Line 231: | Line 231: | ||
:Also, sorry if I was misleading above. "new" refers to the number of edits, not the date the account was created, although in the case of one (the first) it's not even accurate in that sense; I "borrowed" it from a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=789091588 comment] by Softlavender on the aforementioned ANI thread. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC) |
:Also, sorry if I was misleading above. "new" refers to the number of edits, not the date the account was created, although in the case of one (the first) it's not even accurate in that sense; I "borrowed" it from a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=789091588 comment] by Softlavender on the aforementioned ANI thread. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
*Where is S.tollyfield hounding you? Besides the AfD I only see their talk page. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 13:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC) |
*Where is S.tollyfield hounding you? Besides the AfD I only see their talk page. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 13:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
*Sorry, but this is all a bit much, and I don't see a lot of hounding. I see a lot of mediocre and poor behavior, that's true, but as so often I don't quite see how you get involved in these situations. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 13:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:25, 13 July 2017
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Drmies specialises in such hit jobs for friends, relying completely on the fact everyone trusts that he would not do such a thing.
— "The Dark Knight"
Music
Remember the violinist whom I heard? More memories today: a choral conductor who inspired us, beginning with a Bach chorale, - that won my heart, of course. Chorale or not - that is the question in my FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Gerda, you remind me of a perpetuum mobile. Good luck with the FA; I hope Schonken manages to stay out of it. --Oh, wait, it's that one... Drmies (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- You could just write a review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I even called you to the scene, fondly remembering one of your reviews. Copyvio is in the air - or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Third day of Pentecost: some inspired music. What do you think about my idea to leave the FAC and pass it on to the new - well, what can we say if not owner? Your voice would also be welcome on ARCA (look for the cat picture, added on demand by an arb). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I gave it up, following good advice (and avoiding to waste more time). - Are you following the chronicle DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Compare first impression and now. (Looking for my name on the "first" page makes me sentimental, "Hammer. Nail. Door.", reformation.) - Then please respond to the open DYK, and close the top ARCA, or whatever needs to be done to end that misery. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Gerda, I'm sorry, but I'm not following. I do note that Brepols is slated to publish a book on medieval illustrations of the Tristan and Isolde romance. What's the DYK? Drmies (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and ARCA--that's about an editor I'm not very familiar with in a case I am not at all familiar with. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- I feel like explaining three jokes ;)
- Hammer. Nail. Door.
- Template:Did you know nominations/Warkworth's Chronicle
- Just because you are uninvolved you can support what Opabinia said: that the arbs can do nothing about that request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- I feel like explaining three jokes ;)
- I heard just now that we remember Telemann's 250th day of death tomorrow. Article has a tag. I told project composer's - no reaction. (I should add an infobox, then I'd get a reaction.) - I told project opera that all his operas are stubs, and promised to expand one,
startedDon Quichotte auf der Hochzeit des Comacho, nominated for DYK even if unlikely to appear tomorrow ;)Off to writing aboutTwelve Fantasias for Viola da Gamba solo. Ach Gott! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- I heard just now that we remember Telemann's 250th day of death tomorrow. Article has a tag. I told project composer's - no reaction. (I should add an infobox, then I'd get a reaction.) - I told project opera that all his operas are stubs, and promised to expand one,
- ARCA archived, good news. Music: I heard this and even briefly met the composer, - more to write about! The soprano is outstanding, a red link in de, can't believe it. Makes me almost forget what we do to our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Back to the beginning: do you remember Dirk Kaftan? Not much s left of that article, and I wonder what to do, - said so on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. For Hengelbrock, I thought I'd place the missing info in a choir article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Wanted to let you know that I'd retired
Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details regarding my departure, if interested. Restrosepctively, on a previous difference of opinion, I would state again (with source for argument): by the standards of doing honest scholarly work, failing to cite ideas (not just quoted material) and failing to cite out-of-copyright source materials both constitute plagiarism. Well, if not at Wikipedia, then everywhere else in the scholarly publishing world. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with that noble sentiment being, of course, that Wikipedia is not part of the "scholarly publishing world", nor does it aspire to be, nor should it aspire to be. And of course, see [1]. EEng 04:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!
