MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →Books & Bytes – Issue 41: new section Tag: |
|||
Line 210: | Line 210: | ||
*Hope that you don't mind me jumping in, Drmies. I am sorry, but I must ask - what was the point of this message? I can also read a lot of subtle hostility and intolerance for other party's position... I was notified about the dispute, I joined and did what I think is the good deed - I removed the blunt tabloid used for an exceptional claim and restored back to the stable version of the article. That is not canvassing, even less so because I would spot the dispute sooner or later, considering that I follow a number of related articles and I try to contribute as much as my work will let me. If there is a clear guideline/rule which states that you can't leave messages to other senior editors on their own talk page when you think that he/she might contribute in the dispute (one way or another), please do let me know - and I'll bear that in mind. We do not have a "secret channel" or correspondence anywhere outside Wiki, which would constitute some of the good old canvassing, wouldn't it? If one is to read the talk page debate, he/she can see that editor who is complaining here has not presented a source for his main claim, that is, that "the Serbian government has officially acknowledged that the event was done by Serbian forces". Notice that the editor who is making this /report/ has not answered anybody when asked where that claim was confirmed. Aside from that, people who were dealing with the matter pointed out that the event was probably done either by the KLA or a rogue unit, as a revenge attack for the actions of Serbian/Yugoslav police. That is a fact, backed by multiple reliable sources. I find it outrageous that there are no real sources for this exceptional claim, rather than making it a story about an ongoing plot - and there is none. Please assume good faith, as I do. P.S: I shall not comment/respond further here. Cheers, '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #696969;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC) |
*Hope that you don't mind me jumping in, Drmies. I am sorry, but I must ask - what was the point of this message? I can also read a lot of subtle hostility and intolerance for other party's position... I was notified about the dispute, I joined and did what I think is the good deed - I removed the blunt tabloid used for an exceptional claim and restored back to the stable version of the article. That is not canvassing, even less so because I would spot the dispute sooner or later, considering that I follow a number of related articles and I try to contribute as much as my work will let me. If there is a clear guideline/rule which states that you can't leave messages to other senior editors on their own talk page when you think that he/she might contribute in the dispute (one way or another), please do let me know - and I'll bear that in mind. We do not have a "secret channel" or correspondence anywhere outside Wiki, which would constitute some of the good old canvassing, wouldn't it? If one is to read the talk page debate, he/she can see that editor who is complaining here has not presented a source for his main claim, that is, that "the Serbian government has officially acknowledged that the event was done by Serbian forces". Notice that the editor who is making this /report/ has not answered anybody when asked where that claim was confirmed. Aside from that, people who were dealing with the matter pointed out that the event was probably done either by the KLA or a rogue unit, as a revenge attack for the actions of Serbian/Yugoslav police. That is a fact, backed by multiple reliable sources. I find it outrageous that there are no real sources for this exceptional claim, rather than making it a story about an ongoing plot - and there is none. Please assume good faith, as I do. P.S: I shall not comment/respond further here. Cheers, '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #696969;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
**{{U|Sadko}}, look at the little schematic on [[WP:CANVAS]]. Maleschreiber is arguing, I think, that it's canvassing because of 2 and 3: it was partisan and not neutral. Much of that will hinge on interpreting the somewhat brief and cryptic text that accompanied, which is why I said few admins would block for it, but I think most admins will agree that it is an effort to enlist another editor. If the editor had said "hey what do you think of this?", it would have taken one of the possibly two elements of canvassing out of the equation.<p>As for the KLA or whatever, you know that I know nothing about this subject matter at all so arguing one side or another is useless. I did, of course, have a look at the article. So much fighting and so little writing! "KLA" needs to be spelled out and linked. "Civilian" and "ambush" don't need to be linked. In the timeline, some of the salient facts should be repeated: "On 14 December 1998, when a fragile ceasefire was in effect during the [[Kosovo War]], Serbian police ambushed an incursion by the [[Kosovo Liberation Army]], killing at least 31 people in the process" or something like that. "Within hours of the border ambush, the KLA vowed revenge" needs to go: the BBC source connects that to the brutal murder of that official, not to the shooting in the bar, and our article right now suggests cause and effect. I think y'all should remove "suspected KLA gunmen" from that second sentence in the Timeline section, and hold it for later; I think you should move that entire passage starting "Western diplomats" and place it later. There is no article linked to the Judah reference, so it's not clear whether his thoughts matter; I found something in his article and will stick it in there--please check if that's the right one. OH--it is, and whoever wrote "the journalist Tim Judah suggests that the attack may have been carried out by a rogue unit" should be ashamed of themselves: Judah says no such thing. He says "Whether they [the KLA] were [responsible for the Panda Bar killing], or whether whether the killings were committed by a rogue unit, as some of the diplomats believed, hardly mattered now".<p>OK. Wittgenstein said that that many of the problems of philosophy are problems of language, and how can you all ever expect some sort of consensual article building when there are problems even before we get to the problems? [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 14:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== User:CorrectionalFacility101 == |
== User:CorrectionalFacility101 == |
