) is...Dennis Brown! And I'll pick up LadyofShalott along the way. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Cheezus, South Dakota. We have got to do better than that. Mandarax is always invited, as are LoS and the others--though I don't know them as well, I'll have to trust your say-so. I once drove through Pennsylvania on the way to West Virginia--in my life, this qualifies as a major adventure--and saw a great deal of beautiful country that was a revelation to me. Posh on the veggie rinds. Remember, we've got lobster rolls. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, 99 and Drmies.99, I hope you're feeling better. It's always nice to see you around. I hope you won't be offended if I don't refer to you as "2601". BTW, if you edit articles on my Watchlist and I welcome whatever IP you might be at the time, but you want to remain anonymous, please feel free to not reveal your identity.Drmies, your "y'all" above makes me wonder how prevalent that is in your part of the world. I recently saw a group of people talking on TV, and every sentence included at least one "y'all". My ears were litterally bleeding.Both of you (yes, just plain "you") are probably aware that I never use Facebook; however, I'm constantly getting emails from them asking if I know the listed people. Well, I was stunned to receive notices about both of you! Facebook sees all and knows all. Facebook is omniscient and omnipotent. Drmies, when you first mentioned Facebook to me years ago, I looked for you. I initially found someone, but was pretty sure that wasn't you; eventually I was able to discover your real identity. Oddly enough, I've tried to find me and have been completely unable to do so. I did take a look at your page a while ago, and the photo of your younger self reminded me very much of an actor I've seen somewhere or other, possibly Kyle Howard. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty easy to find there, and it would be good to keep up with both of you on FB as well. Always good to hear from you, Mandarax. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, when your name popped up among the Facebook suggestions, it was easy to recognize, with no prior stalking required. As for keeping up there, the problem is that I almost never go there, and I've never written a single word on my or anybody else's page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ha, that's funny--goodlooking young man, but I'm not much older than him. I suppose I should look into who all gets to see my stuff. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I should've been more precise: the younger you reminded me of a younger him. Well, actually, this was a while ago, so to be even more precise, the younger you reminded a younger me of a younger him. (At least I think it's him; it's possible I'm actually thinking of some other actor who looked like both of you.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd enjoy a meet-up with some of my favorite Wikipedians. As for other online ventures… I am on Facebook, and Drmies and Kelapstick know my identity. If either of them were to suggest a connection with another friendly 'pedian, well, that would be fine. LadyofShalott 16:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Likewise, I'd be good with that. Like I'm not already spending enough time on FB. 2601:188:0:ABE6:F51F:3422:6AAA:30D0 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- We will see where I end up in a year, I am not entirely convinced it will be Canada, but who can tell. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- As far as my house, the boat is in the shop and the water at the lake is low, but the beer is cold, and since it is going back to the bank, I don't mind if we trash the place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- First: Thank you. I asked you because you deleted and blocked previously, which turned out to be a convenient rationale for saying hello. Also, you'd be able to see the old deleted article, whereas I can only have a hunch as to whether it's the same; likewise the identity of the editor. Potentially disturbing for this editor is the knowledge that skimming algae off the top of your pool's water somehow evokes a memory of me. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Lady, I think you and I should meet one of these days. We might be headed out to that book festival some time. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Elvey
Hi Doc. Have you logged Elvey's topic ban anywhere, and/or linked to the ANI discussion? I don't think "topic banned from COI, broadly construed" is completely clear in itself, but a link to the discussion that led up to it would probably help. I'd add one myself on Elvey's page, except that s/he has removed your topic ban notice, so I don't quite know how. Compare also this request. Sorry to raise such things at this time of year. I will now re-join the mad dogs and Englishmen out in the midday sun, or rather out in the shade of the crabapple tree. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC).