I am grateful for your comments on my web page. I have responded, as has the other editor. However, since this issue has raised a certain amount of bad blood, I will shortly delete that section, rather than let matters fester; and once you have read this, perhaps this should be deleted also! Once again, thanks. Arrivisto (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I have a little robot that archives for me. I hope you can try to get along better with 72bikers. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Auréli1 aka TIGA
I need some advice how to handle Auréli1 aka TIGA. This article is edited by a number of SPAs and the way they edit/edited, I have the strong feeling that all those accounts are identical to the pages subject: Aurélien Tigalekou.
There is no sockpuppetry as far as I can see. But the problem - to my opinion - is that the edits are often highly promotional but seldom sourced. As far as I know, the other editor never replied. Where to go to now? The Banner talk 21:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- The Banner, see the top tag at the article. Atsme📞📧 02:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like you had one COI user who lost their account/password and came back. There's no point in running CU since there is too much of a gap between AT241 and MusicIsLife241. If they don't respond, if they add unverified/promotional material, at some point I'd just report them at AIV, maybe. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies - are the articles created/maintained by blocked socks subject to speedy-d? Atsme📞📧 03:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, G5, but only if they "have no substantial edits by others". So in this case...well, if there is a link between Earflaps and the 241 editors, then in principle yes, but that may be hard to prove. (You'd have to present some diffs etc. for CU to be run or to make a behavioral case.) Drmies (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Earflaps...Earflaps...that name sounds so familiar. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Suddenly, my concern gets a totally different twist. The Banner talk 07:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies - are the articles created/maintained by blocked socks subject to speedy-d? Atsme📞📧 03:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
And "guzan watch out." Hope you're well. Couldn't be better here; a mild spring so far, and unusually windy, which makes painting large outside a bit challenging. So I'm painting large inside. And writing small. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ha, enjoy, and keep busy. We're having much, much rain; we must have had 10 or more inches this month already, and today it's raining again. On the bright side, I'm not burning up--you know I hate Alabama weather, except for a few days in the spring and a few weeks in the fall. And football Saturdays! Yes, guzan watch out, and much covfefe to you and yours. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Teahouse disruption
Hello Drmies and friends,
Can you or another administrator take a look at the contributions of User: That Random Edmontonian. Tiresome for me, and quite possibly alienating for new editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- There's a bad Canadian? Drmies (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Shocking, eh? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Berean Hunter, thank you. Cullen, one wonders how no one saw this earlier! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Since Cullen328 and the others at the Teahouse had to put up with the grief I felt it was worthwhile to look into this and have filed an SPI case.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)- Thank you, Berean Hunter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Since Cullen328 and the others at the Teahouse had to put up with the grief I felt it was worthwhile to look into this and have filed an SPI case.
Gojira
You ordered something? Which one you get? :) dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Magma. Let's see if it's as good as the critics say. I haven't bought anything metallic in a long time, so this is important, haha. (I'm not counting Circle, since they're too weird.) Drmies (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
A net negative-NOTHERE matter
Per this and this, I think it may be time for a "...block...and/or...topic ban..."
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't want to block them on the spot, though they probably have that coming... Thank you Anna, Drmies (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Bludgeon v Discussion
May I ask how a couple of proactive responses, one of which even mentions bludgeon and how I'm aware of it, counts as committing it? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, "So i don't violate bludgeon" doesn't mean you're not; it's a variation of the non-apology apology. It's not a huge big deal to me, but still. Besides, "Not a personal attack on you, Andy Dingley, but it appears that this MfD has begun to collect drive-by !voting and parroting" really does the same thing: given that Andy's "delete" was only the second "delete" after a bunch of "keeps", it's pretty obvious that Andy's vote is to be considered drive-by parroting. You may not call that a personal attack, and maybe I won't either, but saying "it's not a personal attack" doesn't make it not a personal attack. Besides, personally I'm never sure what "proactive" means, and how it's different from "active", but that's probably just my own jadedness from having served in the SGA so many years ago. Words to matter, though. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Proactive as opposed to reactive, as in rather than responding to someone in a discussion, I was trying to start a discussion with a !voter. The reason I considered it parroting is "NOTWEBHOST" is basically what Softlavender has been saying, despite being told by others besides myself (admins as well) that NWH is probably inapplicable. I have been trying to get a detailed response (Softlavender just posted one), but feel as if I am being ignored. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it's fine to ask for clarification, but I wouldn't preface it by saying "not a personal attack" when you are making what might well be one: "yours is a drive-by edit" violates AGF. As it happens, Softlavender just added a comment, with which I agree: NOTWEBHOST is a matter of balance, and if you look carefully you'll see that there is just way too much speculation for this not to be someone's essay--and not an essay on how to edit Wikipedia or whatever. Did you see note 7, on singularity? Pure speculation. Anyway, the discussion may well be going your way, so good luck. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Proactive as opposed to reactive, as in rather than responding to someone in a discussion, I was trying to start a discussion with a !voter. The reason I considered it parroting is "NOTWEBHOST" is basically what Softlavender has been saying, despite being told by others besides myself (admins as well) that NWH is probably inapplicable. I have been trying to get a detailed response (Softlavender just posted one), but feel as if I am being ignored. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Surely "parroting" would be posting to AfD with a comment like, "Basically the above reasonings" and nothing more. Wonder where I read that? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Some Help
Would it be at all possible if I could get your help in getting an IP-hopping user who I'm edit-warring with at Great auk to discuss its grievance over the use of "was" versus "is" at the talkpage? Or at least semi-protect the page?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, neither of you look real good in those edit summaries, but since the IP was reverted also by Elmidae it's not hard to consider their edits disruptive. Besides, there's the a-holish edit summaries. Mr. Fink, please don't allow yourself to get baited into an edit war or an exchange of insults. I know that's not easy, and I'm a fine one to talk, but still. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
David Van Wie
Hey Drmies. David Van Wie could use your attention again. Yngvadottir may also want to look. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Two David Van Wies? One's got an annual hundred million dollar research budget and a staff of 5,000 at Johns Hopkins, the other's… no, sorry, I take that back, there's hundreds of David Van Wies. I'll just repeat that figure- $100,000,000 per year research budget. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Dolly Rudeman
Hello! Your submission of Dolly Rudeman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies, I posted this template on Fortuna's page, and received a reply requesting that I ping you instead. I hope you'll be able to take over. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not today, friend, but soon. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks v much for that Drmies. — fortunavelut luna 11:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not today, friend, but soon. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo
Why have you deleted links to the show's official Facebook page in Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 8)? - 78.11.12.10 (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Because this is an encyclopedia and you should find better sources than a Facebook page... Drmies (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Even if it is an official page and it presents information that is officialy confirmed? - 78.11.12.10 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Official information that's officially confirmed? That's still not a secondary source. What are you confirming? That someone with a certain name is on the show? If Facebook is the best confirmation of that fact you can find, it's probably not a very notable show. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind indef silver-locking these? I've been getting a lot of sock vandals of late. pbp 04:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Red noise.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Red noise.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
"Track list"
Hello. In future album articles, please title "Track list" as "Track listing". This is per the album style guide, WP:MOSALBUM. Thank you. I cleaned up Sarcelles - Lochères to adhere to the album guidelines, also. --Jennica✿ / talk 04:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Once again...
Hi, Can you please do something to stop this kind of thing: my modification than the revert from Panam2014 with a false reason "No source for the flag stop now" while in fact the flag is sourced with an academic source (Houari Touati, Aux origines du drapeau algérien : une histoire symbolique (The origins of the Algerian flag: a symbolic history), Zaytūn Editions, 2014, p. 38. Pr Touati is an historian specialized in the medieval arabic world. Panam2014 continues his Wikipedia:Wikihounding (Panam2014 modifies this page only to revert me). He is in fact importing the dispute from Commons [2] where he failed to push his pov. Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. It is clearly a lie. First, the conflict began in french Wikipedia. After that, the groupe attempted to provok a new conflict here. Then, it is clear that there are no consensus to add that fictitious flag (see talk pages). And, in the end, from 15 April to 1 July Ms10vc attempted to impose the flag in english wikipedia, arabic, italian, spanish, and turkish (and has been reverted).