Revision as of 14:51, 18 November 2020
- With thanks to User:RexxS: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Please read and edit accordingly.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Geolocation
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Un-protection request
I come to you with the request to un-protect the article on Persia. There are a few citations I need to add there. There are too many topics that are introduced as ambiguous to it and need to disambiguate even if they refer to the same thing, but slightly different in name to different civilizations and even to modern English speakers. I can thank you in advance for anything you can do to help me unlock it.--Persian Lad (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- You can ask for that at RFPP, but I don't understand the problem: it's "extended-confirmed", for a good reason. The way out here is to get more than 500 edits, which isn't so hard, IMO. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- So 500 edits is needed to edit that and not unprotection? Ok. Thanks to you for clarification.--Persian Lad (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Chikadoma Plant
You wrote "whole thing needs to be reviewed by an expert". Well, not to be overly arrogant, I know my African plants. Botanically the entire article is nonsense. The pictures are of 3 different, completely unrelated species - not tree lupine, which does not grow in Nigeria at all. The first two pictures look to me like Boscia senegalensis, and might be more useful there. The botanical text is toe-curlingly incorrect, the sourcing terrible. The common name/title is apparently invented by the seller of the herbal products who is being referenced 20x. There already is an article on Lupinus arboreus. I think the entire article should be deleted, no redirects. Regards, Leo Breman (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Leo Breman, I had some doubts and lo, here you are. I'll have a look tomorrow and will get back to you. I appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Nice one...
I had already looked with concern to Matthew Josef, Bluejosef and Joseroyal. It was lod and clear that this was a cooperating cluster, non-responding whatsoever etc. But I never took real time to start digging into it. It like to thank you sincerely for escorting them out. The Banner talk 10:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- It was MER-C who started me on that track, so thank you MER-C! Drmies (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Credit should go to Elizium23 who filed the request for a copyright investigation on this user. MER-C 17:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Nagma
I don't know why you think this version by Intalk is the best one. Instead they were one of those trying to white wash the article and promote some non-RS source. They have removed properly sourced content supported by WP:RS sources like The Telegraph, Outlook, NDTV, etc and replaced it with an obscure non-RS source "NENOW" [1]. They have disruptively changed the birth date of the subject from 1974 to 70 which doesn't match with the inline source that was provided by me. The lead section is puffery ridden now with phrases such as "..such as blockbuster movie Yalgar; ..She began her acting career in Bollywood and acted in a few of the biggest Bollywood movies and in other language...
The Personal life section is totally unsourced/OR which writes "Nagma remains unmarried till date. In an interview with The Times of India, she said she would get married when she finds the right man.", but the source [2] doesn't mention anything about her personal life.
I have meticulously edited and corrected the "Early life" and "Political career" sections. Now many sentences and sections are unsourced/original researchesthanks to removal of RS sources like this by Intalk here. The last stable version was this. The only thing contentious is the controversy section, which can be discussed and dealt with separately. I believe we should restore it to this and then start from there. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- You can take all that up on the talk page. I think you do know why I chose that one: first of all, administrators always protect the wrong version, as if the Good Lord has a sense of humor, and secondly, because of the BLP: I believe, and I am not the only one, that this content is problematic. All of that can be hammered out on the talk page--not here. If your edits were meticulous and well-verified, that will be made apparent there. But when I'm seeing so much "alleged" material, my BLP alarm goes off. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously the "controversy" section was contentious, but teh current version has a lot of ORs, unsourced additions, etc. I'll take it to the talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
What I'm doing there
Hey- I saw you were looking at my Taiwan edits. I know what you are thinking- why should Wikipedia have a bajillionmillion cites on the Cianjin page?