- Yep: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. The link to the ANI discussion is in there. I thought I put it on their page too, but apparently I forgot. They requested a pocketing? Well. I'd never heard of them before, I think, but that was one hell of an obvious result; the mystery is that it was still open. And yes, the wording is a bit vague, perhaps, but I don't think it was up to me to define it, and I think the discussion, though lengthy, should be clear enough--it included discussion of COIN, etc. Thank you, dear, for your comment. DYK that today is Drmies's twelve-year wedding anniversary? Drmies (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I saw your ping but had no time to look at it then and now it has already been archived. I looked briefly. This person seems to be a notable computer scientist (if the h-index is indeed that high, she'd sail through AfD), even though to the general public she seems to be more known for unconventional ideas on autism that have not generated much scientific interest. The article is rather unbalanced, I'll post a note on the talk page, but have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved more than that. --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- How do you like being the go-to guy? Note the piping here and the move from the very specific to the general. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh man... Hey, that comes with being one of the top admins here. People just think that another word for "admin" is "Drmies". I'm a "Drmies", you're a "Drmies", she's a "Drmies", all admins are "Drmies"! --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Are there any other Drmies I should know about? Everymorning talk 01:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ha, Spongebob. I guess there's a first time for everything! So I just read Squidward Tentacles, but got a little bored with it--I don't think I would care much for the show. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the article to the version prior to your pruning as its pruning was controversial, please discus it on the talk page. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 21:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Right back atcha: your reinstatement of promotional and unverified material is likewise controversial, and in violation of WP policy. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't template me again. You wanna discuss, just say so. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 22:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, taking a step back here. I jumped the gun and let my fanboy-ism overcome me for a moment. I still think the timeline should be there, but you're right about everything else. Mea culpa. I fucked up. Still don't appreciate you templating me, however. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 22:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"Death Be Not Proud
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talk:Guy Fawkes Night part 2
- 22:52, 7 August 2015 Drmies (→Threaded discussion: per tyrannical, dictatorial administrative fiat)
See the history of the talk page article. I don't think as an editor of the page you ought to have responded to the ANI. But now that you have, I think you need to stop the continuing edit war (Says he taking out traditional Nov. 5th food and settling down for the show). -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- PBS, I'll be glad to have a look, once I'm done with a very important cleaning operation. As for my response to the ANI, and for closing down that silly thread in hopes of preventing blocks on both sides, you're welcome. I am firmly of the opinion that administrators can act neutrally in articles they might be claimed to be invooooolved with; it's context-bound, for starters. Surely you agree that stopping a bunch of people from yelling at each other can be done even by someone who has edited the article (have I actually edited it? cool!). Drmies (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, PBS, you were right--what silliness. I left a message for AnonNep rather than blocking them; I really do hope that all these editors see the light. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for helping out with that confounded Bollywood bio, Drmies. Sometimes I get exasperated with myself, and I didn't want you to think I was peeved with you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not at all. I just didn't expect that person to be back so soon, so I didn't see it until almost-bedtime. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Catflap versus H88 drama
I'm sorry to bug you, but can you please actually enforce the iBan? Or else they will be back shortly. Every single time I visit ANI there is a report about them. There is no point if iBans given as a final warning are not strictly applied. This should have been dealt with at the very first violation of the iBan: At this point I don't think either of them can think rationally - if one breaks the iBan and gets away with it, you are challenging the other to do the same thing. I am sure I am not the only one who feels this is a premature close. I understand from your "lack of service" template that you clearly do not have any more time to spend on these two, but I think this really deserves admin attention. I am happy to request ArbCom weigh in, as I do not think ANI may not be capable of handling these anymore... I have a feeling that one could Hiri88 could report CatFlap for reverting his past 500 edits and both would get banned (or vice versa) because it seems everyone is so sick of them it doesn't matter anymore who actually does what. Thank you. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to, but I don't want to--not for that report. I'm caught up in the "one last warning" cycle, I suppose. Catflap's report was not followed up on, and Hijiri's was so full of old diffs that it was ridiculous. I suppose I should update the "lack of service" note, but I can't be the only one enforcing this. On the bright side, I'm getting to the point where I'm ready to start blocking. I understand your frustration, but believe me, I feel as much as or more than you: I've been involved with this situation for quite some time. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dr; she's returned from the block for more of the same. It's hard to call this straight vandalism, but it might be time to lock the article. Cheers 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- For the most part, yes--thank you for asking. You know, if you ever venture up here, I suspect we'll have some good stories to exchange re: family and professional life, with Wiki business a pale topic by comparison. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- My professional life is far from exciting, 99, and my personal life...well, married for 12 years, haha. But we have a new puppy... I'm happy to hear about the most part. Not all can be well, of course, and there's always Trump. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- We love our dogs. Every day I'm grateful for the gift of Trump, our nation's most unabashed 6-year old. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- For the most part, yes--thank you for asking. You know, if you ever venture up here, I suspect we'll have some good stories to exchange re: family and professional life, with Wiki business a pale topic by comparison. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Please Stop Al Khazar
Hello Admin, please stop Al Khazar. He is edit warring on Type 99 tank
Thank you.
--162.74.52.147 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
When i first noticed on Drmies talk page, i saw that Al Khazar Edit warring on Type 99 tank, and i feel suspicious. Whakaoriori (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't need the AN3 report, haha, it was clear enough--but thanks. Boy, I should get paid for this. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Be happy you aren't as famous as Abecedare or me. I'm wondering if that qualifies as significant coverage for an article. —SpacemanSpiff 18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Drmies why did you edit the Alford academy page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.160.8 (talk • contribs)
- Well, it's Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Why did you vandalize the article? Drmies (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Johan Simons
There's much more on an interesting person in Durch than English. Why best now: Ruhrtriennale will open 14 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
additional opinion needed
At this afd. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Ronnynephew1182
Thanks for blocking this user. Looks like you might want to also block their talk page access..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Meh. Just a teenage troll. Revert if you like. DYK I never had acne? Drmies (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
I thank you for blocking Al Khazar since i reported it. Whakaoriori (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
- Beer is good. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wait. Look at Khazar's talk page again. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This user has lost their moose. Have you seen a moose wandering around? |
Can't remember if you watch any dog articles, but if you do you should probably add this one. Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- And this is probably our dog friend. Or something very similar. Archibald Leach (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- A m00se once bit my sister.... No realli! She was Karving a post on the WP:Great Dismal Swamp with the sharpened keyboard of a Raspberry Pi given to her by her brother in law 0laf, star of many lovely Arbcom threads: "Gamergate II - this time it's pers0nal", "Manning the Passion Fruit" and "I left my Inf0box in San Fransico...." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Advice
Are footsteps a means of transport? Asking you as User:SpacemanSpiff told to ask you. Check at Tirupati#Transport.--Vin09 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I saw--I provided an alternative in the article. See what you think. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Tirupati
There are some grammar and copy edit. If you are free can you. I did some. If you are busy, then not a problem.--Vin09 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted articles, history re: PowerISO
Hi, just wondering if articles that get deleted are actually still viewable from a historical point of view AFTER they are deleted as i noticed you deleted the Power ISO article and I was hoping to see what the deleted articles content actually was. It is also a shame that when articles are given the time to be discussed for deletion, that there isn't a better mechanism in place that basically allows people like yourself to actually push bad articles in the direction of the few that actually add to wiki. Admins are very useful on wiki but also article editors and creators are and it is a shame that both work detached from each other when it comes to articles ending up being deleted due to lacking content or being straight repeats of info on products official sites etc.
