User talk:Drmies/Archive 119

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Drmies, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Wishing you Happiness and Good Cheer this Christmas. Mona.N (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

|

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thank you for all great contributions to the project Drmies! My very best wishes for this holiday season. May your heart and the heart of those around you be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! GSS (talk

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{

subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday

}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Shearonink (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Something happened when I sent this to AfD. Not sure how to fix it. Can you lend a hand? And let me know how I screwed up? Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:AFDHOWTO for manually creating the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staniforths (bakery). Primefac (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker

)

Thanks Primefac - IF you wouldn't mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staniforths (bakery) and make sure I did it correctly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Scandalous prudery and censorship! Your second job as a sex worker has been fumigated, nuked, torched, mocked, [pick your favorite colorful verbs]! Some cramped, obviously lacking in talent, Wikipedians even thought it was a joke, if you can believe that. Don't they realize how hard it is to raise a family on the salary of an English professor? As the mayor's wife said in The Music Man, I'm appalled! Please feel free to refactor my comments to insert additional exclamation points.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Professor of English. English professors know how to shave the hedgehog. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• So what's the rule now, are we allowed to have red linked categories, or are we only allowed to have red linked categories that are redirects to non-existent categories? I am so confused... --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• See WP:IACR. I suggest that Drmies add the following to his userpage: Category:Wikipedians who were fucked for fucking. Or maybe something a bit blunter and less dignified.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do people find this so unbelievable? Hell, I'd pony up a Grant for a good time in an alley with Doc. After 2 fifths of Hennessy, who wouldn't? John from Idegon (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion does not live up to the section header. 😞 It appears I have entered the no-fun zone. Well, alrighty then - so I'll depart with one question - are red linked categories equivalent to red light districts? Not my fault - you guys started it with the section header. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)  

"Writing in English is the most ingenious torture ever devised for sins committed in previous lives. The English reading public explains the reason why.” Sorry, I thought this was a stream of consciousness thread for English profs. O3000 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm. I don't live in the fancy areas y'all place--$20 is about the most you can ask for anything on Mobile Highway. No, Bbb, I'm not going to add that: you know I ran for ArbCom on the Keep Your Potty Mouth Clean ticket. What discussion did I miss this time? Also, fun fact: at my place of employment they're now finding some money for new hires, since so many of my colleagues are fleeing the sinking ship. So I was on this hiring committee, and the person that were hiring at the assistant professor level gets a salary that's actually equal to mine--and I'm associate, tenured, with twelve years in. Keep faculty happy! Hmm I see we don't have an article on the topic: Pay compression. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• You clearly need a pimp agent. I bet if you're part of an English Professor Exclusive escort service, you can double the highway (robbery) rate. And if you can muster up an English accent, you'd probably get even more. Marketing rules!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Today I learned that Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages is apparently a thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• But how does one really know if they are hidden? Doc Mice, maybe it's a hint you need to go back to Category school. I'm sure you're worth every penny (around here).... compressed or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• User:BrownHairedGirl, I have no idea what you did. I'm not sure I care very much about the rightness of the reason; I suppose what you did was right because of some policy or other. Well. Rosie is learning how to play the ukulele, and even if she were just farting around with the cat, that'd be infinitely more exciting than working on Wikipedia right now. Bbb23, thank you--you'd be impressed with Rosie's progress on "Let It Be". And when I've had my fill of fun things here I'll come up with a reason of sorts to make the category viable, even if I have to suck some dicks to get it done. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• BrownHairedGirl, there's some POV-style fucking around on Johnny Cash ([1]), and some of the usual blah blah biased here, by some right-winger. Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• (Sigh). Here we go again.

This isn't complicated: per

WP:REDNOT, don't put redlinked categories on pages, and don't retain [[:Category:Foo]] on a page after Category:Foo has been deleted. All redlinked categories (on articles, userpages, or any other namespace) are listed together in cleanup lists such as Special:WantedCategories

(which is where I found this one). Those cleanup lists are supposed to be (wait for it!) cleaned up, not filled with permanent entries because some editors decide to ignore a CFD consensus.

If there's some point which an editor wants to make on their userpage, there are many other ways to do it: userboxes, text, pictures, whatever. Make it humorous, whimsical, polemical or whatever. But categories either exist or they don't: placing a page in redlink throws an error which impedes the work of others. No matter how screamingly funny anyone thinks the redlinked category is, it's still impeding cleanup.

And yes, there are many many other things to be cleaned up on en.wp. That's why I think it's a huge pity that so much of the time spent by those of us who clean up

WP:REDNOT

and make work for others. All the time spent on dealing with that drama could spent on other editing, or on life joys such as listening to children's ukulele practice or playing with cats.

That's why Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages was created as a kludge. Re-creating the category page as a redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, gets the thing out of cleanup lists, and allows the editors involved to feel v proud (or whatever) that they disregard a consensus decision and have apparently no reservations about impeding the encyclopedic maintenance work done by others. If you're happy to join that set, then all is sorted. Personally, I'd not want to be in that group, but YMMV.

I should probably make a template of the above, because it's a regular issue, tho only with a v small number of editors. Amazingly, 99.99% of editors manage to express all their talents and humour and considered views and beliefs and allegiances without trying to populate deleted usercats. They just post a thank-you notification when their page is fixed. Odd, that: how can the 99.99% be so wildly out of step?

Anyway, have a lovely Christmas and great new year. I hope a substantial pay rise comes your way soon, that any street-work in the meantime is lucrative, and that your daughter and cat continue to enrich your life. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I must admit you are kind of my hero at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, but now the hind legs of the donkey are missing, and the Nativity scene looks a bit sad. The Plain People of Ireland Do you not think that this redlinked category is not funny at all? Myself Yes The Plain People of Ireland People say that the cats playing ukeleles is a whole other thing altogether Myself Yes . Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies, look at the bottom of my user page for how I have those things in red without them being categories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks Gerda Arendt. BrownHairedGirl, John from Idegon, et. al., I've been frustrated as well by the constant cleanup that seems to be directed at removing the tiny element of joy from those who edit the encyclopedia for free. Now I've seen some of my favorite editors go into an F-Bomb fest (when you see me do that, you'll know I'm probably on my last day on earth, much less WP). It's proof that bots are taking over the world and removing all the colors. Oh, the Humanity! :( Jacona (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jacona: there's a very odd thing here.

There is a tiny minority of editors who choose make a song and dance about how their joy in life will be gravely disrupted by the fact their userpage (or a friend's userpage) is one of thousands of pages which in any given week have a category changed. That weekly count includes many dozens of userpages, but in my experience of doing this tidyup on a regular basis, somewhere about 5% or 10% of editors whose userpages are thusly edited respond with a thank you notification. It is usually only once every few months that any editor objects. The ratio of thanks to objections is well over 100:1.

Those objections nearly always come from accomplished editors, who have made significant contributions to articles and to discussions. They are people who have repeatedly demonstrated skill in using the English language ... yet the objection is nearly always the same. It is that the removal of a few words from a technical part of their userpage to fix a technical error removes a great chunk of joy from their lives.

Apart from the oddity that these skilled editors are apparently paying so much attention to the bottom of their own user pages, we are asked to believe that their proven skill with words is nonetheless insufficient to allow them to easily convey their point on their userpage in any other way. That doesn't stack up for me. If these things are, as Jacona says, a tiny e+lement of joy, is it really so very difficult to replicate that tiny element of joy in one of the many ways which displays only on the userpage and doesn't create issues elsewhere? Really?

More than 99% of the category cleanup which I do an ongoing basis is on non-user pages. Its purpose is to help our reader navigate between articles. The crude wiki technology means that userpages are placed on the same cleanup lists, which I dearly wish was not the case. But they are there, and need to be cleared along with the rest, or else the cleanup pages fill up with with permanent entries.

That userpage ratio of less than 1% means that the idea that this is some sort of some sort of joy-suppression exercise makes no sense; the hit rate is way too low for anyone who had that goal. Personally, I'd love to see user categories having their own namespace so that they had zero impact on the categories used to navigate between articles, and didn't appear on the same cleanup lists. But that isn't how it is for now, so much as I'd prefer to leave the userpages alone, the current setup doesn't allow that.

So we're left with a paradox. Some of the editors best-placed to know the complexity of Wikipedia and the sheer volume of work done to keep it evolving smoothly are choosing to make a drama which ensures that tiny tweaks which usually take a few seconds become in their cases a multi-hour timesink, replete with assumptions of bad faith like Jacona's assertion that this some intentional exercise in joy-suppression. (Really, Jacona, that's hard-core ABF).

Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear, dear BrownHairedGirl, it's not that we believe joy-stealing is the purpose of the life-sucking done by the category crushers, it's the effect (and thus it is not ABF, but AGF). The fact you cite above about the feedback received proves that we've mostly sat around and take our lumps, accept that we can not be allowed to have that one tiny bit of self-directed mirth at a silly category shows the kind of editors that are involved...we want to make the encyclopedia better, we'd like to have a bit of humor and fun, we've been slapped down...but we just go on and find another reason to do our generally thankless tasks, minus that tiny bit of joy that has now evaporated. BHG, I appreciate your hard work and those of all who are stealing our category-based joy, and salute you for your (occasionally unappreciated) effort. But that piece of fun is still gone. And now I'm sad.  :( Jacona (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, it's great to know that the encyclopaedia is finished and we have time to worry about this kind of thing. That article-writing was really getting in the way of my make-work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, there's always room in Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians, which... <checks own userpage>... is still a bluelink. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Always having room in that particular category may be a side effect of what's in the name. I also noticed the category Category:Cynical Wikipedians is one of many cats headed for deletion. Good thing there's the bluelink Category:Skeptics. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I shouldn't edit here any longer, and I have done a lot of gnoming myself, but I cannot understand the compulsion to pursue a clean-up task like this to the bitter, bitter end. As I have said before at one of these deletion debates (the "wish LessHeardvanU would come back" one), I cannot see the harm in quirky, even "joke" user page categories. Further, I cannot see why you can't skip the user pages when you "tidy". How in all the worlds does it harm the encyclopedia if users sort themselves into weird categories, even redlinked categories? These are user pages. They are supposed to be for self-description and community building. Do you category patrollers really want to go the way of LiveJournal and replace everybody's personally crafted user page with an identical template? And aren't there worse ways we could be expressing ourselves, like proliferating userboxen identifying ourtselves by religion and politics, which are almost guaranteed to be divisive? Oh, wait ... It's not particularly "experienced" editors who like to place themselves in fun categories. It's editors who prefer to exopress themselves simply and quirily rather than by cooking up some massive template or customizing their signature to blink in neon colors. i.e., article editors. Lay off, please. There are far more important clean-up tasks. Reading your argument above tempts me to put 20 redlinked categories on my user page. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Apparently, during the category cleanup process, it is physically impossible to observe that a particular category is being used only on userpages and to simply skip it and move on to the next one. Why that is, I couldn't tell you, but I've been assured that's the case. Similarly, writing a user script that would display such categories differently and make them easy to skip is also physically impossible, for some reason. I would have thought it would take far less time to put together such a script than it would be to argue endlessly with people who don't want their user pages messed with, but that doesn't take into account that writing helpful scripts isn't as rewarding as arguing, for some reason. 28bytes (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: the cleanup list is a list of errors. As with any such lists, it is most easily handled by fixing the errors, and clearing the list.

Not fixing them means that they stay there, permanently in every new update of the list, as new entries flood in at the rate of 50–150 every day. Two years ago the number of perma-redlinks was so high that they filled several screenfuls of the cleanup list were filled with such permanent entries. Whittling them down has made the job of fixing categories way more manageable, and allowing editors to focus on the categories.

It's very easy say "why pursue" the last one ... but if one stays, there is no argument against two, and if two stay, there is no argument against three ... and off we go again to a pile of them.

Imagine if your to-do lists were permanently cluttered with randomly-placed entries repeated every day, day-in-day-out ... and when you tried to remove them, someone else popped up getting all indignant saying "but you spoil my fun!!! You killjoy BULLY!!!". Your answer would be simply: please find some way of having fun which doesn't impede my work. That's all I am asking here.

And yes, of course these are, as you say user pages. But please do read

WP:USERPAGE

: it does not give users unlimited freedom to do whatever they want with those pages. There is massive scope, but there are limits ... and the problem with redcats is that they are not simply on the userpage. They effect enyclopedic maintenance work, as described above.

You leap rapidly to an assumption of bad faith that I have some sinister agenda to replace everybody's personally crafted user page with an identical template. If you bothered to check what I have done on en.wp over the last 13 years, you would see that is not and never has been something I have advocated, and I don't intend to start. It's just a gratuitous smear, without foundation.

That piece of ABF, plus your comment about setting out to intentionally cause more disruption, does not reflect well on you.

28bytes: my main tool for cleaning up redlinked categories is Special:WantedCategories. I dunno how it is programmed, but it is not user-configurable. You are by no means the first editor to suggest tweaking it, so I will say the same again: if you or any other editor wants to work with WMF to develop it so that it can accurately detect which redlinked categories are joke cats and exclude them from the listing, without omitting those usercats which should actually be included in the listing, then good luck. I'd be delighted. Reliable detection doesn't look at all easy to me, but maybe someone can come up with something cunning which is 100% accurate. And good luck too with persuading WMF to allocate developer time to adding complexity to its software solely to cope with the reluctance of a tiny minority of editors to desist from creating deliberate errors.

However unless and until that software is in place, editors doing the cleanup have to work with the tools we have. Why on earth should I and other editors be asked to spend vast amounts of time learning new programming skills and deploying new software just because a tiny weensy minority of editors insist that they must have their joke in the actual category list rather than in any one of a dozen other ways in which it could be displayed non-disruptively?

Anyway, I have spent more than enough of my time trying to engage with the tiny minority of editors whose attitude could be best summarised as "I'll disrupt other editors' work however I like for as long as I like cos LOLZ". I will return to simply editing the pages and moving on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Ouch, BrownHairedGirl. You accuse others of assuming bad faith and then accuse a group of editors with approaching a million edits and over a hundred years' experience between us of having an attitude of "I'll disrupt other editors' work however I like for as long as I like cos LOLZ". That hardly seems conducive to good faith to me. Besides, isn't the reason we preface internal categories with "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedians" (etc) to avoid polluting lists like that? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I am fully with BHG here. I don't work with categories much (generally I just use the "things wot need to be done" categories for work to do) but I can see the logistical issue of filling up pages and pages of an errors page with joke cats that the clean-up crew has to sift through to find the actual errors to fix—I'd be peeved if the "needs copy-edit" categories were filled up with userpages and usertalk pages. A few aren't the problem, it's, as BHG put it, that: if one, why not two? if two, why not three? if three, why not three million? Work out a way to have these display on your userpage (like Gerda Arendt has done) that doesn't interfere with other peoples' work (i.e. fake non-cat cats – take that any way you want too). My sincere apologies Drmies for the stack of notifications you will have received here from this thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) @HJ Mitchell: I was responding to an editor who had very specifically stated that she was considering doing exactly that, on a big scale: reading your argument above tempts me to put 20 redlinked categories on my user page. It's hardly ABF to take someone at their word.

The reason I used the plural "editors" is that sadly, I have also encountered a few other editors who have actually done precisely that. I won't pour fuel on flames by naming names or linking diffs, esp since most of them have now moved on from such things. But last year there were at least two editors who were so determined to disrupt that when I turned their redlinks blue to remove them from the cleanup lists, they promptly added mis-spellings to turn the links red again. Mercifully, as I noted in the sentence you quoted, there has only ever been a tiny minority of editors who actively disrupt that way. But can you name me any other context on en.wp where that sort of deliberate disruption would be cheered on?

Sadly, prefacing internal categories with "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedians" (etc) does not avoid polluting lists like that. All categories share a common namespace (No. 14), regardless of whether they are used for content, users, project pages, templates, module or whatever. The names help visually distinguish them, but they are not universally applied, and even when applied they all end up on the same unfiltered cleanup lists.

The en.wp software has many crudenesses to it, as well as many things which it does brilliantly. WMF has finite technical resources, so it prioritises its efforts ... and until things are patched, we all have to work within its limitations. In this case, the only technical solution I can see is to create a new "user category" namespace. That seems to me like a lot of work merely to accommodate the desire of a few editors to trigger errors in the category system, but it would at least end this problem. Those who want to play around could then do so without impinging on maintenance of the encyclopedic categories.

You have been v civil, HJ, so I don't want to sound reproachful. But it would be really nice if the editors who believe that this a technical misunderstanding would kindly give a little more weight to the voices of those of us who have been doing this cleanup for years and who have explored many options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Why don't people just use Gerda's approach to this, suggested quite some time ago, above? Why is there the need to be insulting each other rather than just going with what will both accommodate the category-gnomes and allow redlinked categories to appear to be on userpages for whatever reason the userpage owners want to see them there? What is the problem with Gerda's solution? MPS1992 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The solution on User:Gerda Arendt is a fine one. It allows Gerda to display their humour/commentary solely as it suits Gerda, and since has no impact on any other part of en.wp, nobody objects to it. (Just for the record, if anyone did object, I would be on Gerda's side). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You are defining removing this subset of "errors" as an important task for the encyclopedia. It isn't. That's why, as someone has just pointed out, they are prefixed with words like "Users" and "Wikipedians"; they are user page categories, and therefore ancillary to the encyclopedia; hence whether they are redlinked does not actually matter one jot to the encyclopedia, except insofar as treating them like mainspace categories—like disruption of the encyclopedia—alienates other Wikipedians. Much like the assumption I don't have to deal with constant annoying frictions in my own work here from people who see things differently. (To name just one, the escalating race to find an even more hostile referencing format to impose on articles.) I don't see fun user page categories as errors, much less disruption of the encyclopedia. With all due respect for your interpretation of my priorities, I believe yours are wrong. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I have written several times on this page alone of this "subset of errors" is in fact intermixed with the ongoing flow of errors in content categories and therefore impedes the work of the editors who do that cleanup, and how it has previously overwhelmed the cleanup list. I could write a lot more about how it does so, but you are resolutely determined not merely to not listen, but to publicly contemplate intentional disruption.

I admire your persistence in repeatedly dismissing the experience of those who actually do this cleanup work, despite your apparent complete lack of experience in this task. You have tenacity. Unfortunately, that makes dialogue pointless.

Bye. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

[Checks for unread statements above or for dismissal, finds none. Checks for rudeness in disagreement, finds none. Recalls mentioning gnome experience. Shrugs.] It's not my user talk, so no response to "Bye". Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Checks for unread statements above or for dismissal, finds none. You are defining removing this subset of "errors" as an important task for the encyclopedia. It isn't. – To paraphrase: "your work isn't important". That's a dismissal. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I see. I and others, including Drmies, are not allowed to disagree with the lumping of user page categories together with mainspace categories, even when we present reasoned arguments? I'll go back to saying what I originally said, and what has been said many times in discussions of this "work": there's important work, including important category work, and this is not it. In fact, this is damaging. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Y'know what, Yngvadottir, if you had actually bothered to read what I wrote, you would see that lumping of user page categories together with mainspace categories is not a choice made by me or anyone else involved in cleanup work. It is a fact of how the category system is structured and of how Special:WantedCategories is implemented, and it is out of our control. It is a constraint we have to work with, and not one I would choose. You may of course disagree with that situation, and I am with you on that ... but disagreement doesn't alter the reality.