Your edit: [3]
You wrote, "It is totally unclear what you are doing--adding a thousand references for a geographical./administrative name?"
In fact, I tried to answer the question you are asking before you even asked it. In the actual edit you removed, I wrote:
"Per WP:OVERCITE, "If there is a good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring or because the sources offer a range of beneficial information, clutter may be avoided by merging the citations into a single footnote." Hence this bundled citation has been created. There is a perennial edit war on this page and others in which Tongyong Pinyin-derived names chosen for use by the local community are changed to Hanyu Pinyin-derived names. For example, on this page the following edits have shifted the name from Cianjin to Qianjin over the past decade or more: July 2009 March 2010 February 2017. On different pages without the protection of these citations, the name gets switched by IPs & c. all the time June 2020 August 2020. It may seem like a drastic remedy to add a large number of references here, but it seems clear that multiple sources in combination can demonstrate what Cianjin wants for itself and show that what Cianjin wants is not ignored by the world, bringing a final, conclusive end to the decade-long edit war."
I would like your help in determining exactly to move forward. Let me know if you have a different opinion on this, or can think of a different methodology for stopping the edit war situation, which will continue indefinitely. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- You're citing the Daily Mail, unreliable websites, primary sources. I have no opinion on Taiwanese matters, but I note that the talk page is empty--and those edit summaries were...well, you've been here for 11 years, and I think you should know better. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Sammy Angott pro boxing record
You say it’s silly to put the flagicon in front of locations. Does this mean that I would need to put the distinction of the country in the description of the location or are you just saying that it shouldn’t be there at all?
If it’s the latter, then I don’t see what’s stopping you from heading over to Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Floyd Mayweather’s records and taking the flagicon off. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello CaPslOcksBroKEn. What's stopping me from a lot of things is the elementary consideration of food and time and ennui. No, certainly locations don't need flags. They NEVER need flags. Names of countries etc. don't even need links; see WP:OVERLINK. There is no purpose in having a thousand little US flags in a list of boxing results--what purpose does it serve? And imagine if that list were read to a visually-impaired reader--how would they see the forest for the trees? Even purely visually it's already distracting. So yes, please leave those flags out. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I won’t put anymore on Angott’s page, because it would be inconsistent as well as a waste of time to add them back and get in an edit war. For future articles I will consider it, and I can’t make any promises as It’s become a habit after inputing well over a thousand fights throughout Wikipedia. I noticed that you didn’t take out the flagicons for the fighters. Why is that?
Recent sock
Did you mean to allow TPA for this sock after you had previously blocked without TPA? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Only noticed it today (indeed, my eyesight is not getting any better!), minutes after being reverted by User:GiantSnowman the PAOK fanatic reinstated their storyline. Ah, i see that the "penalties against my team wrongfully given" bit is now sourced...by GREEK newspapers (yes, really "unbiased")!! They also continue to write extensively about the club's career in the manager article, when we have the seasonal club pages (for example 2020–21 PAOK FC season) to do so; their writing is also done in an attempt to belittle the coach, hold grudge much (thank God Pablo García has won all the matches so far, or else!)?
Reverted again, and I am not going to waste one more second engaging in conversation with this user, first time i did so (politely) was told to get a pair of glasses. Have no idea what a person of this caliber is doing here at WP, but to each their own i guess.