Hope you understand where I am coming from and that you don't think I'm criticising you for deleting it - I do understand why you deleted the article ;o)
Regards, wellen1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.88.29 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I deleted the article because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PowerISO, which had a clear consensus. Yes, deleted articles continue to lead a shadowy life. What's possible is to move it to user space, basically to a user's WP:Sandbox, but for that you really have to be a registered user. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
That was a quick reply. Thanks for the info on user spaces. Rock on \m/ wellen1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.88.29 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Carly Fiorina and "Fortune 20" company
I don't know if you have seen this discussion, but I thought I would share it with you. Best, --ML (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Overturning unanimous consensus
Hey, what's the big idea overturning a proposed definition that enjoyed 100% support? Hrumph. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I saw that and felt bad for you. It sucks to be in something that just peters out. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- While we're sympathizing, I must say that I also 100% support the little guy above who says "Don't club me plz", though I would not arrest a polar bear who needs some seal sustenance. Let's just forget this little definition thing happened. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Winter's coming and a need a new coat, one with just one colour. As a side note, I saw you also had been cleaning house on Bernie Sanders. It's not protected and right now it doesn't look like it has to be, but if you see it escalate, drop me a line. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Will do. It might have been an innocent mistake.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Winter's coming and a need a new coat, one with just one colour. As a side note, I saw you also had been cleaning house on Bernie Sanders. It's not protected and right now it doesn't look like it has to be, but if you see it escalate, drop me a line. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- While we're sympathizing, I must say that I also 100% support the little guy above who says "Don't club me plz", though I would not arrest a polar bear who needs some seal sustenance. Let's just forget this little definition thing happened. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Though the discussion was indeed like speaking to a brick wall, on June 8 I went ahead and proactively made the best link, which has stood untouched since that time. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
In your abundant spare time...
... perhaps you can lend a hand with an admin who's having a slowmotion meltdown. Other than what you see here, I have no idea where this is coming from. Can you try to snap him out of it?
- [2] "a clear demonstration of your congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh ... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach )"
- "Keep up like this, and one of these days you're going to be sitting in front of the ArbCom, nervously twitching as they decide whether you will have any future at the project to speak of."
- [3] "as for you, as the common expression ends ' ... I would have farted.'" (Apparently there's a clever saying, "If I'd wanted to hear from an asshole, I would have farted.")
- "I believe your further presence in this nomination is toxic and objectively disruptive, as I no longer believe you can be considered to be contributing to it in good faith, based on your sniveling..."
- [4] "OK, I see everyone's point, especially now that EEng has stepped off."
- "Could someone (other than EEng, whom I don't trust to do this honestly) please..."
- [5] "How obtuse are you going to be?"
- "... the way they're formatted makes your widdle Harvard-educated head hurt"
- [6] "[EEng's] ongoing temper tantrum, and since I am in every way a better person than he is, was or ever will be, whatever he thinks he's entitled to think about himself because he went to Harvard" (Note that in this post, the text "I have realized he has one mildly legitimate concern" links to a page headed "Jerkass Has a Point".)
- See also my edit summaries here: [7][8][9]
EEng (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hey EEng, are these all on your talk page? I looked at the first diff, but that way of listing diffs you use doesn't allow me to hover and see where it is. My internet connection is slow and my laptop old. And are they all related to Daniel Case? Daniel, that exchange in July was far from cordial or collegial. (Though, EEng, that note about watchlisting--I agree with Daniel, that pinging or dropping a note is the right thing in case of such extensive commentary, though I probably frequently forget to do so myself.) That head-up-ass commentary and the Harvard bit, it's allowed, I suppose, and I imagine those words were spoken in anger, but still. Mixing that metaphor (EEng has a stick up their ass?) also isn't helpful.
I looked at the last diff on Template:Did you know nominations/Skintern too--please Daniel, drop the Harvard stick. Please don't claim to be a better man in the terms in which you do. Show, don't tell: if you're indeed the better man, deal with the matter at hand in the most dispassionate way possible. EEng, I don't know, not having followed everything, whether you're taunting or not (and you can answer honestly to yourself), but I urge you to get off the Case. Daniel, please, no more of this. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Only the first is from my talkpage; the rest are from the Skintern nomination. Can you please clarify... "That head-up-ass commentary and the Harvard bit, it's allowed, I suppose" -- it's allowed??? What?