According to others academic sources, the flag was different:
"
- Alexandre Rang, Histoire d'Aroudj et de Khaïr-ed-din. « le déploiement d'un grand drapeau national formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte et jaune, et orné de croissant d'argent » [3]
- Nadir Assari, Alger: des origines à la régence turque. « A l'époque turque, le drapeau d'Alger était formé de trois bandes de soie rouge, verte et jaune. » [4]
- Marius Bernard, L'Algérie qui s'en va. « Rien n'y manque, pas même la longue hampe où flotta si longtemps l'insolent drapeau de la régence avec ses trois bandes horizontales, jaune en bas, rouge en haut, vert au milieu. » [5]
- Sander Rang,Ferdinand Denis,Jean-Michel Venture de Paradis, Fondation de la régence d'Alger: histoire des Barberousse, « ; c'était du haut de ses vastes terrasses sur lesquelles flottait l'étendard rouge, jaune et vert ». [6]
- Mouloud Gaïd : L'Algerie sous les Turcs, p.58 : « Le grand drapeau d'Alger, formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte, jaune, se déploya majestueusement au-dessus de la porte »"
But, if another member of the group such as Buxlifa, etc, I will also revert too. It is not a wikihounding. That pov pushing should be stopped. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is exciting--I see that Historian Student and Omar Toons were already duking it out over this matter years ago. Ah the good old days! I can't easily see which one of y'all's versions can claim to be a "stable" version. What I can tell you is that you all need to hash this out on the talk page, and find a way to solve this content dispute. Neither one of you have sought the talk page; if this is part of a bigger conflict on other wikis, we'll need a decent way to solve this--an RfC. Without accusations and bullshit, and with facts. Panam2014, announcing an edit war is not a way to ingratiate yourself with the admins here, and it would be a good idea for you to contextualize your sources a bit better: Fondation de la régence d'Alger, for instance, appears to be a tad slanted. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have not violated any "en.wiki" rule, Ms10vc has been banned from fr.wiki so it pulls the strings from here. And for the rest, he and his band try to modify the other wiki (without source) in order to influence the french page. And before trying to impose this flag everywhere on the projects, he never contributed on these pages. We are in the midst of disorganization of the projects "WP: POINT". I am not announcing an edit warring, this one was caused by this group and as I am a regular contributor here, I will not let the addition of false information without consensus. First time when Ms10vc added the controversial flag without consensus and before that, there have no flag. It is up to them to obtain a consensus to modify from the contradictory sources. Why giving reason to Ms10vc? Also, I have a witnesse Jean-Jacques Georges. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, since I'm notified : I have no idea about the gist of the current dispute and no personal opinion about the history of the Algerian flag, however there have been lengthy discussions on the French wikipedia, in which I did not participate (see here) and apparently the conclusion was that this flag was not the correct one.
- I also confirm that Ms10vc's behaviour on fr.wikipedia has been quite problematic : he tried for many months to impose an "Algerian nationalist" point of view in various articles, and was ultimately banned. There have been loooooooooong disputes about this "Algerian flag" matter - most of them caused by Ms10vc and some users with similar opinions - and it would be better for all not to import them here. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I have asked @Colokreb: to send to you a scan of page 38 of the book [7]. Once you have read it, you can decide by yourself who is telling the truth and who is lying. Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is not ANI, this is not the article talk page. And both of you please pay more attention to correctness: it is not always clear what you are trying to say. Now, please hash this out on the talk page, and get input from other editors at the relevant noticeboards. What happened on fr.wikipedia is, at least for now, irrelevant. Solve a problem on this wiki and you might solve it elsewhere also. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- I never said that it not irrelevant. The greater the concordance of the actions shows that there is a good link. For the rest, in this case, there are an user who adds a controversial flag, I remove it according to the sources, and then he insisist. It is an editorial conflict. After, I launched the "RfC". Finally, Colokreb never contributed here and since he offered to come here, we are well confronted with an import of conflicts. The conflict must be solved by the contributors of this encyclopedia. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Help me doctor...