I note that you claim to have read what I have written, but sadly I little evidence to support that claim.

When you present what you claim are "reasoned arguments" based on the false premise than I or other editors engaged in cleanup have made some sort of unilateral choice about the structure of Wikipedia's category system, then I'm sorry, but further discussion is not going to help anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup. From my point of view there is no reason whatsoever you cannot exercise judgement and leave user page categories red. So what if you wind up with a few pages of red-linked categories on that internally generated list. You make a choice to seek to totally clean it out. You have not been reading what we have written. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose this is just something I'll never understand; how a redlinked category is an error goes right over my head, which is probably yet another reason they don't pay me the big bucks. What is also missing, as far as I can tell, is that us Wikipedia sexworkers categorized ourself thusly also to form community, even if it was on a non-existing page, so that we could keep track of each other. Hey, there's a new Wikipedia sexworker! Let me drop them a line. I've made friends and exchanged experiences this way--like what the best hook-up places were at Wikimedia, which staffers were lousy tippers, etc. One can have a userbox, but to discover who else shares your proclivities, especially as a new user, is much more complicated and depends on there not being too many such userboxes, for instance. So I liked the old, MOS-compliantly titled category. Ah well. I'm getting too old for this line of work anyway. Ima go bake something--y'all better get ready for Christmas and other holidays, and make sure your lucky Alabama shirt is ready, accessible, repaired by Saturday. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Do'h. Posting here twice and I didn't say anything. Merry Christmas to you and yours Drmies. Last notification from me for today I promise. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Same to you and everyone else here--BrownHairedGirl, Yngvadottir, I don't know what y'all's favorites are, but I'm thinking spicy gingerbready cookies. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Spicy cookies? You know you forced me to come back here. I'll take a spicy gingerbready cookie – I actually like Parmesan and hot paprika cookies, dunno if you've ever tried one. Simple but delicious. – if you're offering. (Just the one though). :) Mr rnddude (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the offer, Drmies. And apologies for filling up your talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicer solution, Yngvadottir et al.: Put body.ns-2 #catlinks a.mw-redirect { color: #ba0000; font-style: normal; } on Special:MyPage/common.css and redirects will now look like redlinks. So you can put all the silly categories you want in there, and as long as they're redirects they'll look like redlinks instead. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

lolLakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 12:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Cas Liber, that is actually on our list, and my wife has been egging me on (get it?) about making one. I'll let you know. Also, thanks, and merry Christmas to you and yours! Drmies (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Taking out trash with prompt, no-nonsense efficiency, always appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• We aim to please. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove the "Videos Directed" section of Deaton-Flanigen Productions' article; it is there for reference and information purposes. Most articles of other music video directors (that I am aware of, at least) have their own directorial works listed in similar sections, and as such, that particular section in the Deaton-Flanigen article needs to remain within it. Thank you. Zredman (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• No, it does not. You may not be fully aware of what Wikipedia is, but it is not here to post resumes or company portfolios. Your "references" are just video links (which all seem to be dead, by the way), so when
  WP:PROMO, they had a point. But I have a suggestion for you: try and get that content properly written and verified. Right now your company article has two links to secondary sources; whether the company is notable enough to warrant an article of Wikipedia is somewhat in doubt. Drmies (talk
  ) 17:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not too sure what you mean by that, but I WILL say this: There are many other articles of video directors and filmmakers and such that have their directorial works posted as well, and I welcome you to check them out for yourself (Shaun Silva, Trey Fanjoy, Michael Salomon, Peter Zavadil...just to name a few). They have had their works posted up in their respective articles for a good while without one person reporting it as "not the company website," and as I said before, they are only there for information purposes. Also, the only way I can see the links being dead is that the website from which the links originated had recently been revamped and redesigned.

Changes were made to Laurence Traiger, following the recommendations you made; the advert tag was taken off.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha Drmies, hope all is well,

Background;

I happened to notice this discussion between Rye-96 and Johnbod. Though Rye-96 didn't mention a thing about his own origin/ethnicity, nor that of Johnbod, this is what Johnbod answered;

• "I'm not at all confused, though I think you may be as to the usual usage of these terms in English (which confuses many Iranians - this guy for one) and the way Wikipedia categories work. You seem to be trying to carry a distinction between "Persian" as an ethnic sub-group of "Iranian" back into ancient history, which just doesn't reflect usage in English-language WP:RS, where Persian and Iranian are generally synonymous, except for linguistics or when say Medes are being discussed. The Parthian Empire is certainly Persian - as the Greeks at the time called it, and Western writers have done ever since. So no, if you continue to make erroneous edits, I will continue to revert them."

What does "confuses many Iranians" have to do with Rye-96's concerns? Anyhow, a few hours later, Johnbod decided to revert this edit made by Rye-96 on the

- LouisAragon (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm all I had to go on was what I saw. If the map is problematic already, that's something that needs to be taken care of, but not inside that article. Thanks for the note and all the best to you and yours. Tomorrow I'm making a practice run with oliebollen. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Naturally. No worries. So based on the evidence; should the map stay inside the article or should it be removed? If you think it should stay, despite being problematic, I will leave it at that for now. However, if you do agree that it should be removed, could you self-revert? I do agree that it should be fixed on some other venue, but that probably won't happen anytime soon, realistically speaking.

Thank you, I appreciate it. May health and happiness follow you and yours throughout the year to come. Can't believe 2018 went by so fast tbh.
Nice, are you gonna use those pakjes oliebollen mix (i.e. "Koopmans", etc.) or are you going to make them all by yourself (i.e. from scratch)?

- LouisAragon (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should go, but this is really something that all editors should discuss on the talk page. I can't get those mixes here, but making it yourself is easy--there's recipes all over the place. BTW I use yeast, not baking powder. Last week we made kerststol, and my kids love griesmeelpudding, which I make with semolina. Easy peasy! Drmies (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Easy peasy indeed, and pretty delicious as well. Nom nom nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I realize at the time of this post things are very much undecided. Still, I can't help but admire the passion and execution displayed by those kids talented getlemen to this point. Roll Tide. Tiderolls 02:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• What a strange nail biter that was. Tide rolls, it was almost too exciting and Mrs. Drmies is feeling the pain of her efforts toward victory. Coach Saban was probably sad, gnashing his teeth all night long. But yeah, those are some fine, fine players. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Talk: Contribs

) 02:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Doc. As you may know, Azbell was a prominent Montgomery journalist during the Civil Rights movement. User:ArcheryPrincess23 says she is his great-granddaughter and is persistently trying to add information provided by her grandmother. Since you have a local connection, I was wondering if you could take a look. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see you've come back fro the hallowed halls of ArbCom to help us out at the coalface! ;) Happy new year, my friend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see [[9]]

Happy New Years. I was through watching the latest on this, but wanted to complement the clean-up. I thought I mistakenly clicked on "Cancel" button to find out that the whole segment got wiped out. If this is your clean-up, thank you very much to clarify that this is not my mess-up. I just continued to add the information in which I saw through watching the program and possibility to add the links for verification later on. For many information listed, people have to see it to believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T576318722bb (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• I suppose. Keep in mind:
  WP:RS. Thanks, Drmies (talk
  ) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Anglo-American analytic philosophers typically don't write books; they write (a few) articles to make their careers. In contrast, to make an over-generalization, Continental philosophers typically write books. Eliminating all articles from Wikipedia bios would therefore severely restrict the legitimate purview of one of these fields for those interested in its practitioners. Whoever "we" is should consider that carefully. Aside from that, your assistance, recommendations, and caveats are most welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhno80 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• If those articles are noticed by secondary sources and critics, they are probably worth mentioning--and really this goes for books as well, though these are--for notable scientists--typically reviewed by academic journals (and such reviews should really be included as references, not just mentioned). In this case, there are books, and they remain listed. "We" represents a consensus of editors working on articles for academics. Besides, one can assume that at least one of the listed faculty pages a resume/list of publications is linked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Last comment: Interesting that you use the term "scientists" when we are talking about the humanities. Different standards do (and should) apply across academic fields. In any case, if this is Wikipedia's policy, then it is pretty wildly variably enforced, as there are countless academics' Wiki pages out there that list primary articles (as I believe they should, for access and interest) and not just comments/reviews on or citations of those articles. I would say that this is a policy that needs urgent review. Thanks again for your interest...Uhno80 (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm an English professor, and that makes me a scientist in the humanities. What you suggest about articles over books is endemic in physics and biology, not in humanities. That other Wikipedia articles are written in resume style is a problem that needs to be tackled, not a practice that needs to be followed. We're not Academia or LinkedIn or ResearchGate or any other resume servie; we're an encyclopedia in which written content is based on secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Drmies. Last year there were severe racist problems on various articles related to India. They have resumed with this ip 96.82.149.57 (talk · contribs). They have been blocked and edits to user talk pages have been r/d'd. Unfortunately the edits and summaries to various articles are still visible. Your help in dealing with them will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hey MarnetteD--happy new year, and thanks for letting me know. I'll get right on it. That is a despicable person. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you Scott Burley. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you were way too hard on User_talk:37.209.114.151. It's not an unreasonable expectation that paywalls shouldn't be used as sources. It isn't our policy, and that's fine, but it's not unreasonable to expect that to be the policy. They're clearly acting in good faith, and you certainly shouldn't be saying things like " Keep it up and I'll block you." (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 03:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as "acting in good faith." They appear to misunderstand sourcing, but the "I'll sue" business and "lying" accusations are over the top. I've left a personally worded warning, 'cause if they keep this up, they'll be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Gaelan, did you see what their edit actually produced? They were simply blanking a bunch of content. As for that paywall--that material behind a paywall would be off limits boils down to saying all sources ought to be available online for everyone, meaning that physical books, for instance, or newspapers can't be used. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and, just as Gaelan said, that is a common misconception among newcomers. I've lost count of the number of times a new editor has said that they have a physical copy of a publication, and offer to scan it in and upload it on the presumption that anything not online won't be accepted as a source. MPS1992 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I received a Wiki email from a well known online magazine today asking for an interview related to editing a highly active AP2-related article. I demurred as didn’t find it appropriate. It appears that the author has contacted several other editors. No idea what policy is – but thought I’d mention it on a heavily traveled page. O3000 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm exciting. I hope you're flattered! But maybe that Village People Page is better traveled? I don't know that we have any policy; as a matter of fact, I hope we don't. When I was on ArbCom things were different, but now I can speak for myself and I suppose you can do so too. As far as I know you're an editor in fine, fine standing, and I certainly wouldn't want to tell you that your comments would be inappropriate; I'd welcome them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Is that flattered or a feeling of flatulence. I only have good standing because I understand the tensile strength of rules. Bend, don’t break. O3000 (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, did you mean Village People page or Village Pump. Not clear, so perhaps I'll post to The Village (The Prisoner). In any case, I declined the offer and expect most of many will. Which may end with an odd article based upon selection bias. Such is life. But, I've never felt that WP editors should care about the vagaries of media, and mayhaps that shouldn't be a large concern of ArbCom. As for my sillly thoughts about WP — I'll keep them on my user page. O3000 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