- There's no baiting, all my comments are completely serious, and his behavior is absolutely abyssmal. Please, if you will be so kind, look at the diffs, read the DYK nom, and tell me if there isn't something seriously wrong here. Sorry if I caught you on an off day, but if you don't have time to actually look at this, perhaps I should take it elsewhere. EEng (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wow. EEngie, I think he actually makes you look comparatively good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC) p.s. ... is that a Harvard stick?
- "Allowed"--yeah, lots of things are allowed... Daniel didn't get blocked for it, ergo... Or, to put it another way, I personally think it's pretty uncivil, but I'm not really in a blocking mood today, hoping also that my pinging Daniel Case and commenting on their inappropriate comments would suffice. (It's not really an off-day, but I think I've seen enough, and I don't think you'll get a block at ANI with these comments, though I will agree that esp. admins ought to be held to a higher standard. And really, if you want a civility block, I'm the worst person in the world to ask. Dennis Brown, do you think there's blockability in these here diffs?) Drmies (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't looking for a block—that's partly why I came here and not ANI. But the other reason I came here is that I was hoping you'd tell him, in no uncertain terms, how completely unacceptable his behavior is. "Your congenital inability ... you've got it too far up your ass to reach ... your sniveling ... How obtuse are you going to be? ... your widdle Harvard-educated head ... I am in every way a better person than he is, was or ever will be, whatever he thinks he's entitled to think about himself because he went to Harvard"? What disappoints me is that you're making it sound like there are two sides to this. There aren't. I've done nothing but comment civilly and constructively about serious problems in the article he's nominated, and he's felt free to vent abuse in every single post he's made—not to mention that he seems to have no understanding of basic policies such as OR. EEng (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't know how you can with a straight face claim to be perceived as "civil" and "constructive" when this discussion started off on the wrong foot with you (wrongly, as Drmies agrees) mishandled my complaint (which I tried to voice as civilly as possible) about not being notified of your critique of the article (which led me to make most of the changes in any event, despite the brusqueness of your tone). And then claiming you saw no need to apologize—and in the same edit, acting as if mouthing off rudely to someone with the power to block you was some sort of badge of honor.
This was after an AfD in which, while I decided I needed to do no more than speak my piece, you showed no sign of accepting a consensus to keep so overwhelming that it was non-admin closed after five days. Instead, you continued to argue at the DYK nom in a way that seemed as if you were really continuing to fight the AfD. (And I won't even get into what I see as a serious policy violation—as I said, your unique complaints about how I format my posts notwthstanding, you do not have the right to delete them outright, personal attacks notwithstanding.
You have from the first come across as combative, confrontational and defiant. You are one of only two people ever on Wikipedia to have demonstrated such rudeness and disregard in any personal interaction; the other one was later desysopped by ArbCom over an unrelated matter. I'm sorry but I cannot help but see you as tendentious (see here and here especially). You have also demonstrated a strong affection, as I pointed out in one of the comments you deleted, for the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy: "It's someone's blog! Not an RS" "It's on the Washington Post's website" "Well the way it was phrased it was a tease"! It's the Black Night all over again, except it isn't funny.
I have avoided the DYK nom for days at a time because of how intellectually and emotionally frustrating it is to see anything with your name at the end. For the first time in ten years on Wikipedia I understood why people leave—if they have to deal with people like you on a regular basis to get anything accomplished, it just isn't worth it. Fortunately I don't.
I'm pretty sure you'll take this as a personal attack, so it seems like a waste of time to type, but for my sanity I have to tell you this if you really don't understand (or don't want to understand) why I reacted to you this way: You rubbed me the wrong way and kept doing it. I would apologize for the personal attacks but I don't see anything in you that convinces me it would have any beneficial effect. When you started out this way and kept at it needling you was about the only thing I could do that would make me feel like I was still a human being dealing with you, which I did because I want the DYK nomination to succeed. You are not only uncollegial, you seem utterly unconcerned about being perceived that way.
- Again, I am not sure whether this is a productive use of my time, but here is how this could have been so much different on your part:
- "I'm sorry I didn't notify you about my critique of the article; I had assumed you watchlisted it like most people do. In the future I'll be more proactive."
- "I think some of the things you wrote in that article might be a little OR-ish. Do you think we could fix them and work on it together?" (Using language so sweeping as to just say "classic OR" about an editor whose work you are familiar with is a failure to assume good faith. It's entirely possible that people might not be aware of something when they write it in good faith; that's how you should approach it ... "Maybe you didn't notice, but ...")
- "I'm sorry Daniel but I find the way you respond interjectively to my comments hard to read as we work on improving the article together so it can make a great DYK hook. I know I'm sort of unusual among Wikipedians since everybody and their brother here doesn't seem to mind, but ... well, I just do. Do you think you could do things differently so we can work together more constructively?"
- "Would you care to strike that through?"
- "Alright, I agree that a newspaper's blog is a reliable source and that we cannot apply our own editorial policies to reliable sources like the schmuck who started this AfD did. I'll take a break from Wikipedia for a while so I can think of a better argument and how I can phrase it civilly and courteously."
- Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't know how you can with a straight face claim to be perceived as "civil" and "constructive" when this discussion started off on the wrong foot with you (wrongly, as Drmies agrees) mishandled my complaint (which I tried to voice as civilly as possible) about not being notified of your critique of the article (which led me to make most of the changes in any event, despite the brusqueness of your tone). And then claiming you saw no need to apologize—and in the same edit, acting as if mouthing off rudely to someone with the power to block you was some sort of badge of honor.
- I wasn't looking for a block—that's partly why I came here and not ANI. But the other reason I came here is that I was hoping you'd tell him, in no uncertain terms, how completely unacceptable his behavior is. "Your congenital inability ... you've got it too far up your ass to reach ... your sniveling ... How obtuse are you going to be? ... your widdle Harvard-educated head ... I am in every way a better person than he is, was or ever will be, whatever he thinks he's entitled to think about himself because he went to Harvard"? What disappoints me is that you're making it sound like there are two sides to this. There aren't. I've done nothing but comment civilly and constructively about serious problems in the article he's nominated, and he's felt free to vent abuse in every single post he's made—not to mention that he seems to have no understanding of basic policies such as OR. EEng (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Like it says at Template_talk:Did_you_know#To_nominate_an_article, "Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion." People ping each other if there's some urgency or they think something will be overlooked. If you didn't have it watchlisted, sooner or later you'd have checked the discussion and seen my comments. In fact, that's what happened. So what?
- "mouthing off rudely to someone with the power to block you" – Right, I forgot that admins should be shown special respect. And, sorry, I just want to be sure – this link is me mouthing off rudely? Really???
- I nominated the article at AfD, and a few hours later listed the OR problems on the DYK nom page. That's not "continued to argue at the DYK nom in a way that seemed as if you were really continuing to fight the AfD". What, because it's at AfD I shouldn't also mention the obvious OR problems?
- I deleted one of your posts because, as I said elsewhere [10],
- your post inserted your words right in the middle of sentences or paragraphs of mine, making a mess which a newcomer could not possibly decode. You've done this repeatedly, and several times I went the trouble of going through and fixing your formatting [11]; finally I warned you [12] that if you did it again I'd simply revert your post. ... You are welcome to reinsert your comments, but in a way that others can tell who's saying what.
As for the rest, I invite anyone interested to read Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Skintern. It's shocking enough that an admin doesn't understand that an article can't say, "Such-and-such appears to have been the first recorded use of the term skintern", with the only supporting citation being a footnote reading, "Searches on different search engines did not locate any earlier uses." But that was just the beginning, and instead of coming to your senses you just kept up your (not very clever, by the way) abuse. EEng (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Daniel, I think you drew first blood in that discussion. I'm sure this came from the AfD (I assume your comments in the AfD precede those in the DYK nomination--there's no time stamps in the DYK nom, where you interspersed your comments with EEng's), but still, that tone is not, in my opinion, appropriate. EEng, "blockable" doesn't necessarily mean an editor should be blocked. I told Daniel what I think, just my opinion, on his talk page and here, which is about all I can do. Daniel, please. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- You are letting EEng off the hook here. I drew first blood? This was my initial outreach at his talk page. This is the rude and intemperately phrased response I got. EEng hasn't disputed that. And you told him he was wrong on this one, as I would have expected from someone who's been around here as long as you have been and whom I know and trust. So what's his response ... "So what, it happened anyway." How can anyone not read that and see that this is someone who has not the slightest idea what courtesy means, or cares to learn? He has never even considered the possibility that he went about this the wrong way ... [only reiterating that] he is human and he needs to be loved, just like everyone else does.
His response above is instructive in this regard:
- It's not just me that has experienced this. Elsewhere on his talk page, around the same time, he insults another user's prose.
- By "mouthing off" I did not mean you (sorrySee that word? You and it would make a great couple., perhaps I should have been clearer in my wording). I think you knew very well what behavior I was referring to, both now and then, and were hoping to confuse readers to your benefit. But for good faith's sake I'll clarify: In this edit, where you insist you have nothing to apologize for, you say "Being blocked for calling someone—the blocking admin himself, in fact!—a "self-satisfied roving enforcer" is hardly a badge of shame", which you link to this edit (where you, who are supposedly so above having to personally attack and abuse people, call the blocking admin "thin-skinned and petty"), which then takes us to this edit which got you blocked in the first place.
Tell me, what conclusions would you expect someone coming upon your posts for the first time to draw about you, not just as an editor but as a person, from reading all this? (This is not a rhetorical question ... I'm really interested in what sort of answer you would give).
- "I nominated the article at AfD, and a few hours later listed the OR problems on the DYK nom page." Again, I think you are confusing the issue. After the AfD was closed as keep, after I had addressed your enumerated concerns (and I will say here that your point about the unreliability of Google, which you demonstrated with your point about how the ngram missed the 2005 usage (possibly because The Hill had moved it from their main site into their archives, which I've noticed Google doesn't do a great job at picking up), you continued to keep throwing up new arguments which, it seemed, were really aimed at the notability of the article, rather than the suitability of any particular DYK hook. I cannot shake the feeling this whole thing has been about continuing the AfD by other means.