This article seems to me to be on very shaky grounds with respect to BLP because it names a minor who was arrested; yet I don't think it qualifies for CSDG10. It's at AfD, but that takes a while. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- For starters, it's now at 2017 Basirhat communal violence. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Striking out additional comments
Thank you for striking out Nigario.sss' comments on the CNN controversies page. Would it be appropriate for us to strike out the other accounts blocked for sockpuppetry, such as DraKyry? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't strike those out--I usually think that's too much trouble, and for most of those POV sock warriors their comments aren't worth the effort. But go for it, if you like. An admin will know what they're worth anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you very much for letting me know! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Cosmetics_in_Korea
It is not as bad as it sounds, but a new editor is advertising. If have already reverted her three times today, but she replaced it again, this time because of a school project. Now I am confused what to do... see here. The Banner talk 00:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Vian bruits.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Vian bruits.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Will no-one give a hoot if the bruit is moot? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Xanthomelanoussprog, that album is really worth it. Drmies (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
User Joobo - weird edits
Joobo (talk · contribs), having been warned re Slovakia, is acting strangely. See [8] (changed New York to Los Angeles in List of films set in New York City, then changed it back), deleted a table of political history from New Orleans [9], is involved in an edit war at Islamic Extremism, where identical edits are being made by Joobo and various IP addresses, and is changing numbers slightly at Economy of Slovakia.[10]. Suggest keeping an eye on this. While I was writing this, someone who watches for vandalism picked up on the problem at Islamic Extremism, so this has more eyes on it now. John Nagle (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- This action by you almost appears to be harassing and Wikihounding. There simply are no so-called "weird edits" at all. Is there any Wikipedia guideline against "weird" editing or are there criterias for that? It looks more that you by accident came accross my account and cannot comprehend that i changed some "church images" in an article, since you would not do it yourself. And now you checked some edits by me and did not understand a couple of them or did not even bothered to try to understand them, and basically assumed bad faith in most of them - hence leading to your false conclusion of "weird editing". Concerning your: "is acting strangely. See [1] (changed New York to Los Angeles in List of films set in New York City, then changed it back)," Never did I changed NY to LA and changed it back: I merely copied a part of the lede entry from the parallel article from Los Angeles into the one of NYC and forgot to change Los Angeles with New York, when pasting it into the NYC movie article. After seeing the mistake I obviously corrected it. Concerning your: "is involved in an edit war at Islamic Extremism, where identical edits are being made by Joobo and various IP addresses" — so a permanently globally changing IP is deleting sourced content most likely for agenda purposes (ignoring the hint to the good rated main article of the subject which points out to exactly what the IP has "doubts" about)- I do not think that falls under edit war if you revert that, do you? it also does not look like I am the only more experienced user having concerns about the IP edits, if one has a look on the edit history of the article. Concerning your :"deleted a table of political history from New Orleans [2]," I excluded the fresh included table for two reasons. One, it was too huge to fit adequately into the section as it was crushing into the following section. Two, it had no direct relation to the actual section. The table was about nation wide elections, whereeas the section concerned merely focused on the local gvnmt. If there is no direct relation from an imge or table to the section there is no need for inclusion. That is according to basic Wikipedia guidelines. Concerning your: "and is changing numbers slightly at Economy of Slovakia.[3]" Yes i reverted "slightly" back to the prior numbers after an IP changed them without giving an edit summary or using a source. I did the same for instance in the Economy of Italy article, after IP vandalism took overhand and I reported the article for semi-protection. Can you explain to me why reverting unsourced changes of an IP address is weird? Guess the case here is settled; and I hope from now on you stick to actual WP issues- foremost editing, instead of harassing other users.--Joobo (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- If I can chip in here, as it relates to a question recently asked by Joobo at the Help Desk. I've had a look at Islamic extremism since I had reason to edit it recently on an unrelated matter. The IP editor in question is undoubtedly from Iran (which obviously has an interest in Hezbollah) and they're using proxies - a lot of Iranian editors do, presumably to avoid some firewall or censorship rather than any restriction that we've placed. This does look a bit like POV editing by the IP address, but it also does start to resemble an edit war. The IP is using the talk page in a reasonable manner, and I'd suggest other editors also do that. But there's nothing really suspicious going on there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you zzuuzz; I am so happy you're still around. Joobo, WTF? Can you not jump on the harassment horse immediately? Drmies (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- What would you then qualify such insinuations of another user pointing out to "weird" editing if there is nothing weird about it? Sorry, but no sorry, I have nothing to hide nor to excuse and I cannot comprehend how one can neglect WP:CIVIL by raising such a non-issue. I gave detailed and coherent explanation for every edit that was apparently "weird"- which should eventually settle this actual itself weird accusation. --Joobo (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Joobo, if you like, I can play admin here. You said: "This action by you almost appears to be harassing and Wikihounding." No. That is wrong, utterly wrong. It does not appear to be harassment or hounding, it does not even almost appear to be that. Your weaponizing a relatively ordinary question turns Wikipedia into a battlefield, and that shouldn't happen. I have no dog in this fight, I don't even know what the fight is about and who the dogs are, nor do I have an undisclosed relation with John Nagle or any particular reason to side with him in an unfair manner; to put it more succinctly, if you don't back down with those accusations I will block you for violating our civility code and for doubting the good faith of an editor in good standing. