- With thanks to User:RexxS: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Please read and edit accordingly.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141 |
Yonkers Police Department Page (Again)
Hey sorry to bother again but I am having a bit of a issue. I am attempting to post the Yonkers Police page again which I revamped but it is not letting me stating "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist." Is there anyway you can help me out with posting the page again? Thank you for your time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ay%C5%9Feg%C3%BCl_Y%C3%BCksel
Sehr geehrter Drimes. Mein Englischkentnisse ist mangelhaft. Deshalb habe ich bei Ayşegül Yüksel möglicherweise ein Fehler gemacht. Vor Jahren hatten Sie mir mit der englischen Atilla Engin-Seite geholfen. Jetzt brauche ich wieder Ihre Hilfe. Können Sie mir für die Ayşegül Yüksel Seite helfen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ay%C5%9Feg%C3%BCl_Y%C3%BCksel Vielen Dank --Gemalmaz ileti 22:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gemalmaz--kein Problem. But the problem for this article will be properly sourcing the biography section. That's always difficult for writers/academics, and especially for someone for whom there might not be a lot of English sourcing available (and my Turkish ... well let's not talk about that). Look at the edits I made. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism on Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels
Hi Drmies! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you kindly, my friend! :-) I just wanted to shoot you an FYI to let you know that I went and extended the block that you applied to 86.185.199.66. I extended it from 31 hours to match the same one-month block that you applied to 89.211.181.104. Aside from the abuse that was observed, and the obvious fact that this is the same user who's IP hopping and adding the same vandalism back to the article - I ran a WHOIS on both IP addresses, and they originate to completely different countries and ISPs. I find it very highly likely that these IP addresses are both open proxies or VPNs. Hence, the reason I extended the block. Knowing you as well as I do, I highly doubt that you'll have any objection to what I did, but if you do object to the block extension that I placed, please let me know as soon as possible so that we can discuss it and make sure that the appropriate resulting actions are taken. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oshwah--interesting, thanks. Now look at this. I don't know who the best person is to ask for advice: someone with institutional memory and some expertise on that proxy stuff. Zzuuzz is always my go-to expert... Drmies (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, VPNs. Given the proxies, likely location, irrelevance and narcissism, you'd think this was Blue Barette Bam. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you zzuuzz. Yes, now I remember that target of theirs. This editor is a waste of electrons. Zzuuzz, please adjust blocks as you see fit? Is this a case where someone can drop a ton of VPN/proxy blocks, even if they won't do all that much? I think it's still $1 for one of those blocks, right? Drmies (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Zzuuzz - That's exactly what I figured - VPNs. I'm available and happy to help should my assistance be needed; just let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, VPNs. Given the proxies, likely location, irrelevance and narcissism, you'd think this was Blue Barette Bam. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Imjimmer
Just saw that you blocked Imjimmer (talk · contribs) for 72 hours. I fear that they are worse than just extremely rude: They inserted File:Portuguese India 16-17th centuries.png, a map by Hugo Refachinho in this edit, and File:Persian Gulf z1507-1750.gif in this edit. The latter one has been created by a sock of Hugo R., see meta:Special:CentralAuth/Ruyandrada. They also created two maps that have the same idea that H's maps have: Showing the greatness of the Portuguese empire. For the abuse history of Hugo R., see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hugo_Refachinho. All the best for you and your work, Rsk6400 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Spammer
See Special:Contributions/Helengalmonte. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
HaughtonBrit
Hey Drmies can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit? I think only you and Callanecc (not so active) got the logs of this case. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
New editor with "bot" edit summaries
Hey, I noticed a new editor [1] who is making edit summaries that give the misleading impression that the edit is being made by a community approved bot instead of a new editor. I see that in their tp there is a template with a complaint about one of their edits. Isn't making such misleading edit summaries an issue? I have not checked their edits to see if they are all good or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks--fun thing, I saw that name and for some reason noticed it. They need to stop that. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for having stopped it. I reverted their edit to one of my articles - the edit summary alone had not alerted me, but seeing what they were doing. Will the other edits also be reverted? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- ... and roses for yours in the edit notice, with an excellent message - I read my own from time to time, DYK? - Two bios under the recent deaths, sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for improving articles in June! My song collection is especially rich, look, and the hall where I first heard DFD, Pierre Boulez and Murray Perahia. Do you find the baby deer in the meadow (last row)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
silly bot
This is a troll bot, take a look at this. They're not fixing any redirects - they're just pointlessly piping them. And now they're mass welcoming vandals/random users via what appears to be a bot. Please just block them entirely. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard
On 15 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard is the only U.S. cemetery reserved exclusively for coon dog burials? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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. |
— Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Privacy concern
I have a privacy concern about the use of an email-address here. I don't think that is useful as a source, nor is it a good idea. But as I have dumped IRC, I have no idea how to get it hidden. The Banner talk 08:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
A beer for you!
cheers! Thanks! Lectorlatinoamericano (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC) |
Class dismissed!
