User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Gilley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gilley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Tom Reedy (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hy , hope you are well, can you please protect the Kosovo Serbs page, it has been a subject of this ip vandalism [[1]] who changed information from the source, source is open access pg 97. [[2]] with information according to the article, but the ip keeps on replacing 150000 figure with "a number". Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi--well, I can't see the page, but I'll take your word for it, and I've reverted another of the IP's edits. But I am not going to semi-protect an article because of three edits, all of which have been reverted; I see nothing in the history that warrants that. Actually I'm surprised at how little the article has been fucked around with, given BALKAN and all that. You warned the IP editor: if they keep it up I'll be happy to block them. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay thanks, but just been wondering how can you not access the source or the page? [[3]], it was quite easy for me. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mysteries of Google Books will not be unearthed until the stars fall from the sky. Plus, your link was for "hrvatski" and I'm here firmly in "en" territory; I have seen this before, where Google Books links from one language/country don't work in another. Or, I have no answer for it, haha. I see it's rainy and sad today in Croatia, so take care, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will apply them. I recognise I've made mistakes such as using the edit reasons for writing long texts. I will improve myself as an Wiki editor and I won't edit again as an unregistered user without this account. Thank you! Navarran94 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good luck, and thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never seen an IP with so much crap on them and so much evidence against them being spared. You know how User:Asilah1981 operated and have an experience how these kinds of accounts work. The case for Sockpuppeting is more than clear, despite the subtle evading technics. The editor above is obviously not new in the ENWP, and has not provided any explanations on that.

    I can only foresee more toxic activity by the account above. He has populated Juan Sebastián Elcano with my name and that of another user associating us to a ideological profile. Do walls and noise pay off? Sadly, it looks like it does. Iñaki LL (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Iñaki LL, by all means start an SPI if you think there were other accounts before. That's all I can say right now--sorry. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "With so much crap on them" @

    WP:NPA

    against me? This user is shameless and doesn't know the meaning of that word it seems.

    Now he even accuses me of being another user, of course @Iñaki LL: you have a strong ideological profile that determines your edits, it's proven in your edits, the way you break WP:WALLS and WP:NPA against me, with his extreme hatred against my persona, to the point of arriving to a WikiAdmin's Talk Page where I said thanks for the advices and you insult me "so much crap on you" you should be ashamed of your hooligan-style behavior.

    Wikipedia is not your personal blog and it has to remain unbiased. The fact that you didn't revert the actions of a WP:SPA that changed the stable lead in that page indicates it might be your sockpuppet, I'm open for any SPA as I have never used any other account, if you are obsessed with another user is your problem, not mine, but what I won't tolerate is you to come here to insult me. Shame on you.

    Sorry @Drmies: for this. This is the last time I will tolerate this. I have been receiving constant and repeated personal attacks from this user against myself, constant and repeat claims saying I'm someone else, and I'm tired, next time he goes directly to the administrator's noticeboard because I am tired to see attacks, insults and accusations against myself. Navarran94 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealistic. Again a textwall for an account that has only contributed noise and rage to the ENWP. Outside goals in Spain and pressure on admins, just take a look at the names. Only hope that noise does not pay off. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navarran, if you take something like that to a noticeboard, you should expect a boomerang. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, note that he is again reverting the edits even when the lead is being discussed. The misrepresentation of sources is even more clear when he claims that the maximum authority in Basque language is "some kind of association". If we allow everything, then I don't know why we have discussions and rules. Theklan (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand, I've just said that to prove until which point I can I arrive to prove I'm not any other account like that user says. Now both came here when I've just made this to thank you for your advices.

I've also received another personal attack and false accusations (check Elcano's talk page) these users are desperate to get me banned. But I won't fall in that game. And yes, the Basque Language Academy is an academy, not an association, my bad, now Theklan sticks to that (both here and in the talk page) to say my edits are not valid.

I don't understand why they come here. They still try to get me banned after 2 ANIs. Personal attacks against me are still present. I say thanks to an admin and they come here to accuse me. I think now they try to force me to leave Wikipedia, I feel harassed. I'm sorry but this is not right. Navarran94 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted you on a minor thing: please see

Spanish people"--but that's kind of silly, given the link I just gave you. Or you could ask "should we add 'currently in Spain'", which I think will be met with an overwhelming "what's it matter". I'm telling you this from experience. But you are welcome to try. However, if it is not phrased neutrally, it will very likely be shut down and only lead to more disputes. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you Drmies, well the first thing is only by these 2 specific users and their words against me, but it seems both have changed their mind and they engage in the talk page without making accusations so I am glad of that. That's a start to solve a dispute.