- "because it's at AfD I shouldn't also mention the obvious OR problems?" I would think they would have been more relevant to have brought up at the AfD, rather than the DYK. Certainly if I felt an article should be deleted because its subject was insufficiently notable, purported OR would be among the first things I'd raise at the AfD. By contrast, raising them at the DYK nomination, which was properly on hold at the time while the AfD was open, would tend to support the impression you were just purposely being difficult.
- "I deleted one of your posts because ..." ... the rest isn't relevant because we have very clear policy on deleting other people's posts from pages (which I already linked to above), and an editor's discomfort with another editor's formatting isn't a permissible reason to do so, even if you warned him or her to that effect. Especially when such deletion also removed substantive responses to your criticisms, which you have never bothered replying to, much less acknowledging.
If the issue were solely my personal attacks, I would have struck them through or redacted them if you'd taken the time to ask, as is the custom. Again, I have said this before.
This is the sort of thing that, frankly, you should be blocked again for, my intemperate behavior with you notwithstanding.
- "It's shocking enough that an admin doesn't understand that an article can't say, 'Such-and-such appears to have been the first recorded use of the term skintern", with the only supporting citation being a footnote reading ...'" You are confusing your interpretation of an area our policies aren't clear on with the letter of policy. I admit that this is a gray area; however I didn't find anything specific enough to say we ought not to do this (You seem to have a very civil-law take on policy, i.e., that it prohibits what it does not explicitly permit; whereas most of the rest of us have a more common-law approach, that what is not explicitly prohibited is permitted. Perhaps you should reflect on this).
The question of, in the absence of any scholarly work on the etymology of what is otherwise a notable word of apparently recent coinage, what extent we can go ourselves to establish an "earliest use" (I won't say "first use"; as the whole discussion pointed out that would be OR) is one of first impression as far as I can tell. If we were to open a discussion of whether what I did would be within the bounds of NOTOR on the appropriate talk page, perhaps getting the people in the Etymology task force to weigh in, and consensus were to be that it would not, then I would accept it. But I will definitely not accept that it is so because you believe it's so, and keep saying so in sweeping, judgemental tones (I note again, that in your response above you said nothing whatsoever about my suggestions as to how you could have phrased various comments of yours more respectfully. I find this lack of empathy disturbing ...) that fail to assume good faith on my part (again, I would really like to see you explain how you were assuming good faith at any time during this fracas).
- You are letting EEng off the hook here. I drew first blood? This was my initial outreach at his talk page. This is the rude and intemperately phrased response I got. EEng hasn't disputed that. And you told him he was wrong on this one, as I would have expected from someone who's been around here as long as you have been and whom I know and trust. So what's his response ... "So what, it happened anyway." How can anyone not read that and see that this is someone who has not the slightest idea what courtesy means, or cares to learn? He has never even considered the possibility that he went about this the wrong way ... [only reiterating that] he is human and he needs to be loved, just like everyone else does.
- Drmies, I accept your criticism. But I really feel you're enabling a toxic user here with that "please" regardless of your intentions. Just look at how much he does not respond to ... because he knows he's in the wrong.
And how can his staggering indifference to the idea that he should have apologized for rubbing me the wrong way at the beginning of all this not concern you deeply? Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Daniel; that shows good sense. I don't think I'm enabling anyone simply by letting them talk--disabling would mean blocking them. I can't read EEng's mind (many have tried and failed--there's too much code), and while I think that the first response you cited is cocky, it's not really out of bounds. You may well argue that this long, long thread here is becoming incivilly long, and I certainly think that on both sides amends should be made. Now, it is obvious that not every problem on Wikipedia can be solved, certainly not by me. Y'all are just going to have to get along. Daniel, that means that you, in this case, will just have to suck it up a little bit: I know that it is not easy to accept criticism especially if it's harshly phrased. EEng, you're not new to this game, and you're smart enough to know exactly how far you can go; that's a great skill to have, and your collaborative ethics will shine as much as your tactical rhetoric if you draw that line a bit closer. That's all I have to say: there isn't much more to say. Thank you both for your many, many contributions to Wikipedia. Daniel, now that I have your ear, thanks for that barrel duty you keep performing at UAA. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, I don't have to apologize at your demand, I don't have to couch article criticism in language you prefer, and I certainly can revert a talk post which turns my own comments into an unreadable mess. Meanwhile, you never, ever get to say these things to anyone: "Your congenital inability ... Harvard legacy admit [with it] too far up your ass to reach ... your sniveling ... How obtuse are you going to be? ... your widdle Harvard-educated head ... I am in every way a better person than he is, was or ever will be, whatever he thinks he's entitled to think about himself because he went to Harvard ... asshole ... jerkass".
- Now have the last word if you wish. Your lengthening rants make you look unhinged, and the Harvard Harvard Harvard preoccupation... wow. EEng (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Drmies, thanks for trying.
Need consultation
"It hurts when I go like this..." Hi Drmies, I saw this edit. Lovely work. I used to edit this article back circa 2013 but became extraordinarily frustrated when dealing with an editor who kept submitting voluminous and circular plot rehashings and other indiscriminate content into the article. A dramatization:
- Joe - In season one he goes to a grocery store to buy a lime and meets a produce spritzer, Jessie, only to get shot to death by an unknown gunman, who later is revealed to be a clown named Dimples.