	Champagne for you!
	And trout for me. Have a great festive season/plicating crumb of relaxation to distract you from the never ending spiral of capitalism. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ha good luck with that! Thanks. I saw that you had made edits there, but they were waaaaay over my head. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey D. I forgot to say thanks in the thread above so let me leave this link to make up for my whoops. Now I know everyone's taste is different so this may not interest you. The one thing I can say is that I have (more than once) served this to people who tell me they don't like champagne but they loved this. I hope you enjoy the game Monday night. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I LOVE CHAMPAGNE but yeah serve me!! Marnette, I am sure you and I will get along just fine if we ever run into each other, and who knows Jimbo Wales will sponsor our dinner. Yes, Monday--we're all a bit nervous. (Plus, why are these damn games on Monday night???) I almost put on the wrong shirt this morning: I grabbed my lucky shirt, by accident, but caught myself. Gotta save that for tomorrow. Moreover, I ran into a nice lady from Idaho today, at Smith Mountain Fire Tower, who thought my shirt said "Clemson Tide". I had nothing to say to that, nothing whatsoever. Anywayz--it'll be exciting tomorrow, win or lost. Cullen328 tells me tickets are cheap since North Californians aren't Bama fans, and I fully expect him to drive up there and attend the game. Tide rolls, we're having Coronas and tequila here and you are more than welcome to join us. Kelapstick, I expect 110% from you, just like this dude gave it his all. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem isn't that Northen Californians aren't Alabama fans, but rather that the Bama and Clemson fans are not prepared to fly to San Francisco or San Jose to attend that game. I blame "liberalphobia", plus time and money. The only college football games I have ever attended are two between UC Berkeley and Stanford University. We call that the "Big Game" around here, because we are very parochial. I can't go to your game because I am working tomorrow, but if I did, I would be driving "down there" since it is about 80 miles south of here. I am rooting for Bama because I do not know any Clemson fans. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

And because God favors Bear Bryant and his descendants, of course. Come on Cullen--you know Alabama has little besides football! Drmies (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, God works in mysterious ways. For example, he tends to reward and punish the San Francisco Giants on alternating years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Clemson Tide - now that is funny. Perfect for a mom who has sons playing for both teams :-) MarnetteD|Talk 01:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

After reading that, I understand that you can't do that but I really wish you'd just given me a warning to take all the stuff off first so I could salvage what I was working on. It was for a draft I am in and now I have to start from square one somewhere else...

Roymurnaghan6 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, Happy New Year! I noticed that the content I tried to add about his investments section wasn't of agreement to you but I must say that these are two major investments and the companies are renowned. The star was rescued by this fellow and is of potential interest to readers and encyclopaedia material. It has satisfactory referencing. These facts are publicly known. What is your reason for not including it, may I ask? I want to grow on Wikipedia as an editor and have worked on many pages but the Indian one's I find, I get resistance, that is not fair. I am just sharing my point of view. Hope we can constructively resolve this, you are ultimately the boss, I know. :) Look forward to your reply. Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for coming by. Here's the thing: things are major if sources indicate they're major. Simply investing in this or that isn't noteworthy: millions of people do that--I probably do that too via my retirement funds. I am having a hard time following your argument. "The star was rescued"--what star? This superstar person? (Not encyclopedic language, by the way.) The India Today article says nothing about Maloo or HFCL saving some other company, and the Rediff article says more about possible shady lending by HFCL than about Maloo; the only person giving any agency in that article is group chairman Mahendra Nahata. So at best it's a minor note about what this company did. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the prompt reply. We can change the language but why entirely remove it? Mahendra Nahata is Chairman now after Vinay Maloo leaving HFCL. HFCL was run jointly by these two before Maloo left to start Enso Group.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/hfcl-promoters-part-ways-107051301043_1.html

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telecom/hfcls-nahata-and-maloo-may-part-ways/articleshow/1914140.cms

This happened in 2005, and the investment into Amitabh Bachchan Corporation happened in 2001. I did mention that it was done by HFCL under the leadership of Maloo. Makes sense? Could we put it? Why don't you frame it! Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see how someone running a company means that the company decisions should be placed in the article of the person. None of your sources indicate that this particular investment was some purely personal decision, like Elon Musk's comments to investors for instance. BTW, I detest the suggestion that this has anything to do with the subject of this BLP being Indian. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Investment decisions are usually taken by the chairman of a board, especially if it's a promoter chairman. It was HFCL under him that invested in Amitabh Bachchan's company that was sick at that time. I am sorry, didn't mean to offend you, just saw that the pages of American billionaires are way longer and detailed than Indian one's and there are notices on many Indian pages. We have to understand that onlookers take Wikipedia seriously and it can put people on pedestals - up or down, even if that's not the idea. That is why I am persistent. I am struggling with another page Indian businessman's page I am working on. :) Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Why, oh why, isn't this a Featured article? Only the experts know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to nominate it, it's not automatic. How about a peer review? What I see at a glance: too many images, in strange positioning, and probably without alt= texts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This is an inside joke, Gerda Arendt, and is has something to do with American gridiron college football, more specifically the national championship game that just ended. The team that our mutual friend Drmies roots for was defeated by another team called the "Tigers". Sad for Drmies but an opportunity for me to make an affectionate joke. Is there any humor connected with classical music? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the joke, but looking at the article, I was serious: it has potential! -

Wiener Philharmoniker about some guest conducto: "We have no idea what he conducted, we played the Fifth." --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 08:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I know far less than you do about classical music, Gerda Arendt, but I do know enough to say that nobody ever went wrong by immersing themself in Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) or anything else by Beethoven. It would be interesting to hear great orchestras performing the Fifth without a conductor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Some do, such as the

Beethoven - the edit I liked best on Wikipedia happened there, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 08:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, speaking of classical music: In case there any Tide fans that are feeling a little down today, here's a way to lift their spirits. [10] Hint: a little girl gives a coin to a street musician and gets more than she bargained for. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, but it's not working very well. (I've seen it before--it sure is lovely.) I'm just going to wallow for a bit, and if it hurts real bad I'll play this video. Y'all didn't even know he was a virgin until he was 28, and now! Drmies (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Cullen, I need a hug. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• :::music:: Hold That Tiger! Hold That Tiger! ... I come from a long line of Clemson fans. Or as we affectionately say, "Clemons" fans. Our neighbor had gigantic orange pawprints painted on his driveway. Sorry Drmies, but you should be listening to [11]. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be something going on. My first thought when I saw 24-hour news cycle broadcasting is a way of CNN news broadcasting. was SEO spambot, but the rest of the edits don't really fit that. However, the other edits are mostly-unformatted, long blocks of text that seem to reek of copypasting. 1602班's edits are similar, with a similar "permutation of 2016 + Chinese words" username; it doesn't surprise me at all that the two are related, especially if there is corroborating CU evidence. The spheres of interest don't exactly align, though, so I'm ultimately unsure what their goal is.