Take care! --Quite A Character (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Newsflash: i reinstated the Greek refs (that i previously removed, admit it), and called match "controversial". Hey man, at least i'm trying (to reach a compromise)! --Quite A Character (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Who is Abel Ferreira anyway? He's hardly my type. I mean, he's got a nice head of hair and all that, and he's probably richer than Croesus, but there is nothing there that makes me say, hey, yeah, what an exciting man to spend some time on... Drmies (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- A block is placed, and another. Let's see what the fallout will be. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
LOL ("nice head of hair")! Regarding your request in the article's edit summaries (the flagicons), i don't think i can accommodate man, i'm as dumb as they come regarding technicalities :(
P.S: bugger, i did not ask for any block, last week happened to me and i felt really frustrated, fortunately the other person was polite and gregarious, let's see how this one fares... --Quite A Character (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank god it was not indef (only one week), thanks mate! Let's see how the user fares now. --Quite A Character (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I just need you to remove those dumb flags. No, the block was deserved, and there may be a bit more to it--a longer, broader history of disruptive edits, and possibly a sock. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I tried, but fucked up real good like you before me :( No worries, i've just contacted table master :@Robby.is.on:, he'll fix it before we can say "14yearseditingthishereencyclopediaandi'mboredoutofmymindbutstillcan'tleavesuchablitheringidiot"... --Quite A Character (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding policy on external links. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Russell Islands".The discussion is about the topic Russell Islands.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
--Coastside (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
UNESCO articles
Hi Drmies. Since you nominated an article that's based entirely on UNESCO free content, I thought I'd make you aware of this discussion I started several years ago: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 137#Does/should WP:NOFULLTEXT apply to more than just primary sources? It's concerned me since I discovered these articles that they often present UNESCO's POV in Wikipedia's voice and fail to make use of other sources, that there are potential COI issues, and that their creation is actually being encouraged by the WMF (see Meta:Grants:Project/UNESCO/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020). I've not had much luck in getting others interested in the problem though. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I hadn't thought about that, and I wouldn't easily think "POV" and tie it to UNESCO--my concern was notability and secondary sourcing. But I will follow the links and have a look: thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I see now that there is a connection with this and a whole slew of such articles, all based on primary sources. Look at this one, Sustainable Development Goal 3, 42k with one single secondary source. I was amazingly unsuccessful here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable Development Goal 9, and I wonder about group editing and POV. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry, see Science and technology in Turkmenistan--I PRODded it. Ha, with my luck it's already been prodded once. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Science and technology in Turkmenistan is pretty terrible. If it survives the PROD, I'll see what I can do to improve it. "President Berdimuhammadov is far more committed to science than his predecessor" is indicative of a complete failure to apply WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Pinging Francis Schonken, who has showed an interest in these articles before. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- True, undigested free content (i.e. without at least a basic application of, say, Wikipedia's core content policies) is often problematic, whether or not the source comes from high places such as UNESCO. I was involved in a few of these cases, but some time ago: I can't remember on the spot which pages were involved, but will look it up if helpful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think most of the discussion was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 137#Does/should WP:NOFULLTEXT apply to more than just primary sources?, Francis Schonken, although as you note it was a while ago and I might have forgotten other discussions. Perhaps we could try to compile a list of the problematic UNESCO articles with an aim to address this problem once and for all? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Was also thinking about Help talk:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Updates to the "creating articles" section, my (largely unsuccessful) attempt to get some related guidance updated.
- Another one is Talk:Freedom of information#Suggested merge – as the merge is only supported, and not opposed, it might be the right time to proceed with that merge. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again, my personal interest here is not so much with the status of those kinds of sources, but with the articles. I see how they are related, yes. Those Sustainable Goals articles, that irritated me. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for those links, Francis Schonken, which have also alerted me to the fact that the lack of in-text attribution isn't just a WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV problem, but potentially a WP:PLAGIARISM one too. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think most of the discussion was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 137#Does/should WP:NOFULLTEXT apply to more than just primary sources?, Francis Schonken, although as you note it was a while ago and I might have forgotten other discussions. Perhaps we could try to compile a list of the problematic UNESCO articles with an aim to address this problem once and for all? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Usage geekery re: 86
So in two months I'll have been domiciled for 20 years in the 86ing capital of the world, where Alphadeltafoxtrot (who has worked in gaming since the Ford administration when Howard Hughes owned his employing facility) uses the verb "to eighty-six" with the specific connotation of telling a human that they are no longer welcome in an establishment one controls. Homicide is expressly not the connotation; if I 86 somebody from my house, it means they are being requested to just go the fudge away. Forever, ideally. Like, you 86 somebody who comes to your house for dinner and you find them swilling the vodka out of your wet bar straight from the bottle while they think everyone is in the kitchen trying to grapple with getting the ham out of the oven. You 86 somebody from your bar who drinks too much and picks fights and sexually grabs people.
Murdering them would be an imprudent overexercise of scarce, costly resources. A 86ed customer just needs to go away and not darken the doorstep any longer. Ditto an 86ed occupant of federal residential property.