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Though the Iranian IPs might have a valid argument, the edit war at Islamic extremism can't be allowed to continue. In particular, two IPs are editing from the same range there and are obviously the same person. I've semiprotected Islamic extremism for a month. If other admins want to handle it differently they should take whatever steps they prefer. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Ed--like I said above, I've not looked into these matters at all and, as always, I trust your judgment and appreciate your dedication to our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- I do not want to accuse someone of anything or point a finger but I also do not like the same done to me for truly no logical reason. I hope and believe that this is in some way understandable. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding but I am hoping that the user is going to review the brought up edits once again and realizing that there is nothing "weird" about it at all. I am sure you would agree with the statement, that in case one brings such an claim, there should be some basis backing that up- otherwise it is inconsiderate. Perhaps there is some more mutual understanding now. --Joobo (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- The aforementioned behaviour seems typical for this user. Joobo keeps whitewashing the article on Germany's Frauke Petry, who falsely quoted German law (as expressly stated and explained in detail by the given source, one of Germany's most respected newspapers, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung). See for instance . --Mathmensch (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
My collected material
Hello! Sorry for that. Could you give me my collected material so I could make this case stronger? Also please guide me how to start SPI? Greenbörg (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dr; please revert any content removal that may have been overzealous. I'm uncertain, for instance, if we approve of listings of town churches, but it strikes me as directory stuff. Very best, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely admiring your work and expressed my gratitude testicularly. :) Drmies (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Grand. Now I can never 'unread' that. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Montgomery Industrial School for Girls
On 13 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Montgomery Industrial School for Girls, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that white reformist Northern women founded the Montgomery Industrial School for Girls (pictured) in Montgomery, Alabama, to educate black girls, who included Rosa Parks and Johnnie Carr? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Montgomery Industrial School for Girls. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Montgomery Industrial School for Girls), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Attack on Pearl Harbor
From the USS Arizona (BB-39) page: "After a bomb detonated in a powder magazine," "The last bomb hit at 08:06 in the vicinity of Turret II, likely penetrating the armored deck near the ammunition magazines located in the forward section of the ship."
A bomb and a shell are different munitions altogether. Bombs are dropped from planes, shells have fired from guns. It was a BOMB that hit the Arizona as no IJN ships were within gun range. Zzsignup (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I know the difference between a shell and a bomb, thank you. I was looking at an earlier instance of "shell"--but indeed it says "shells modified into bombs", so you seem to be right; User:Beyond My Ken, I think we're both wrong. Next problem, though--verification. Zzsignup, you can import a reference from the Arizona article, that would certainly improve the article. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sorry if I sounded cross. I was a little frustrated a basic history based edit (Pearl Harbor was attacked with bombs and torpedoes, not large caliber naval guns) got reverted... twice. Is a reference really necessary? This isn't really a controversial assertion... That Arizona was attacked with bombs and torpedoes is well documented. Thought basic facts do not need to be referenced as they clutter up the article. Zzsignup (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, I understand--and you were right! Yes, that's the kind of thing that needs verification--ha, if three people had to fight over it...the article really is not looking good in terms of verified content, and in that section there are lots of things missing. Ha, the footnote for the Shaw sentence is simply the Wikipedia article Look at that Arizona article--it's a Featured Article, and looking at what it verifies and how will give you an idea of a good standard. If I had to guess The ed17 or one of his pals had something to do with it; they may be interested in improving this article as well, and they can certainly tell you very precisely what the standards are in that WikiProject. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently 16.1 inch armour-piercing shells, weighing circa 1,500 pounds and possibly type 88 as used by Nagato-class battleships (haven't got an RS for this). I've probably spent an hour trying to find mention of an 18mm caliber gun or rifle to identify an old bronze cartridge I pulled out of a junk box (base marked "T"). Sorry about the gun stuff. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sorry if I sounded cross. I was a little frustrated a basic history based edit (Pearl Harbor was attacked with bombs and torpedoes, not large caliber naval guns) got reverted... twice. Is a reference really necessary? This isn't really a controversial assertion... That Arizona was attacked with bombs and torpedoes is well documented. Thought basic facts do not need to be referenced as they clutter up the article. Zzsignup (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Random, spontaneous HOUNDing my three new users?