Honestly, my suspicion is some sort of spambot that has a corpus of copy-pasteable material, and it tries to find articles to insert them into (with 24-hour news cycle broadcasting is a way of CNN news broadcasting. as an example of the bot going wrong); it hides the spam links in with the dross, making them harder to find and get rid of. I don't know how plausible all that is, though; it's not much more than a guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

In case it helps you both decide what to do, the two accounts are  Confirmed. They also seem to be creating a bunch of no-edit accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb. WK, one of the things that bothered me was a report, I think, on AN or ANI, or maybe it was an SPI, about a whole bunch of accounts with Chinese characters as names. But I don't really know what to do here either. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Just ran into User:王天翰, who writes in a very similar style. Maybe I'm just seeing things. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help fixing the format of 2019 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. It went all out of whack adding game summaries. Needs to look like the 2018 page

• On those kinds of pages there's so much formatting and templating going on that I usually don't know how to handle them... And let's hope that the last sentence for 2019 will be a different one. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• There's probably one tiny little thing wrong in that table--like a "|" or something like that. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Małgorzata Turewicz Lafranchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I declined an A7 on the article. Usually, when I do that, either someone tries another deletion process or at least tidies the article a bit. Neither happened in this case, and the article is pretty messy. You or one of your artsy page watchers would, I'm sure, love to tackle the article. Me not so much.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm that's tough. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Now that you made it look like an article, I was able to make some copy edits. It's still a mess but not as big a mess. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you glance at the revdel's I did at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and oversight if necessary? -- ferret (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Self-disclosure by apparent minor"--thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't forget the Sinebot edit ;) (; -- ferret (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That was well spotted, if I may say so, although I don't quite see the link; are they working towards autoconfirmed? ——SerialNumber54129 17:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ha, not well spotted at all if you have my particular set of skills glasses. ;) I don't know exactly what they're doing, which is why someone should maybe do a short rundown of the kinds of edits they're making, in an SPI. Take it easy, and happy new semester! I taught Rilke this morning. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You taught Rilke this morning? Are they enrolling ghosts at 'Bama now? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I never got that corner office in Morgan Hall; I work for the competition. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

And we'll enroll anything that can sign a check. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

[12]. Interesting first edit to article space. Home Lander (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Didn't we have a weather sock? But they were seasoned enough to not attract this much attention the first time around, I think. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:LTA/UAK is the first one I think of. But I don't think this account fits his MO. Home Lander (talk
    ) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Knew I had seen something else too recently - here it is: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurricane Editor Only. Home Lander (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and thank you Bbb23. Yes, Bbb, I'm still sad. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Very sorry to hear that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc. Long time no see. Sorry for the intrusion, but I would like your intervention regarding

• Ha, thanks, and happy new year to you too--but I'm going to sit this one out. I got involved with something involving Ktrimi and someone else, and I don't want to do that again. Anyway, that comment doesn't really look like a taunt to me; if the statement is a lie, well, your edit history bears that out easily. If the pinging gets too much--well, you can ask someone to not ping you, and like a request that someone not post on your talk page, you could ask an admin or the community to enforce that. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. The reason I called this "low-level bullying" is because it is. But being low-level it may not be glaringly obvious to someone who does not delve deeper into this person's behaviour. In any case, if the taunts continue, I will take additional steps, as you mentioned. Dr. K. 00:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I also forgot the wp:stalking. He also follows me to articles he never edited before. This is the latest example. He never edited the article Persecution of Christians, and jumps straight in into another editor's talkpage with whom I had a conflict to ping me with advice about edit-warring. I know you don't want to get involved, but this is ridiculously obvious stalking harassment. Dr. K. 00:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • That article is on my watchlist. The first edit of mine on that article was made a year ago (January 2018). I started to discuss about the Modern Persecution section on the talk page on 6 January 2019. Two days later I reverted an edit of yours that was related with that section. The community consensus supported my edit because your content was fringe. Where is the "stalking" here?
      Ktrimi991 (talk
      ) 00:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
      • And that's why I prefer to stay out of these kinds of things. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• • • • • Yes, if someone doesn't want to get involved, such arguments may appear irksome. But I am not asking for your assistance any longer. Dr. K. 01:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
      • The content at the time was still under discussion. But the article reverts are not the issue. You followed my edits on the talkpage of the article because my first edit was on the 5th of January, a day before you followed my edits there. You replied on the 6th of January, on the article talk three minutes after I supported a block for you at 3RRN. Then you followed my edits on the talkpage of Simonm223 ‎to tell me how many reverts I had made and to give me "advice" about talking on the article talkpage. I think your stalking is obvious. Dr. K. 01:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
        • And now you're having a conversation with another editor on my talk page. And then the editor will respond. And then their friend will weigh in. That's why I don't want these kinds of things anymore here. If you need me, you know where to find me. If someone is stalking you, take it to ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I thought this whole thing was reverted and rushed to put my final answer before I removed it again. I saw you restored it back, and just saw your reply here. Ok, doc. I see your point and advice. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
            • User:Dr.K., this is just one of those conflicts that have way too many angles and interests. As you know I'm always happy to jump in with my Gordian sword, but this is not one of those occasions. Thanks for understanding, Drmies (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Doc, I thought this discussion was over, so your reply caught me by surprise. I don't want to take much more of your time, so I will be brief. You know that I rarely come to you, or even individual admins, for help. I prefer to go to an appropriate forum for any problems that I see. I came to you in this case because I considered this to be an open-and-shut case of low-level harassment and stalking and I was seeking a quick resolution because you have helped me in the past on exactly this subject. But I guess the Balkans ain't K-pop. I realise that the Balkans is a toxic and contested area, but I assure you, I would not use you, an editor I consider a longtime friend, to prevail in a dispute. I hope you understand that much about me. On the other hand, I realise that my request imposed a burden on you and I quite understand your wish to not get involved; I respect that, going so far as to apologise for the disturbance. Thank you for your time. Dr. K. 02:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In this edit, you added a {{

• DMacks, I am sorry for doing things when, you know, I don't know that I'm doing that. (I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but it's been a long day.) Maybe there's a smart person who can fix whatever I broke? Oh, I know: Writ Keeper can repair everything... Drmies (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the talk-page tagging for you. DMacks (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:Wiggitywack24 & Draft:Palin Communications-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ha, I blocked the other one, so you could consider this a name change. I've pruned the draft a bit... Drmies (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Only where absolutely necessary. I reiterated my spiel about
    WP:CORP.-- Dlohcierekim (talk
    ) 04:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • On another note, let's listen to some metal from The Hu. Kelapstick, did you bring any tapes back? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but I was just roaming around, and happened to watch the video you posted from The Hu. It's the most unique music I've seen in a long time. I enjoyed it very much. Thanks for sharing! Huggums537 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• It is, isn't it. I'm bothered by the swastika on the dude's horsehead fiddle, but it's also a standard and really old symbol in Mongolian shamanism. Still, if I were him, I'd have someone make a neck with different inlays. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, well I was too busy appreciating the music to notice anything that resembled a swastika, so I never saw it, but those kinds of things don't bother me anyway. Being offended by things is for overly sensitive people who probably don't have anything else better to do with their time I guess (Not that I don't understand how the symbol might be troubling to some minorities, I just don't belong to those groups even though my forefathers did...) Huggums537 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Accept my belated congratulations for the new year, plz! Could you please restore the former title of

• Thanks, you too! Sorry, can't help now--I have a class full of students waiting for me; we're reading The Love Suicides at Amijima. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Cool. After you and your students are done, perhaps y'all can improve our article, a mostly unsourced piece of... --Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • ...and now? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

      ​ Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, can you help with whitewashing of the article by 可愛い? Just because you were involved once and probably remember this your comment - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AViktor_Prokopenya&type=revision&diff=868832047&oldid=868763262. Recently there was an event in Prokopenya life - new business launch, so he appeared again and without any discussion or consensus editwars in the article. I tried to report him - but no one seems available (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#可愛い_reported_by_User:Belbrabas_(Result:_)) Belbrabas (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Drmies Belbrabas has made several vandal changes to the page. He does not look like a real user, doesn’t have any edits on other pages, except related to Prokopenya. (надо проверить) He is one of the haters of Prokopenya and is editing the article and is making a number of vandal and wiki rules noncompliant edits of the page. He is not interested in making wikipedia page look neutral and compliant with rules, - all he wants is to add a few false or tabloid style statements to the article. As a person who was engaged in major revision of this page I’ve seen the vandal changes - cancelled them, provided detailed explanation why he is wrong. He didn’t answer anything for a week. I’ve pushed my changes back and then he is trying to push his version back, without discussions. You can check the discussion page - all his vandal changes were addresses and explained why his changes are wrong. He wants to add to the page phrases, which are completely incompatible with wiki like: “tits are new brains” and things like that. 可愛い (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As exciting as all this is, I'm getting ready for Intro to Linguistics, and then some Brit Lit. No exciting Japanese literature today, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am tangling with an editor who is determined to portray this Silicon Valley Congressman as a hypocrite because rich tech executives donate lots of money (legally) to his campaigns. This editor posted a Google Docs screed on the talk page calling Khanna a "neoliberal warmongering fracking pro-TPP pawn". Despite my attempts to explain NPOV and BLP policies, that are persisting and have suggested (quite absurdly) that I am a Khanna employee. There is discussion on my talk page and I opened a thread at

Yes, Drmies, his full name is Rohit Khanna, and his parents are from the Punjab, but he was born in Philadelphia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Aha. I see now: he's listed at

Rohit. BTW it's also short for "Rosie", who's sitting next to me. What do you make of this, and this? Drmies (talk

) 01:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Surely plausible but ^[citation needed]. I am in a pedantic mood. As for Rosie, you tell her that a guy in California is very impressed with her. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, I wonder if Asaturn is trying to skirt around the edges of neutrality. I can't find too much fault with the article in its current condition, but there's this comment, which begs the question of whether we should start including such commentary for all fundraising politicians. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your reversion to Overfinch was reverted. I've reverted the revert revert, and added a short desc, you or some other admin might want to check the account involved. Anything else I can do let me know, (I'm more of a content guy). --Cornellier (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks! DominicHowlett, this is not the way to go. It's pretty obvious you have a COI, and you can't turn this article into basically an ad for the company. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm failing to see how this repeated blanking is in any way constructive, rather than just an excuse for dogma and power tripping over new editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well, apart from the promotional nature of the expanded article ("enhancing the vehicle with standout looks and exclusivity with superlative performance"" or "The application of Bridge of Weir leather upholstery, with a choice of seat design, stitch patterning and hide colours, enables the customer to create a reflection of their style" - c'mon) the text is plagiarised - if you put in random sentences you will often find they're lifted straight from the sources - I found directly copied text from overfinch.com, motors.com and salonpriveconcours.com in less than a couple of minutes. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• So fix it. But we don't have to do it in such a BITEy way. It's the classic Wikipedia Way – a new editor turns up, topic expert, connected with the subject or whatever, and the response is to lynch them for not being part of the social network. Block them as group accounts, as COI, or for OR, or even for copyvio on using materials that they hold the rights to, and might even have freely licensed as such, if only we asked. But every time, the response instead is to find a reason to start swinging the banhammer instead. Look at the article quality of the two versions – or the potential article quality of an edited version of the larger one: remove the ad copy, but keep the content. As it is, the "approved" version of this article is useless and incomprehensible. I doubt that anyone who is gatekeeping it has even seen an Overfinch, or knows why we might want an article on them. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