I have very little time right now to research UNLV archives for documentation of this fine but critical distinction, but it means enough to me to fight for the reputation of the project, and for you and yours, that I'll do the best I can in the next couple of weeks. (Alternately: If there is a reliable source for this concept anywhere, UNLV probably has it, I have to believe.) - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- User:Julietdeltalima, I would have made it to LV this spring had it not been for the COVID--and if I would have overcome my moral scruples about gambling and the environmental footprint of the place; I'm still not sure about it. What has happened in that article is a feedback loop of sorts. Some idiot finds a minor little thingy that says "kill" and the entire right-wing blogosphere jumps on it to make the argument that Whitmer had practically hired an assassination squad, one that made ornaments and sold them on Etsy. And then some medium picks up on it and increases the traction, and then the next one, and all these right-wing editors jump on it, and then the wikilawyering starts, and before you know it we have the most ridiculous article whose only added value above that of a Wiktionary entry is a bunch of hot air that only reinforces how silly this is. Thank you; I hope you can do something with it. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Report filed at ANI has not yet recieved response
Hello. I recently filed a report at ANI about a user who engages in OR/Syth, edit warring, persistently adds low quality sources (including a non-peer-reviewed preprint), and refuses to engage/discuss (reverting me and completely ignoring my edit summaries trying to explain the problems with their edits). However, the report has been there for a while now, and although two non-admin users have commented (corroborating what I described), no admins have yet and nothing has been done. The user who is the subject of the report has begun to edit again and thus I worry the problem will continue (since they have a tendency to be unresponsive to explanations and to make strange and unfounded accusations). I'm not sure what to do. I am contacting you because I believe it was you who edited the title of my report soon after it was filed. I hope doing so is not inappropriate (is there some one else I should contact? Sould I perhaps re-file the report?) Here is a link to my report: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#USER:Toltol15_making_WP:OR_edits_and_edits_using_low_quality_sources,_ignoring_edit_notes/edit_wars,_and_refusing_to_engage/discuss Is there another admin I should perhaps also contact? )I have also left a similar message for administrator User:Doug Weller.) Any help is appreciated. Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Skllagyook, given that WP:ANI 2.0 was deleted, and I don't know you from Adam, how did you get here? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps "ANI" is the wrong term. The place I filed the report is at the link I left above. I contacted you because I believe you were the one who initially edited the title of my report, here [[4]] (a tenuous reason I do realize). If it was inapropriate for me to post here I apologize. Should I delete this post? My apologies again.Skllagyook (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- No apology necessary--but since I'm a bit of a social media whore I'm always interested in where my clicks come from. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I saw the post and I see why you might have thought of me. Yes, that editor is problematic and I left a comment there. Thank you, and hit that like button. Don't forget to subscribe for more daily content! Drmies (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Lol! And thank you very much. Skllagyook (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I saw the post and I see why you might have thought of me. Yes, that editor is problematic and I left a comment there. Thank you, and hit that like button. Don't forget to subscribe for more daily content! Drmies (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- No apology necessary--but since I'm a bit of a social media whore I'm always interested in where my clicks come from. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps "ANI" is the wrong term. The place I filed the report is at the link I left above. I contacted you because I believe you were the one who initially edited the title of my report, here [[4]] (a tenuous reason I do realize). If it was inapropriate for me to post here I apologize. Should I delete this post? My apologies again.Skllagyook (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
You're an academic, does this read right to you? Doug Weller talk 10:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- It reads fluffy...and it needs a bunch of rewriting, pruning those quotes and all that. But rewriting this and sourcing it better shouldn't be hard for a person with such public exposure. Sorry, gotta run... Drmies (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Instance of admin abuse by Drmies. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Berrely your post is a bit of "Department of Redundancy Department" red tape as Drmies had already been made aware of the ANI thread above. MarnetteD|Talk 17:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
LOL (or not)!
New account (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%CE%9C%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%82), is this person for real? Of course, Mr. Ferreira was again "worked on"...
P.S. Don't know if out of sarcasm or not (assuming good faith? After nearly 15 years, i'm well past that stage), but this person thanked me for an edit i performed in the aforementioned article. Regards, keep it up --Quite A Character (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Wrote them another polite message, let's see if i don't regret this! --Quite A Character (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- One of these days you need to buy me a beer. Maybe one day we'll get to sit down and watch a rerun of that Ajax - Milan game in 1995. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Of course this person is not for real. Human beings are a hoax created by the corporate establishment to sell water. Darkknight2149 23:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's making me thirsty. Hey User:Darkknight2149, I gotta run. Will you do me a favor, and see if there is any hope for Draft:John Kagotho Mbugua? Thanks! Vaselineeeeeeee, maybe you have the Kenyan bishop directory assistance on speed dial? Drmies (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: The corporate establishment is not real, it is a hoax created by the enemies of Slack. Or maybe by the enemies of the one true creator of all that is and ever will be, I sometimes get confused.