Well they certainly weren't interested in what you had to say on the matter, were they? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ha, and then I accidentally rolled back your edit to the article. That talk page history is itself reason enough for a block. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just wanted to make sure you saw the "erudite" comment. What's the point of a compliment if the complimentee never sees it?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I saw it, and I'm still blushing. My wife has many words for me but that's never been one of em. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- At least they did not tell you to, "fuck off."[citation needed] --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I saw it, and I'm still blushing. My wife has many words for me but that's never been one of em. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just wanted to make sure you saw the "erudite" comment. What's the point of a compliment if the complimentee never sees it?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Just happy to be here and hoping I can get back to helping the ball club
It was really awesome that my first substantive AIV report in many months got immediately acted upon by one of my favorite Wikipeople. Much obliged! Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
- Woohoo! But that one was easy. I did revdelete a bunch of that racist stuff. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't know that ...
weird fellow.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- And you've been deceiving us all these years. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Re your earlier block of User:CheckersBoard
You might want to take a look at this edit, and the accompanying edit summary. [2] I get the distinct impression that CheckersBoard is trying to pick a fight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
And see also the talk page. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm--I saw one of their edits go by this morning but didn't check. Let's see. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. There is no place for that. Thanks Andy. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, could you please help me?
Hi Drmies, this user is accusing in an AE Request that I am following him and targeting his edits.[4] Is there any ability on the part of you administrators to tell if I have arrived at this article by looking for the list of contributions of the user in question? Thank you very much.
PS. I suspect that the user is following me all the time. How could he get to these articles every time I edit, without having made a contribution before?[5] Is there any way to tell if he got to these articles by checking my history?--Mhorg (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can use the tools here to get a breakdown of the timeline of your edits and theirs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interest @ScottishFinnishRadish:, however I would need to prove that I did not arrive at an article by checking the user's history, but arrived there independently. Mhorg (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- We typically only look who's first to edit the article, which is about all we can do. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is so sad, thank you Drmies.
- Would you like to participate in this AE Request? Currently there is only one administrator dealing with it. Mhorg (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was wrapping up my comments while you were typing this, Mhorg--and I'm sorry to say that I am troubled by some aspects of your editing there. Please note that my problems with your editing are focused on very specific things: RS, but especially the BLP. You seem to have a habit of dropping suggestive remarks (or test balloons), like about Zelenskyy and the Nazi picture--but you just can't do that here. And you can't say "Sources about the unreliability of her rape reports" as a heading on an article talk page, stating something that is a matter of argument, not a matter of fact. At the very least you should have said "alleged". But the Denisova edits--I cannot, we cannot let you make highly negative comments about this woman's life and work across a spectrum of article, in article space and in edit summaries. You need to leave that be, one way or another, and if the AE request doesn't close with a topic ban, then you should expect all those edits to be scrutinized from the BLP perspective. You were notified of the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom for BLPs, and I urge you to take that seriously. Leave her alone. Don't remove content from other articles where she's mentioned, and don't write up edit summaries that clearly and unnecessarily reflect negatively on her. Phrase edit summaries etc. in ways that do not insert unnecessary detail or opinion. This is important. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- [I wrote this without reading your last answer] Of course Drmies, I accept criticism and am ready to improve if I get something wrong. I often don't know any rules, if you notice I often ask questions to other users. However, for me the important thing is that there are several administrators to look into the matter, one administrator is already talking about a Tban. I don't think I deserve it, and I think I have the sources to back up those actions I took (among other things, for the first time since I've been on Wikipedia I'm doing text removals per WP:BOLD, which is practically the technique adopted every day by the user My very best wishes everywhere on every articles). Thank you. Mhorg (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok Drmies, I understood what you mean. And I will try to be more careful in the future. However, do you think something like that counts as a Tban? Can't it be quietly discussed on the talk pages as it is with any other character and with all other users? I don't understand why I have to take a Tban for matters where there are sources about it, and they are matters of some importance. This lady has been heavily criticised in her own country. And by the way, I should point out: I tried to remove that part once, then I tried to group it, then I added information on criticism. Would all this be destructive behaviour? I am being accused as if I have been editingwarring on the article for months.