- Jessie - While working as a produce spritzer at the grocery store, she meets Joe, who is there to buy a lime, and witnesses him being shot by an unknown gunman. She eventually helps the fuzz track down Joe's killer, a clown named Dimples.
- Dimples - A clown who hates produce spritzers, but who is also a terrible marksman. By the end of season one, he is revealed as Joe's killer, having shot him accidentally while aiming for Jessie, a produce spritzer at the local grocery who was standing near a pyramid of limes.
Levity aside, this stuff is problematic for a number of reasons, including that it is repetitive, in the case of the TMNT article it probably constitutes a derivative work, it's completely in-universe, it's a bloody text wall, etc. Dealing with this editor was frustrating in part because he would engage in sneaky editing and I wasn't confident he even understood the purpose of guidelines. We had a discussion on the talk page where I was complaining about the unnecessary wikilinks he kept adding, then sneakily re-adding. When I asked why we should keep wikilinks for common words like "rat", "fish" and "spider" his response was just an explanation of what a wikilink does: "I think some of those Wikilinks should remain so that those people who visit the pages can know about what animal each mutant was based off of. That way, they can click on the link to visit that page."
I don't get the sense that the editor understands that there are ideal standards for articles (FA, GA) and that his verbose additions consistently divert articles from these goals. So my question is two-fold: 1) What can we do to pare that article down? 2) What can be done to educate this user, who has 87,000 edits under his belt and should understand what we're doing after 10 years of editing? Note also that I'm still haranguing him about unnecessary wikilinks two years later, as are other editors. I've considered ANI, but I wonder if there's not a better approach. Sorry for the rant, and thanks for any input you have. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Holy shit. That's over 200k. I love your dramatization, by the way. OK. Rtkat3, look at this edit. I don't see how "shoulder pad" is so difficult to understand that we need to deviate from WP:OVERLINK. Stuff like "For some unknown reason" is clearly original research. "They both bellow into the sky in pain, confusion, and anger" is some pretty fancy interpretative work, thus original research. "It was also mentioned that" is a terrible passive sentence, and it's typical of this kind of crufty summary; it's the kind of English up with which we must not put. This edit is more recent and contains such gems as "while doing something to get the Technodrome to work on retro-mutagen" and "Mickey and Raph came to save him Kari's snake came out of Casey's clothes and bite them". In that edit you added 3000k of wholly excessive, poorly written, and of course very unverified detail.
In general, Cyphoidbomb is absolutely correct. The material is excessive, poorly verified, crufty. It has no place in an encyclopedia, since it's undue and original research, and confuses plot with description. It needs to be cut. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Since we now have Rtkat3 on the phone, it is important for me to stress to you, Rtkat3, that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to replace the experience of reading/watching the fictional work. The purpose is to provide a general overview of the most important aspects. Character summaries are not plot synopses. They should describe who the character is, not everything the character has done or experienced. That means when you write about characters, you will have to leave tons and tons of details out, like the Soviet insignia on Stearanko's brass knuckles. Content that is too detailed can constitute a serious copyright violation. Also, as explained in MOS:TV, there should be real-world information about the character and the actor who portrays them. These guidelines aren't limited to TV articles, by the way, they're pretty much universal throughout the project. As I've expressed above, I'm greatly concerned that you may not understand what the Wikipedia community expects. You have made thousands of contributions to television articles, and I'm sure all of them are made with the best of intentions, but you don't seem to be following the various manuals of style. MOS:TV? MOS:FILM? MOS:FICTION? Are you participating in community discussions to have questions answered when you are unsure of something? Are you opening talk page discussions to to discuss controversial changes beforehand? I'm also really concerned about your tendency to quietly restore content that other users have found problematic. For example here where you restore without explanation or discussion content that was removed a year earlier for being "hypercruft". Much of this stuff would be excusable for a new editor, but you have been here for ten years. Surely you must be aware that you are often not editing according to community standards. ? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies, the cuts were amazing. Thank you for trudging through that. I originally wrote the dramatization for a thread on Aussie's page. You might notice that we only learn about four pieces of information from the 130 or so words. That's exactly the problem with these types of character write-ups, which are so rampant here. Everything's circular. It's like you're watching one of those early novelty DVDs where you could adjust camera angles and "enjoy" a film from three different perspectives, as if that's something anyone would want to do. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies, I congratulate you for the edits you made to the character page of the 2012 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles pages where you cut down the bios of the characters. The cutdowns are similar to the brief infos that I had previously added to the characters for the 80's TV series and the 2003 TV series since none of them have their own character pages. I'm just letting you know that. Any other future info for the characters that have pages here we can add to their pages like any later infos on the 2012 incarnations of the Foot Clan and the Purple Dragons to name some examples. Outside of that, what do you think of the series so far? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rtkat3, please look at the comments above, esp. the notes by Cyphoidbomb. I think that at some point many of the fans are going to have to live with the fact that a lot of the information you want to be included in Wikipedia simply isn't encyclopedic. Now, there's a host of problems, including repetition, non-MOS compliance, duplication (how many articles on Ninja Turtle characters are there?), poor writing (I think many of the IPs are highschoolers), etc. But the main problem, and it's the way Wikipedia works, is lack of reliable sources discussing the subject matter. Now, in those (admittedly drastic) cuts I made, I said something like "you got one sentence: make it count", and I think we should try to work it that way. The better that sentence is, the better the article will be.