~~~~ <-- noodly appendeges
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Of course this person is not for real. Human beings are a hoax created by the corporate establishment to sell water. Darkknight2149 23:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
that guru
... with the lengthened block: not true that all warnings are still on the talk, - not mine, for example --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by "stalker"?
When I was looking through my contribs to see something, I saw that you put "stalker" for the block reason of User:JeanAndreMarc. Out of curiosity, how did he/she stalk? 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 19:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- (TPS) @4thfile4thrank: They were reverting the contributions of one particular editor. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite, did you ever see this? Drmies (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't, but it sounds interesting. Looking at the plot summary brings to mind this far more recent film. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, I've seen that--but maybe only the first half or so. (I sometimes remark on Wikipedia that I have a terrible memory, and it's true--I rented Heist three times.) It was very scary. I think I am going to watch it again. The Tarkovsky film has none of those fancy special effects, and it's slow going--but there's a real kicker at the end. A few years ago we had a student who was going to write a master's thesis on it, connecting it to the Grail legend, but he disappeared--possibly into the Zone. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I like films that are more pedestrian sometimes. I've just looked and it's £2 to watch on Amazon Prime, so I'll file that away for sometime I've got 3 hours spare! Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, I've seen that--but maybe only the first half or so. (I sometimes remark on Wikipedia that I have a terrible memory, and it's true--I rented Heist three times.) It was very scary. I think I am going to watch it again. The Tarkovsky film has none of those fancy special effects, and it's slow going--but there's a real kicker at the end. A few years ago we had a student who was going to write a master's thesis on it, connecting it to the Grail legend, but he disappeared--possibly into the Zone. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't, but it sounds interesting. Looking at the plot summary brings to mind this far more recent film. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite, did you ever see this? Drmies (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just look at what they were doing. And see this, which I saw after I blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Serious matter, i think: now, a guy who complained about me to an admin regarding another article (without even notifying me!), has joined forces with the sock in the article, reinstating their overdetail. I have already written them a message on the matter (polite of course), and they have replied, we seem to be getting along :)
Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
yolo yeet?
Um, I'm not sure how to ask this, but do you have small kids at home who have access to your keyboard? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- You can tell that was Drmies because actual kids haven't said "yolo" or "yeet" in years.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pogs, Floquenbeam. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I assume Drmies was just modifying the template in a manner that would make it more understandable to this particular vandal. The PEN15 is mightier than the sword.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Y'all saw that I was corrected by an experienced editor and given some solid advice on how to conduct myself in the future. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I see nothing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, Davidwr, that is spectacular. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Every time I see those words, I *hear* it in my head like this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I see nothing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Y'all saw that I was corrected by an experienced editor and given some solid advice on how to conduct myself in the future. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings from the Golden State
I have been reading some family news posted by your wife on that other website. I just want you to know that I care about all of you, and hope that everything ends up OK. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you sir. So far so good: we've all tested negative, some of us more than once. Unfortunately sweet Rosie can't taste a thing, and she loves cooking. She should be ready to go back to school, though. Thanks Cullen. We hope you, and Deb, and the sons, and the granddaughter are well too. You know Mrs. Drmies is quite fond of you; I will tell her of your note. Now about those elections! I kinda wish I could have seen your livestream, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Worth reading. There is hope. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Haha when I read "...or taste your favorite dish" I misread "dish" for a different word. Thanks Cullen; I'll show this to Rosie, who made delicious dumplings and dipping sauce for lunch. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen, that is scary, man. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Worth reading. There is hope. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Possible canvassing
Hey, Drmies. Hope you're well. There's an incident in which your advice might help. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to insert the WP:FRINGE theory that the Panda Bar massacre was "possibly" committed by the Kosovo Liberation Army and they also removed the Yugoslav/Serbian security services as one of the possible culprits. It's WP:FRINGE because an official Serbian investigation has concluded that no Albanian involvement existed whatsoever and Serbia officially has acknowledged that the perpetrators were actually agents from the Serbian state security agency of the Milosevic regime. It's one of those rare cases where the victims have gotten at least some answers - although they probably won't get any justice 20+ years after the event (side comment). The WP:FRINGE aspect of the dispute probably should be discussed on AE, so my question involves another issue. Amanuensis Balkanicus after reverting me, was reverted by another editor and then left a message on Sadko's talkpage and informed him to check it out (in reference to him being reverted) with the section title "vandalism". Then Sadko removed the message from his talkpage and made reverts similar to AB's and reinserted the same WP:FRINGE theory. I wasn't aware of the exchange between AB-Sadko until another editor mentioned it on the talkpage [5]. Now, in my book, that looks like a possible case of canvassing in order to get support in a dispute. Is that form of notification acceptable? --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, but it's minimal; the non-neutral part can be inferred from "vandalism" but no admin is going to block for that. Editors are tag-teaming, which isn't unusual in that area. What I think you should do, and that would be more fruitful than asking me, is take this to arbitration enforcement, following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. It's been quiet there for a while, but I see that EvergreenFir put one editor on 1R recently. Precisely what you are charging editors with, that's up to you. Maybe canvassing or tag-teaming, with false charges of vandalism, creating a hostile atmosphere? But then again, maybe Kurir is an unreliable source--and if so, then you can be charged with inserting information based on poor sources... Drmies (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I moved beyond the 2011 Kurir report because much newer reports came up in the following years, so it was WP:OUTDATED in many ways.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- You made your edit, and someone reverted pointing at TABLOID; I assume it was the Kurir source, which was indeed cited in your edit. I'm just telling you what I see and what possible consequences that might have in an arbitration case. I do think all of y'all should be headed towards arbitration, and let the chips fall where they may: surely you're all getting tired of each other. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- And I added newer sources then since that was disputed, but I don't think that the Kurir report was tabloid per se given how the events unfolded since then. I would definitely support an all-ending arbitration regarding several disputes, but - unfortunately - I don't see that happening any time soon for many reasons.--Maleschreiber (talk)
- Anytime you leave a source like that in, and you have to argue (if someone were to ask) that "it's proven by events afterward", you're not a in a very strong position. I'm just telling you like it is--I've seen it happen in other DS areas. But if I were you, I'd consider starting a small case, on one or two articles. BTW I'd tell your opponents the same thing, if any one of them think I'm coaching you or something. I don't even know what the sides are in this dispute. And to all your opponents: please do NOT feel the need to start all that all over again here--I might simply revert with a pointer to WP:ARE. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right - personally, I support community discussions but many times they end up being TL;DR less than an hour after an editor starts them. And then nobody wants to actually check anything, because it's daunting, but I'll go towards that direction in the future. Thanks! --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Anytime you leave a source like that in, and you have to argue (if someone were to ask) that "it's proven by events afterward", you're not a in a very strong position. I'm just telling you like it is--I've seen it happen in other DS areas. But if I were you, I'd consider starting a small case, on one or two articles. BTW I'd tell your opponents the same thing, if any one of them think I'm coaching you or something. I don't even know what the sides are in this dispute. And to all your opponents: please do NOT feel the need to start all that all over again here--I might simply revert with a pointer to WP:ARE. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- And I added newer sources then since that was disputed, but I don't think that the Kurir report was tabloid per se given how the events unfolded since then. I would definitely support an all-ending arbitration regarding several disputes, but - unfortunately - I don't see that happening any time soon for many reasons.--Maleschreiber (talk)
- You made your edit, and someone reverted pointing at TABLOID; I assume it was the Kurir source, which was indeed cited in your edit. I'm just telling you what I see and what possible consequences that might have in an arbitration case. I do think all of y'all should be headed towards arbitration, and let the chips fall where they may: surely you're all getting tired of each other. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I moved beyond the 2011 Kurir report because much newer reports came up in the following years, so it was WP:OUTDATED in many ways.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hope that you don't mind me jumping in, Drmies. I am sorry, but I must ask - what was the point of this message? I can also read a lot of subtle hostility and intolerance for other party's position... I was notified about the dispute, I joined and did what I think is the good deed - I removed the blunt tabloid used for an exceptional claim and restored back to the stable version of the article. That is not canvassing, even less so because I would spot the dispute sooner or later, considering that I follow a number of related articles and I try to contribute as much as my work will let me. If there is a clear guideline/rule which states that you can't leave messages to other senior editors on their own talk page when you think that he/she might contribute in the dispute (one way or another), please do let me know - and I'll bear that in mind. We do not have a "secret channel" or correspondence anywhere outside Wiki, which would constitute some of the good old canvassing, wouldn't it? If one is to read the talk page debate, he/she can see that editor who is complaining here has not presented a source for his main claim, that is, that "the Serbian government has officially acknowledged that the event was done by Serbian forces". Notice that the editor who is making this /report/ has not answered anybody when asked where that claim was confirmed. Aside from that, people who were dealing with the matter pointed out that the event was probably done either by the KLA or a rogue unit, as a revenge attack for the actions of Serbian/Yugoslav police. That is a fact, backed by multiple reliable sources. I find it outrageous that there are no real sources for this exceptional claim, rather than making it a story about an ongoing plot - and there is none. Please assume good faith, as I do. P.S: I shall not comment/respond further here. Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sadko, look at the little schematic on WP:CANVAS. Maleschreiber is arguing, I think, that it's canvassing because of 2 and 3: it was partisan and not neutral. Much of that will hinge on interpreting the somewhat brief and cryptic text that accompanied, which is why I said few admins would block for it, but I think most admins will agree that it is an effort to enlist another editor. If the editor had said "hey what do you think of this?", it would have taken one of the possibly two elements of canvassing out of the equation.