When I saw the word overfinch on my watchlist for this page, I was curious to see if it was about the car mechanic. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Were you any the wiser, for having read it as it is now? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, It just confirmed what I thought I knew. I know nothing about the background to this other than they modify Range Rovers. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

But as it reads at present, you'd just think they were tinting the windows. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so no. Ford wouldn't have given them a design award if that were all they do! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That contributor seems to have been editing the article for years, eg: as DomHowlett (talk · contribs). - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As might be expected, I favour the current version, rather than the promotional, company sanctioned one I just saw. I doubt it would be possible to reliably source that. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:25, 16

Hi there, i'm an Overfinch employee and i've been tasked with returning the information back onto our wikipedia page. I updated the page a long time ago with the correct information. I will admit I don't have the greatest understanding of wikipedia but I reverted the page and removed any links to the "promote" the page. Please can we return the information, i.e. the timeline which can be found on the Overfinch website and the current models etc. that I updated. The aim isn't to advertise just provide people with information on the company. Any help will be appreciated. -DomHowlett (talk) 17.05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DominicHowlett thanks for the note. First of all, you're not User:DomHowlett... Wait, you are, you are both. That's confusing and you need to pick one. Second, one of the edits you made removed the COI template. You can't make COI edits that are challenged (they were, by a number of seasoned editors) and then remove that template. Please listen to the advice of other editors--Black Kite knows what he's talking about, and so does Sitush. Third, please pay attention to the COI note that User:Galobtter placed on your talk page (your other talk page): you must disclose in a more formal way, and instructions are in that note. Do that, and then we can start talking (on the article talk page) about what content is acceptable, and in what form it should be placed, and how it should be referenced. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• I know exactly what an Overfinch is, Andy. And, yes, the current version is useless. But the "expanded" version was promotional and copyvio, so it can't stand, and you know that. As you say,
  WP:SOFIXIT. Black Kite (talk)
  14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we might have set page protection at the same time -- I was actually looking at setting the expiration for a bit longer (I had set 3 months at pending changes), as those sorts of edits that I just reverted seem be a constant issue with the article. Thoughts? Connormah (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Great minds! Well, I am not a big believer in pending changes--oh, yes, I see now that I accidentally overruled you, I suppose. Well, I'm fine with whatever you do, and certainly with lengthening it. And if you want to go back to pending changes, do it. Thanks Connormah, Drmies (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Actually, since PC-protection and semi-protection are not mutually exclusive, the article is currently semi'd for a month and PC-protected for three months; which, given its history, may not be a bad thing at all. I use similar combinations fairly frequently. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah you young people, with your fusion cooking and your beer in bourbon barrels... Drmies (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Here in the Napa Valley where I live, many wineries have side businesses selling used barrels to whiskey distillers. Check it out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

{outdent}}I just want to apologize for accidentally rollbacking you on this article.LM2000 (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

How is an aquatic mammal relevant to that discussion? I'm very confused. PaulCHebert (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read Sealioning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Am I being accused of "a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility"? Because if so, that is a really poor reading of my post. PaulCHebert (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not your post even though you began it. Other people are engaging in problematic behavior there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mesn to imply ownership of the thread; just of the comment I made. As long as the obscure-but-snarky comment wasn't directed at me (...'cuz I do actually have an issue with saying something "is known for X" instead of saying "something is X" and it's pretty clear to me that there's a clear case that Gab is a hate platform and should be unambiguously described as such) I withdraw my concerns. PaulCHebert (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I wasn't making reference to you. Pity you removed it. Real mammals brighten up every conversation. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Legit had no idea what the hell was going on. Now I wish I hadn't. Peace. PaulCHebert (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Not as bad as that blind hymn-writer that you, I and the Lady dealt with some years ago, but the Layne Staley article is a mess. I've just chopped a fair few 1,000 characters after leaving two notes on the talk page and getting no response. How do fans get away with this? Do the rest of us just emit some sort of collective sigh and let them continue their obsession? It's a shame if we do because ultimately they end up wasting a lot of their own time. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Dude I ran into an article about some voice artist yesterday: hundreds of lines of resume. No text. No secondary proof of notability--just an accretion of lines from which some fan of anime or video games builds a resume. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Ha, "get over it"? Never, Sitush. I'm going upstairs to pull Dirt of the shelf. Maybe, sir, you should listen to "Would?", which is one of the BEST SONGS EVER. Yeah, that article--I saw what you did, and I pruned some more. Haven't looked at the talk page. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • DYK that "Would?" appeared on the soundtrack for Singles, which happens to be one of my favourite soundtracks of all time, outside of Trainspotting and The Royal Tenenbaums?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}
    20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You youngsters and your tunes. I stopped following music not long after George Formby died. Although someone may have subsequently bought me the record sung Clive Dunn, which was heavy something but not metal. Slush, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Sitush I'm a few years younger than you are, but I actually do know Formby--saw a few movies, and remember Alexei Sayle doing an impression of him and Mussolini simultaneously. Can't find the video. If I remember correctly, this is wrong--he said something like "'n if you need me, you'll find me hanging from a lamppost!" But go light up a spliff, play "Would?", and turn up the volume. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. We'll see what happens next. I anticipate some large reverts. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And there you have it. The oldest trick in the book. You were...sufficiently subtle,

• JBW is a sly old fox. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It wasn't actually meant to be sly, Drmies, or a trick,
    talk
    ) 15:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Their talk page message, which they also emailed to me, was plenty cryptic. They'll need to do some hard thinking before composing an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk

17:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies I have one question , there are many wikipedia page like Liza Soberano and Yael Shelbia that included beauty ranking in bio section and public image section, now i did this for kpop idol too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Seok-jin&oldid=879690354 i added relatable source from well known websites like metro and insight too but it seems to of kpop fans keep undoing these edites, they continiusly undoing this and write their own reviews, as an korean language user i saw many of these posts in korean wiki pedia, is en.wikipedia different than ko.wikipedia? if yes why these female celebrities en.wikipedia page is like them but we can not write this for male celebrities? or users

• We have beauty rankings now? I looked at Kim Seok-jin, but those sources are not good--then again, much of the sourcing in K-pop articles is terrible. The information in the Soberano article is pretty bad too. But let's ask Dr.K., who is not only a huge K-pop fan but also a classic beauty. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

thank you so much(Shin hi (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC))

LOL, what did I do to deserve that? On the other hand, how can one argue with someone, a friend, who says something so nice about them? As far as beauty rankings in K-pop articles, I haven't been around in that area for some time but I have seen enough spam to last me a lifetime. Seeing this new parameter makes me worry that the avalanche of spam in that area may be reaching epidemic proportions and could possibly exceed the one-lifetime limit. Dr. K. 03:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• ZyLAB Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A piece of promotional, unsourced, self-sourced crud. I, uh, slimmed it down. However, I am battling with an obvious COI user who is probably a sock of another SPA editor of the article. I've reverted twice now and warned the user once, but that hasn't stopped them. The page has, of course, almost no watchers, so no one is ensuring that it meets any standards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Where's Cléante when you need him? Drmies (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Bbb, what always gets my goat is this eternal clamor about oh we don't have enough diversity in the management of these companies blah blah blah. Look at this team--the ONLY thing they LITTERALLY have in common is that none of them button their shirts all the way to the top, but everything else just SCREAMS "we represent". I wish that people like Keilana and GorillaWarfare could grasp this. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • They're your compatriots - talk to them! Meanwhile, I suggest you and I go to Paris immediately to fetch Cléante and maybe have some hot chocolate and pastries while we're there.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You got it. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Smartse, there may be a tidbit more in this version, like those PC Magazine and InfoWorld articles... Drmies (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did have a brief look at them, but not sure coverage in such specialist sources is enough to meet

WP:CORP. I haven't looked at whether the products are notable though. SmartSE (talk

) 17:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey @ Drmies (talk) Just a report on this user. He/she has been vandalising for many days using dynamic IP range

• • 106.76.205.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 106.76.242.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 2402:8100:2846:4573:0:0:7553:E921 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 2402:8100:2848:6E10:0:0:75D6:A6DE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • talk
    ) 19:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• That is one irritating person. But who's our savior? DoRD, who else--almost a redundant note. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they've got access to a practically unlimited number of ranges, so unless someone can come up with something better, we're probably going to be playing Whac-A-Mole with them. —DoRD (talk)​ 03:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who has reverted twice in the last 24 hours and who only has one more to go before 3RR. I've reverted only once. You're the one who's starting an edit war. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

@Bueller 007: Are you so sure about that? [13] [14]. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

What are those links supposed to be showing? That I made an identical reversion **more than two weeks ago** and that I haven't touched the article again until I re-reverted now? More than two weeks later? And that I have not reverted it again after this Drmies did his second reversion in the last couple of hours? That's not an edit war. At least not on my part. I suppose it is too much to ask people to actually read the 3RR. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