And yes I am eager to find a consensus as well but unfortunately there is still no consensus in there (I hope it will be one soon) I support the proposal of another user, it would be the most factually accurate lead, either that or the actual one which is practically the same as it was before the SPA changed it to just Basque, something the sources mention but don't support as most mention Spanish too and more say just Spanish than even mentioning Basque... but I am okay with keeping Basque as well.

I didn't know the overlink thing and I am ok with that, I won't add it again since now I know what it means. I really appreciate your advices and I will apply them, they are very helpful for my future edits in the Wikipedia. If I do something wrong please tell me and I will improve it. Thank you! Navarran94 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That those same talking heads that discounted Bama's one point win will scream unnecessary run up of the score today. Asking for a friend. Tiderolls 23:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm tell your friend (who likely plays golf) that that's par for the course. I made a rude joke in response to a rude joke by a Georgia troll on an Alabama Insta page. Georgia is just absolutely overwhelming this year, but talking trash never improved anything or anyone. Alabama might have scored 60+ points in the first quarter but I was grading and forgot to check when the game started. OMG, I just saw the finish of the Troy game. Ouch. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rude? You? Pfffftt. Yeah, App State is a giant killer. Like Coach says, discount your opponent at your own risk. Tiderolls 23:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • App State should be paying ranked teams to play them! I remember that day. If I was Troy, I would not have played them! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, me too--but didn't Troy beat some giant too a few years ago? LSU? Haha years ago there was a proposal to change something curriculum-wise on our campus, and it was perceived to water down our excellence (yeah), and one of my colleagues said "No! We're not Troy!" (We have a Troy campus in town.) Then, I thought yeah, we're not. Now, I feel different. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is going on with all these articles related to "chandler" being hijacked into articles about a completely unrelated person? Is there something in the water/news lately that I've missed? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know, but it's an LTA, and the less you do the better. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect you've wandered into the morass regarding online forum Kiwi Farms. My apologies. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know more than me! Please, enlighten me. As far as I'm concerned I'm dealing with an incel troll who needs a hobby--for the second or third time in a couple of days.
      • Kiwi Farms began as a forum dedicated to harassing and making fun of someone they know as Chris Chan, whose last name is Chandler. This person has repeatedly been suggested as an article subject and/or for inclusion in the Kiwi Farms article, and rightfully, to my mind, has been roundly rejected as a form of victimization. It seems the denizens of the forum are branching out in their quest to continue victimizing this person in particular. I'm sorry I had to impart that information, and even sorrier I knew it in the first place. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not just kiwifarms, any place where shitbags congregate. 4chan and others I won't mention, as to avoid promoting them. The level of harassment is one of the worst things about the Internet, and that's obviously saying a lot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dumuzid, thanks. There really is no lower limit, is there. Where did Milton's Satan say that, about perceiving a hell below his hell? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          Ayeah, it's hells all the way down. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I'm not a prude, although I think we handle sex related articles best following the path of least astonishment. An editor, Leesjy2k, seems to be on a mission to do the exact opposite. I reverted one addition that was pretty obvious, on Doggy style, then took a look at his contribs, which all seem to focus on adding the most graphic photos he can find to articles. To me, this seems like a problem, but wanted an outside opinion from you and/or your stalkers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the picture doesn't add anything educational to the article. The illustration provides the necessary visual context, and the other images provide historical context in art. Seems somewhat disruptive to add those images just to wave around notcensored. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prudishness aside, the image was a very poor illustration, compatible with a wide variety of sexual positions. There are many good reasons to have reverted. JBL (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearly not needed here, but want to chime in to say I think we're capable of walking a line between prudishness and prurient middle school sensibilities--so yeah. Very much in agreement. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it was me, I'd leave it in. The 2 top pics together give a pretty clear illustration. If you look at Doggy style you shouldn't be amazed to see this... Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skiyomi? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a couple of them. I think it's all way too much. One of the images was a diagram that I'm fine with but the others, no so much. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the user went on to do more, here (reverted by AndyTheGrump, and in Urination, which I just reverted. User talk:Leesjy2k, we are well into disruptive territory here. User:Dennis Brown, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:JayBeeEll, User:Dumuzid, User:Johnbod, User:Deepfriedokra, this is really fetishistic editing. I'm wondering if, if the user doesn't respond and if they continue, if we shouldn't get a topic ban, via AN/ANI. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to bring this up, but you said the magic word (fetishistic), so you win a prize. Could this be User:Male Masturbation? When you see the user page, you will understand. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the one, and I know because I just ran CU on the Leesjy2k account, thinking they might have been hijacked--look at the editing pattern. Ponyo, are you still active? I think CU suggests that the last batch of edits may suggest evidence of a hijacking. In the meantime, I am going to block the account until we figure this out. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the topic when you pinged me I thought maybe I was going to be asked to give my opinion on the doggy style image. But no, it's a Plain Jane CU check. I'll grab my magic 8-ball and some pixie dust. Hang tight.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, Dreamy's on it. I'm too old and slow for you now, Drmies.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo, feel free to also have a look as a 2O would be useful for me. I've sent an email to Drmies so I can discuss the specifics. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, thank you. Ponyo, I think I may have jumped the gun, but I'd still appreciate your opinion. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait a little bit for Ponyo's opinion if they want to give it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think we have come to the conclusion that the account was likely not compromised. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, Johnbod has an opinion on that one, but I don't. Speaking of doggy style--Porter is lying right here, and his style is to sleep and snore. God he's adorable. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, over here please--thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