Hey, I'm not sure if "Inactive" Arbs see the emails, but whether or not you have seen that email I sent today about the off-wiki harassment ... well, the on-wiki harassment is frustrating enough. In the last week, not one, not two, but three separate accounts have started "coming after" me. I undermined one of them on a frivolous ANI thread she started, so I can tell why she might just be angry, and I !voted in support of the deletion of a page created by another, but the third is just completely baffling to me -- I had a good faith disagreement with them over the definition of a word, but the more I have tried to back down the more aggressively they have attacked me.
And the fact that they all happened in such close proximity to each other makes me really think there is some connection. Some other stuff elaborated on in that email makes me really think that at least the first and third received the same "warning" about me through an abuse of the Wikimedia email facility by some slimey, cowardly wiki-stalker who instead of confronting me directly has been going around badmouthing me off-wiki for months or years.
Since I can kinda guess what the result of the Committee's deliberations regarding the off-wiki harassment will be (after how the last two incidents were addressed), any advice you could offer on dealing with the on-wiki stuff would be appreciated. And yes, I know the best idea from the perspective of my own enjoyment of Wikipedia would be to just give up and go write about Tang poetry, but the last time I tried that it made the problem worse for everyone else (you closed the resulting ANI thread in February and this page subsequently played host to yet more drahms). Is ANI really the only answer? It feels kind of like they are deliberately avoiding my talk page to keep my talk page stalkers from noticing them; all three of them have posted extensive commentary directed at me on a whole bunch of other fora.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also, sorry if I was misleading above. "new" refers to the number of edits, not the date the account was created, although in the case of one (the first) it's not even accurate in that sense; I "borrowed" it from a comment by Softlavender on the aforementioned ANI thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Where is S.tollyfield hounding you? Besides the AfD I only see their talk page. Drmies (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is all a bit much, and I don't see a lot of hounding. I see a lot of mediocre and poor behavior, that's true, but as so often I don't quite see how you get involved in these situations. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely admiring your work and expressed my gratitude testicularly. :) Drmies (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- The aforementioned behaviour seems typical for this user. Joobo keeps whitewashing the article on Germany's Frauke Petry, who falsely quoted German law (as expressly stated and explained in detail by the given source, one of Germany's most respected newspapers, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung). See for instance . --Mathmensch (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I do not want to accuse someone of anything or point a finger but I also do not like the same done to me for truly no logical reason. I hope and believe that this is in some way understandable. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding but I am hoping that the user is going to review the brought up edits once again and realizing that there is nothing "weird" about it at all. I am sure you would agree with the statement, that in case one brings such an claim, there should be some basis backing that up- otherwise it is inconsiderate. Perhaps there is some more mutual understanding now. --Joobo (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Ed--like I said above, I've not looked into these matters at all and, as always, I trust your judgment and appreciate your dedication to our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- What would you then qualify such insinuations of another user pointing out to "weird" editing if there is nothing weird about it? Sorry, but no sorry, I have nothing to hide nor to excuse and I cannot comprehend how one can neglect WP:CIVIL by raising such a non-issue. I gave detailed and coherent explanation for every edit that was apparently "weird"- which should eventually settle this actual itself weird accusation. --Joobo (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you zzuuzz; I am so happy you're still around. Joobo, WTF? Can you not jump on the harassment horse immediately? Drmies (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- If I can chip in here, as it relates to a question recently asked by Joobo at the Help Desk. I've had a look at Islamic extremism since I had reason to edit it recently on an unrelated matter. The IP editor in question is undoubtedly from Iran (which obviously has an interest in Hezbollah) and they're using proxies - a lot of Iranian editors do, presumably to avoid some firewall or censorship rather than any restriction that we've placed. This does look a bit like POV editing by the IP address, but it also does start to resemble an edit war. The IP is using the talk page in a reasonable manner, and I'd suggest other editors also do that. But there's nothing really suspicious going on there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)