They disprove your "You're the one who has reverted twice in the last 24 hours and who only has one more to go before 3RR." Ronz made the other revert. I suggest a less aggressive approach to interactions with other users. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I responded to the person who posted the nonsensical "Edit War" template on my page assuming that it was the same person who had reverted the edit. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that my having made ONE REVERT in the last two weeks is NOT AN EDIT WAR. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't so much dependent on reverts/time--it's an indication of an attitude, and it is contingent also on the quality of the edits and their explanation, and a Piers Morgan-penned blog and a company link just aren't very good sources. So this isn't about 3RR at all, and thank you for not reverting again. That's all. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm OK, thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ignaxiouslow has reverted contents removed previously in Singapore Institute of Technology again. You may want to look through the contents. Applepineapple (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• See above. Bbb to the rescue. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I work for NerdWallet. I noticed you saved the NerdWallet page from deletion a couple years ago, so I wanted to reach out with some changes I'm suggesting to the page. I originally submitted the changes on the NerdWallet talk page [15], but haven't heard back, so wanted to ping you directly to see if it's something you have time to look at and if it's of interest to you to review. Thank you. Julianne at NerdWallet (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I did? That was nice of me--did I give y'all my PayPal address? Drmies (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• OK, I don't know what I did--wait, I see it now. Yeah, that was a user with a grudge, obviously. Well, that proposed draft, I don't have a problem with it, esp. since the Tim Chen content right now is on the not so neutral side. Have you considered asking
  WP:DISCLOSE--I think it would be good if you dropped a template on the article talk page that notes your COI.) Drmies (talk
  ) 02:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned you in an edit-summary here, fyi. ——SerialNumber54129 14:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• OK--so we don't receive a ping for that. Ha, maybe you should sign your edit summary? NO DONT DO THAT Drmies (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Don't the pings work? I admit I'm not sure to trust them, hence my post here. Thanks!——SerialNumber54129 15:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That article needs some help. The other editor seems to be of good faith/intentions. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I liked your "typically" by the way  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't want to overgeneralize, you know. Hey, do you like romance and hagiography? I reviewed a translation of Robert Le Diable (by Samuel N. Rosenberg), which is awesome, and now I'm reading Rachel J. D. Smith, Excessive Saints, a brand-new book. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I believe that notifications in edit summaries work, but they are subject to the same proviso as other "mentions": the edit summary edit must be signed. That means they don't work in edits to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Whoa Bbb23--thanks for checking. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I thought mentions in edit summaries worked with no signature (if enabled by the recipient in preferences). I tested that by pinging Bbb23 in diff. Did you get that ping? Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Nope.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I asked about the issue and received an explanation
  here. My attempt to notify Bbb23 was an undo and that is one of the conditions that do not generate a notification. A test showed that an edit summary notification works in an article, providing it is not an undo or rollback. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 03:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well, it would have been a block, not a ban, and since it involved the BLP it wasn't needless. Plus, it seems you stopped edit warring, so that's good. If you can make claims about what other editors can and cannot do, citing our guidelines, then I should be able to expect you to know what "BLP" means. I mean, it would be odd for you to claim, to an administrator, that "You're not following Wikipedia guidelines. According to them your threats don't have basis" but not know Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, one of the most important policies we have. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Wait, Vivil: WTF did you just say, at the end of your message? If that was not a typo, don't repeat it. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this acronym but I'm familiar with the guideline.

I'm mostly familiar with raging reaction of administrators when someone dares to disagree with or question their action.

That wasn't a typo. That was vocabulary used by author of tweet that was mentioned. Now I check it's considered vulgar. Breasts should be neutral word. _Please use 

{{Reply to}} Vivil 🗪

18:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You claim on your user page to have a native understanding of English. You obviously don't. I don't think you understand what "raging" means either--but you don't have to report back. Now, I'm going to scrub that BLP violation from the history of my talk page, and I hope that you will think about whether your sexist language is in any way related to the edits you made in that article. Again, no need to respond here. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a personal attack. You should stop attacking me and accusing me of sexist language. That's extremely against Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Considering definition [16] and your personal attacks and accusations my use of words was correct.

I'll stop responding once you stop abusing power by attacking other users. _Please use 

{{Reply to}} Vivil 🗪

18:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Vivil, the text that you wrote here that Drmies has hidden was indeed sexist and you should not have written it, and honestly it doesn't matter whether those were your words or not. There was just no reason for it. It is not a personal attack to point that out.

As for the subject matter, we have a number of policies that we don't write articles about people based only on controversial things that they did when they're not notable for anything else (

WP:DONOHARM

). Nominating the article for deletion was the right thing to do, so thank you, but please don't fight over adding negative information in the meantime.

Now hopefully we can move past this incident without anyone needing to be blocked? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: The personal attack was questioning my literacy because I disagree. If I didn't understand a word it would still be uncalled for. Considering I did understand the meaning of said word it was nothing but personal attack.

I've checked different dictionaries and I've found no information that said word is sexist. It's vulgar but it doesn't mean it's sexist. Actually it's very neutral word compared to other I've found. I could prove my point but owner of this talk page may be sensitive about vulgar expressions from other people.

I'm aware of those policies but considering the sad excuse of article is considered for deletion it shouldn't be blanked. Removing nearly all content is blanking in my book. It should not happen before article deletion.

Considering I'm the only one here who can realistically be blocked I'm concerned about this question. It's like jail guard expressing hope no one will get hurt in the night. _Please use 

{{Reply to}} Vivil 🗪

19:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@

{{Reply to}} Vivil 🗪

19:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:BLPREMOVE) does in fact say that inappropriate negative information about living persons should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, unless and until a discussion determines that the content is in fact appropriate. It's going very much in the opposite direction here, so please don't restore it. And as for the comment about your literacy that was perhaps not on, you seem functionally literate to me, enough that I think you'd agree that your first couple posts here were a bit of a jumble. You're missing some prepositions I think, but I'm no English scholar. I'll let Drmies respond to that if he wants to, I'm not in the habit of putting apologies in people's mouths. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 19:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I've mentioned the template because of your link to Help:Watchlist. I've assumed you linked that because you think it's better solution. You can use whatever solution you like. In this case it doesn't matter that much.

It did not imply that. Your assumption is incorrect. In contrast to your reaction I'll assume you're just mistaken and not sexist and misandrist. I ask you to not do it again.

I don't see any issues with my posts. If there are any I would like discuss them. Just stating that something is wrong without proving it doesn't mean much. i think you're capable enough to agree with that. _Please use 

{{Reply to}} Vivil 🗪

19:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vivil: ah, I see. I use that template only to indicate that I'm someone who watches this page regularly and wasn't previously involved in the conversation, and it links where it does because the more commonly used alternative uses language I find distasteful. Anyway, your deflection about my motivation reveals to me all I need to know about what you're up to here and so I'm not intending to respond here again. The page is now protected through the conclusion of the deletion discussion so that the content cannot be restored against policy again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, thank you for jumping in. The careful reader will note that the user does indeed claim "native" proficiency in English, which is ludicrous; the user claims I'm "raging", which is also ludicrous (they're either baiting me in some passive-aggressive style, or they don't know what "raging" means); the user claims that what they said isn't sexist. (I showed it to Mrs. Drmies--she said "gross"). But I see that while I was at the weigh-in for the Pinewood Derby User:78.26 and User:Yamla have already stepped in.

  78.26, that reminds me (and my apologies if you've heard this before)--if someone was born in 33, they'd be 45 in which year? Drmies (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

James Duane, in January 1779, of course. The mathematical relation is not lost on record collectors, although in the Western Hemisphere it is off by 66/900th of an rpm. It is merely serendipitous. 33 and 78 had long been established by the time RCA "invented" the 45, and the mathematical equivalence had not occurred to their engineers, they picked that speed rather at random.^{[citation needed]} 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I asked you knowing full well you must have heard it a million times, when when I saw it as a meme on Facebook I thought of you immediately. Let the record reflect, by the way, that there's only one Duane I recognize. Also by the way, QAnon assures me there are no coincidences. Hope you're enjoying your weekend, 78.26, maybe with some nice apple pie and coffee. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The user is currently blocked. I declined their unblock request, having not noticed this particular rant. They've continued over at Meta, which they explicitly know gets copied over to their en.wikipedia user page. As such, I'm going to go revoke talk page access now. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blanked their local userpage so what they're ranting on about on meta isn't imported over here any more. I don't think this is a global lock situation yet, but keep shooting for that star I guess. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector, I got somewhat expectedly trolled when I raised it at meta; but then, that place does have the empathy vacuum of a Regency-era gentlemen's club. ——SerialNumber54129 14:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Here, right here, is where you can leave notes--or on my own talk page. First of all, editing a website when you don't know how the website works is probably not a good idea. Second, you MUST address the concerns: content needs to be in proper English, and be accompanied by valid, reliable secondary sources (see
  WP:RS). That's besides the COI/neutrality concerns, which right now are not the most important ones--first is a. you stop reverting and edit warring and b. you find the proper sources for the content you wish to include. Revert again and I will be forced to block you, since contributors have to play by the rules. Thank you, Drmies (talk
  ) 02:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies (talk) thanks for writing directly on my talk page. Sorry for the misunderstanding I didn't want to cause any trouble. The information is based on http://matohomola.sk/profil-mato-homola/, http://matohomola.sk/en/news/, http://matohomola.sk/en/profile-mato-homola/ and http://www.homolamotorsport.sk/en/news. I understand that it would be ideal if every peice of information is tied into a direct citation, but there is so much content in what I posted, that it would not be doable. We can reference these matohomola.com and homolamotorsport.com. Regarding the proper English, I do understand that Wikipedia strives for the highest quality. I want to assure you that we were doing our best and if you can see places where it could be improved, please help. Deleting the whole thing makes the profile incomplete. Thanks Ondrejhomola (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi Ondrejhomola, and thanks for the note--but sources can't be some person's website. This is an encyclopedia, and you must cite secondary sources--see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Hello Drmies (talk). Got it, I will try to find references from other sources. Thanks for your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondrejhomola (talk • contribs) 03:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Ondrejhomola, go through the folder with newspaper and magazine articles. Look at websites by reliable sources (like here in the US, ESPN for instance--maybe Eurosport, if that still exists?). Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Doc (and lurkers)

Can you please help expand Ging Ginanjar? Also needed is some way to add information about the referenced "Indonesian People’s Congress (KRI)", or find a different name for it (it may be covered at May 1998 riots of Indonesia). kelapstick—still have any interest in topics Indonesian?