endorse indef, nothere block if/when adequately warned.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

😥 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured this was going to end in a block. I have no problem with nudity, I was born that way myself ;) But JayBeeEll, I was thinking the same thing, that image could have been one of many positions, being so close in. The nudity has to serve a purpose and be the "least astonishing" way we have available to visually represent the topic in a fair and thorough way. I would agree, this user's edits were more prurient than informative. And yes, Drmies, now that I look it, it does look hijacked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I really don't want to think about your naked butt right now, but thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one does, that's why I'm single for the 3rd time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be reasonable to revert all these recent photo additions? Under the circumstances, I'd have thought it appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "sleep and snore.} FWIW, I sleep on my face. More apnea that way. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, AndyTheGrump, and I reverted some--but given that my hijacking block may be wrong, it's probably best to give an actual explanation instead of saying "hijacked user". I was fine with one or two, but hijacked or not, I do not have that much good faith here for that user. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted him on Creampie (sexual act) where he basically took a few edits to add an entire gallery of post-coitus closeups, very, very unnecessary. Similar to NudistPhotographer, I don't think they are here to build an encyclopedia. When there is zero encyclopedic value for many edits (or even having them at Commons...but I digress), that is nothere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just set a record for vulva removal: 511 in two edits. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the users talk page. If the CU block doesn't hold up, I'm willing to block for WP:NOTHERE. They have had some problems with sources/OR/etc in the past, but nothing like this. Still, and indef is due, to be lifted with some restrictions if it comes to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Sexual intercourse we now have (after reverts), several ye olde pornography images, & other drawings, but no photos showing the subject (with humans). That doesn't seem good to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have houseflies, and I've always wondered who it was who loves Avril so much. Hey, have at it! It does need a few decent images. But did you see this? Scroll down for the full effect. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there are rather a lot, but I think the degree of minor anatomical variation is a very important thing for this article to cover, & photos are the only way. The article was already (rightly) committed to having lots of photos, offering a very stark contrast to Sexual intercourse as it now is. I know which I think is more encyclopaedic. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel like dealing with this person any more. Their standard response to disagreement is to revert and call the other editor "retard".[4][5][6][7]. They have been warned about

User(s) blocked. 31 hours -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deepfriedokra. If I continue to develop the article (emerging information on a new and important subject), leaving alone the contentious line about "Blackwell", do I run a risk of 3RR for in some part possibly undoing the work of this IP editor? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to User:Jauerback also. Sorry, User:DIYeditor, I was doing dishes and discussing styles with my dog. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you do not revert their content, I think you can just add more of your own. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And (Jauerback, Deepfriedokra) IP is back at a slightly different address with a 3RR violation[8] after being warned yesterday.[9] —DIYeditor (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jauerback malformed ping. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Unfortuantely, a rangeblock would require a /18. 😪 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]