As for the KLA or whatever, you know that I know nothing about this subject matter at all so arguing one side or another is useless. I did, of course, have a look at the article. So much fighting and so little writing! "KLA" needs to be spelled out and linked. "Civilian" and "ambush" don't need to be linked. In the timeline, some of the salient facts should be repeated: "On 14 December 1998, when a fragile ceasefire was in effect during the Kosovo War, Serbian police ambushed an incursion by the Kosovo Liberation Army, killing at least 31 people in the process" or something like that. "Within hours of the border ambush, the KLA vowed revenge" needs to go: the BBC source connects that to the brutal murder of that official, not to the shooting in the bar, and our article right now suggests cause and effect. I think y'all should remove "suspected KLA gunmen" from that second sentence in the Timeline section, and hold it for later; I think you should move that entire passage starting "Western diplomats" and place it later. There is no article linked to the Judah reference, so it's not clear whether his thoughts matter; I found something in his article and will stick it in there--please check if that's the right one. OH--it is, and whoever wrote "the journalist Tim Judah suggests that the attack may have been carried out by a rogue unit" should be ashamed of themselves: Judah says no such thing. He says "Whether they [the KLA] were [responsible for the Panda Bar killing], or whether whether the killings were committed by a rogue unit, as some of the diplomats believed, hardly mattered now".
OK. Wittgenstein said that that many of the problems of philosophy are problems of language, and how can you all ever expect some sort of consensual article building when there are problems even before we get to the problems? Drmies (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sadko, look at the little schematic on WP:CANVAS. Maleschreiber is arguing, I think, that it's canvassing because of 2 and 3: it was partisan and not neutral. Much of that will hinge on interpreting the somewhat brief and cryptic text that accompanied, which is why I said few admins would block for it, but I think most admins will agree that it is an effort to enlist another editor. If the editor had said "hey what do you think of this?", it would have taken one of the possibly two elements of canvassing out of the equation.
User:CorrectionalFacility101
This user back in May changed referenced information concerning Ash'ari to Athari, stating,"Ibn Tumart was Athari in creed not Ashari. He was from a group called the zahiris who were fiercely anti-ashari as was its main founders Dawud Az-Zahiri and its most proliferous scholar, Ibn Hazm." The information in question is referenced and clearly supports Ash'ari (page 44).
Now after a brief hiatus, CorrectionalFacility101 is back and has again changed Ash'ari to Orthodox Athari and changed the wording of the referenced quote from;
- ""Talbis Iblis, by the Ash'ari theologian Ibn al-Jauzi, contains strong attacks on the Sufis, though the author makes a distinction between an older purer Sufism and the "modern" one,"
- to;
- while leaving the reference there, thus making this source misrepresentation.
Needless to say, I checked the latest change and verified the quote and reverted them. I had posted on their talk page back in Dec 2019 and considering they have warnings from 4 other editors, I feel it may be time for an Admin to have a "talk" with them. Hopefully they will not make anymore changes to referenced information, but I am not optimistic. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 41
Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020
- New partnership: Taxmann
- WikiCite
- 1Lib1Ref 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)