As for what I think about the series--honestly, I don't know which series the kids watch on Netflix. I find them to be a bit repetitive and emotionally void, but maybe that's just me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rtkat3, please look at the comments above, esp. the notes by Cyphoidbomb. I think that at some point many of the fans are going to have to live with the fact that a lot of the information you want to be included in Wikipedia simply isn't encyclopedic. Now, there's a host of problems, including repetition, non-MOS compliance, duplication (how many articles on Ninja Turtle characters are there?), poor writing (I think many of the IPs are highschoolers), etc. But the main problem, and it's the way Wikipedia works, is lack of reliable sources discussing the subject matter. Now, in those (admittedly drastic) cuts I made, I said something like "you got one sentence: make it count", and I think we should try to work it that way. The better that sentence is, the better the article will be.
Secret Wars (2015)
Drmies, I have noticed your work on the Secret Wars. I previously left a note involving around "Last Days," Battlezone," and "Warworld" and how it can be hard to list each character whose Battleworld sections taken from some unnamed Earths on their page. Perhaps they can be like how some people did to Stingray and Rumiko Fujikawa (who has a niece in the "Armor Wars" miniseries). If you want to help make each of it's info brief, go right ahead. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Dutch letter
Dutch letter | |
Dutch letter in trouble Hafspajen (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
Malik case
Hey, I fully understand where you're coming from, but I think the precedent is pretty strong that if you use the tools through a block in an abusive manner the tools need removal for the duration of figuring out what happened. I don't get what this was all about and what provoked him, and we need to look at that. He's a well known long term good guy. But I think we need the temporary desysop for the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but it was once--he hasn't done it since. If he does it again, that's a different matter. But (if I remember correctly) this happened two minutes after he was reblocked, or his block was upgraded or whatever, and that's that. Or, I don't see the imminent danger, and I hope Malik doesn't prove me wrong in the next couple of hours or days. Thanks (I really do appreciate your note), Drmies (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am just very sad about the whole thing. 8-( Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I also want to say that this whole thing is immensely unfortunate. I reciprocally blocked Bryan Dyer for provoking a normally composed admin to being summarily desysoped. And I hope to God that Malik isn't permanently desysoped. He was obviously angry. That shouldn't be held against him forever. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. Dyer should have been blocked rightaway, the moment he made that comment, and it should have been done for the racial insult, not necessarily what its effect was. Blocking him, and blocking Dissident Agressor over some stupid remarks, doesn't solve the problem here. If anything, we need more admins like him who worked in that awful topic area where, I feel, he was frequently left alone (it's just not an area where I'm very knowledgeable). And I think also that his comment was less a comment on ethnicity as it was on what I suppose he thought the editor's political conviction was. That is, I think his "jewboy" should probably be read as "Zionist watercarrier". Whether that makes it much better I leave for the voters to decide. But I maintain that these emergency procedures over one edit were over the top, and if it's going to be difficult for Malik to get his bit back (if indeed he returns to Wikipedia) it will be in part because we made so much to-do about it. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I do not deny for even a moment that Malik is valuable. But he wasn't desysopped for comments, he was desysopped for using his tools despite his block. If he has the impetus to do that when he is angry, it does beg the question what else he could do. Admin tools are powerful; anger + power is not a good combination, as history so aptly shows us. I believe a temporary desysop was in order. I do not think a permanent desysop is, though. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but again, it was once, just once. WWI doesn't really come into that. BTW, thank you for striking that one remark. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank goodness for temporary sanctions. Forgive the unfortunate analogy, but a permanent desysop would be the electronic equivalent of a lynching. I'm not sure I buy the comparison to World War I. I get that admin tools can be destructive, and that admins are held to a higher standard -- and at least the editor who lit the match didn't get off scot free -- but in the morning, a lot of incredulous people are going to say, "What the hell happened?" DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but again, it was once, just once. WWI doesn't really come into that. BTW, thank you for striking that one remark. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Lynching? That is a poor analogy at best. It is more like getting fired from a job. Chillum 03:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, like getting fired for a single, goaded tantrum after 8 years of loyal service, doing the jobs that no one else wanted to do. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Let me add that it's easy for me to criticize this action as hasty, and perhaps ill-advised, from my Monday-morning-quarterback seat. I understand that the arbs acted in good faith, and made a snap decision because they felt it was necessary. I just hope we haven't lost one of our very best admins as a result of it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- In the end, the Second Law of Wikipedia is inexorable. I've always been impressed by Malik Shabazz, in particular by his ability to keep his cool. But everyone is human. You can't do this job forever, because, as the law states, ignorance is infinite while patience is finite. The rest is just math. It was Malik today; it will be me, or Drmies, blowing up and catching a "Level 1" some other day. MastCell Talk 04:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- The First Law might be even more applicable here: If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. I wrestled with a basset hound once: it was a dumb idea. But MastCell, I think Malik was goaded in a way that you or I probably can't be--I'm assuming you're white too. That insult combined racism with utter disrespect, in a word that has centuries of history in American racist speak. Then again, I never had Malik's patience; it takes a lot less to get me riled up. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- The First Law might be even more applicable here: If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)