- And it would be the last straw if a Tban was triggered by a user who is breathing down my neck, who has already been admonished by an administrator, and who has resumed wikihounding me (and even denies it!).
- Sorry for the outburst, and thanks for your opinion. Mhorg (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, that's fine. But the BLP is a serious matter. Yes, all those things can be discussed, to a certain extent--first of all, they need to be discussed neutrally, so that means neutral section headings. Second, the edit summaries--but I don't want to repeat myself again and I don't want to scold you here. Third, such material needs to be discussed based on reliable sources, which is also why the Zelenskyy thing was problematic for me. Finally, Wikihounding--as I said at AE, I don't want to get into the personal interactions. El_C made that note, and I assume they did so for a reason, but it was a year ago and I cannot judge whether that is at all relevant to these highly visible and frequently edited articles; I tried to judge on the merit of the diffs. And a promise to be more careful in certain matters might help you at AE as well. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- [I wrote this without reading your last answer] Of course Drmies, I accept criticism and am ready to improve if I get something wrong. I often don't know any rules, if you notice I often ask questions to other users. However, for me the important thing is that there are several administrators to look into the matter, one administrator is already talking about a Tban. I don't think I deserve it, and I think I have the sources to back up those actions I took (among other things, for the first time since I've been on Wikipedia I'm doing text removals per WP:BOLD, which is practically the technique adopted every day by the user My very best wishes everywhere on every articles). Thank you. Mhorg (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was wrapping up my comments while you were typing this, Mhorg--and I'm sorry to say that I am troubled by some aspects of your editing there. Please note that my problems with your editing are focused on very specific things: RS, but especially the BLP. You seem to have a habit of dropping suggestive remarks (or test balloons), like about Zelenskyy and the Nazi picture--but you just can't do that here. And you can't say "Sources about the unreliability of her rape reports" as a heading on an article talk page, stating something that is a matter of argument, not a matter of fact. At the very least you should have said "alleged". But the Denisova edits--I cannot, we cannot let you make highly negative comments about this woman's life and work across a spectrum of article, in article space and in edit summaries. You need to leave that be, one way or another, and if the AE request doesn't close with a topic ban, then you should expect all those edits to be scrutinized from the BLP perspective. You were notified of the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom for BLPs, and I urge you to take that seriously. Leave her alone. Don't remove content from other articles where she's mentioned, and don't write up edit summaries that clearly and unnecessarily reflect negatively on her. Phrase edit summaries etc. in ways that do not insert unnecessary detail or opinion. This is important. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- We typically only look who's first to edit the article, which is about all we can do. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interest @ScottishFinnishRadish:, however I would need to prove that I did not arrive at an article by checking the user's history, but arrived there independently. Mhorg (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
For recent cases of wikihounding, I appeal to your kindness, if you could at least verify these 7 links, at least maybe I would get some justice (note that no admin has yet taken any of my points into consideration, only those of my opponent), as the user has harassed me last year and has started to do so again (and now he is probably getting a tban against me, which was what he had long dreamed of, to exclude me from discussions).
Talking about the BLP issue, I am taking advantage of this unpleasant situation to learn how to handle certain situations. The user now accuses me of this too.[6] Considering that the source is first class in Italy (the first Italian channel), and that several sources have spoken about it, that the text seems to me to be neutrally reported, and that it seems to me to respect the WP:PUBLICFIGURE, is there a BLP violation here too? Thank you for your patience.--Mhorg (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if you'll have time to deal with these reports of mine, even if they don't clarify the violations I have committed, they will at least clarify who the person is who is attacking me and painting me as a malicious user. Dennis unfortunately seems to believe him, as he writes "as you tend to talk 'at' other editors rather than 'with' them", but I can assure you that the only hostile exchanges in discussions I've had are with MVBW and maybe a couple of other users (with some of them we've even resolved peacefully. I sometimes lose my patience when users talk in forum terminology without bringing sources).
- Also, note that I never got a warning from administrators for my behaviour, I only got a one-day block[7] for clashing with a sockpuppet[8] (which you busted, I don't know if you remember: "User:LauraWilliamson is a sock of a particularly irritating longterm disruptor; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordimalo/Archive. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2021"). I asked EdJohnston if he could remove the block from the counter, but he told me it was impossible.[9]
- That said, I have read your assessment carefully and am fine with accepting the ban on Denisova and related issues. I have tried to take note of all the points about BLP, and edit summaries, etc., and I will make sure I stick to the advice you gave. In short, I would like the opportunity to prove that this was a mistake, and a lack of understanding of BLP rules. Had I known they were so tight, I would have been much more careful. Mhorg (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)