^Bongo_matic 04:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, if only Crisco 1492 were still around... Drmies (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not think I should be banned as I was just updating the information as it was happening and when a reliable source becomes available I will reference it in the article. I have never posted any incorrect information or mislead anyone into thinking something was true when it is not and I try to reference everything as soon as a source is available. I am just trying to provide correct information for everyone to access on Wikipedia and keep that information up-to-date and after the first warning I did provide a brief summary of my actions. I am sorry for my previous actions and have learned from them and I will not try to repeat them.

• No one was talking about banning. But your block log, and your talk page, show that you have been here before. I hope we won't have to do this again. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I did receive a warning from you about being "THIS close" to being banned but, I will provide updates for the Men's Royal Rumble match and will provide a brief summary for the edits and will reference them when a reliable source becomes available, to just tell you in advanced. I Am Awesome 061796 (talk)
    • I Am Awesome 061796, I was talking about a three-month block, not a ban. I see that in the meantime that block has arrived, and I'm not really surprised since your latest edits (while accompanied by an edit summary) were still unsourced. That "others do it too" isn't much of a justification, sorry. I also don't think that simply blanking your entire talk page sends a good signal re:collegiality in a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if there is something offensive about having a person's national flag in the information box of articles? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Offensive? In special circumstances, I suppose. In the ordinary ones
  MOS:FLAG applies, and there's a special section that says, in summary, "in general, not in infoboxes". Drmies (talk
  ) 01:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

See this? ——SerialNumber54129 18:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• No I did not--no idea what it means. I did see that user editing and was wondering what on earth they were doing. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You recently moved

• Oh, Bradv, I just didn't think to close it. Look, if you think it was problematic (it seemed non-controversial to me), by all means reopen it, and we can move it back if that's the consensus. I have no problem with that. Thanks for checking, Drmies (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, Drmies. I have reopened the discussion. Bradv🍁 06:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Drmies once again, noticed that this page Singapore Management University is written like an advertisement. Need your help please. Thank you. :) — Preceding User:Applepineapple comment added by User:Applepineapple (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry,

• Hmm. See your talk page--but please, don't go around restoring content on other people's talk pages; they are within their right to blank them. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• And please SIGN your messages. Now the bot signs them, and then you tweak that, and then everything turns small, etc. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, it seems

I have learnt to sign off. =)Applepineapple (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.SQL^{Query me!}

04:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• So do you, User:SQL. But do YOU have an Amazon package with a new cooktop in it on the way? Drmies (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Blackpink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperius1255 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think Onel5969's edit was right on the money. Such redirects are eminently useful. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A
  activity requirements
  for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A
  WP:PERM
  , where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.Dlohcierekim (talk)

23:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your help with that IP, and for the vote of confidence. I always appreciate the patience and positive attitude you have when dealing with editors. On a side note, can you please let me know where I can go to appreciate the most treasured of admin's ostrich's fan page? Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Should go on Instagram: World Record Ostrich--Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see above, Aoi--unfortunately DMacks, who is The Best Administrator In The World, was strong enough to overcome their own emotions and delete the page, since it was, you know, contrary to the goals of our encyclopedia and all that. As for positive--I was hoping that the IP editor actually had an interest in making things better and would recognize that I recognized that. Their response, of course, was disgusting. Anyway, thanks for the note, keep on writing the good prose, and take care, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you block them yet? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sure--they're a kind soul, I have no doubt. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Sweet of you to say it, Drmies! I preserve posting for posterity ([17]), so others can appreciate. You are good friend, Drmies. --Super IP (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC) (A.G.F.Q.)
    • Soul Intent (group)... Drmies (talk
      ) 05:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Already done --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Now to do my english homework, Lord of the Flies Novel Study. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Bleeeeeeeeh. Hey, maybe read The Coral Island when you're done. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, we crossed paths, but it’s your best friend Arturo. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, but he's not my best friend. Living the California high life, that's not a bad way to live, Tony. Cullen 328 can tell you all about it, if he's ever recovered from visiting the porn museum in Miami. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I read a book at school today, how sneakers are made, it's a BIG process... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

oh and that LTA made this page User talk:Drmies/Ostrich is back I tagged it for g3 CSD. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, but I thought it was so sweet that I didn't delete it; I'll leave it for the next admin--maybe DMacks. The ostrich has been making the rounds. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Reluctantly. sigh. DMacks (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up, on Talk:Amadeus_IT_Group#Hmm I moved your comment to just above DGG's response to you in the edit request thread. Your post had been placed higher up in the page between comments from 2011 and it seemed more relevant being placed towards the bottom in the discussion about the COI editor's request. Hope you dont mind Regards,  Spintendo  20:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain me why you have reverted my edit on SkyTeam page "And yet we require a secondary source"? In that case, the photo is enough to prove the airline is in the alliance, eyes are our source. The logo on the plane means only that the airline is part of the alliance, nothing more. And that is what i wrote. --Wind of freedom (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes it is, and yet we do require a secondary source, for many reasons. Look it up in
  WP:V. And what do you mean with "are you a bot?" Are you trying to insult me? I don't always mind being insulted, but I'd like to know. Maybe it's a young people thing, in which case I can use it with my kids and sound cool. And you kind of owe Jetstreamer an apology for this. Drmies (talk
  ) 01:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Well, it's rumored that DrM is the AI machine behind: [18]. O3000 (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • OH. IM. ALL. THAT. And more! (Thanks--that's awesome!) Drmies (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Nobody want insult you, i asked just because your edit was just a minute after mine. You remove a big part about airports and location. Should it be removed from Star Alliance and Oneworld pages too? About Joon, I start talking about it on SkyTeam talk page, if you want say your opionion. --Wind of freedom (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Well I'm glad to hear that. Please consider that humor and sarcasm don't always come across very well--no one ever gets my jokes, for example. Anyway, the stuff I removed seemed to be nothing more than directory information; this is an encyclopedia, and a list of where in the world the airline's kiosks and helpdesks are is just not a thing we should be doing. If you find that in other articles, sure, see if it should go. Longer articles with more content aren't necessarily better! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I agree with you. So, I found some articles online, so will re-insert infos removed by Jetstreamer. I think common sense suggests that in some case just a "photo" is enough to say if an airline is part or not of an alliance. Is the case of this photo of Austral, I'm pretty sure that the photo speaks for itself. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this case you agree with me. --Wind of freedom (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that--I can't agree with saying that any photo speaks for itself. No, photos don't speak for themselves: others speak for photos. Please don't use photos as sources. Use sources as sources. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't even trust videos. See:[19] O3000 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This would explain why some of the good doctor's edits in problematic situations amount to "

Drmies passes the Turing test. He fools me every time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the question remains: What percentage of humans can pass the Turing test? O3000 (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Younger, taller person "coolly goes toe to toe" with an older protester and "faces them down"... with that smile on their face...

But this time it's in England so it's much easier to know who the bad guys are. (does the still from the video look familiar?)

Also this time it comes with music.

I wonder if the incident itself is notable. MPS1992 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know. Personally I don't want "incidents" to have notability. This is a really interesting story, though, and I'm listening to this right now, which was linked from that story (and there's a documentary on the Clash coming out?). Drmies (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Koek-en-zopie may be of interest to you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies. I happened to notice

• Berean Hunter, Courcelles, Alex Shih, Softlavender, your names pop up on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inactive user 20171/Archive. Are you interested in following up? Scolaire, thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on the user's talk page. I noticed that immediately after I placed my initial block - it's been updated and changed to an impersonation block. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, thanks--I was hesitant to block immediately, so I checked the BAG list and did a few other things, and saw you beat me to it. Remember to update your report as well: a username block is $2, but an impersonation block gets you $5. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You mean the block notice left? Yup, all done... and OOOOH $5! What should I do with it?!!! :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah You'd be so rich if you got Five Dollars for every user you blocked. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be long retired in real life... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait a better deal, $5 for every message and revert made in Huggle. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You wish. No, only certified admins rake in this kind of money. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --rm 'w avu 23:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'll leave you one too--you seem not to have read what it says. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I genuinely didn't see the links in there. Best, TJH2018talk 04:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• No worries, User:TJH2018. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I see where editor Tym Whittier was blocked. I think I was duped. I tried to give simple advice and "he" only wanted to put opinion on talk pages. I now think you have go his number. It's hard to speculate and you do not want to be wrong. Eschoryii (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

On 13 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Augusta Peaux, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Willem Kloos said to Jacques Perk that they were the only two young talented poets in the Netherlands, Perk mentioned his childhood friend Augusta Peaux as a third? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Augusta Peaux. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Augusta Peaux), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, thank you for changing a revision on Josh Okogie! Would you also mind protecting the page? There is a huge influx of vandalism. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you MusikAnimal. Sigh. What's wrong with people? Drmies (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that your closure statement does not accurately summarize the discussion. Perhaps you wanted to make it longer but saved the page prematurely. The reason I'm asking is that your close seems to imply that only five editors oppose the deprecation (three !voting option 1 and two !voting option 3). Actually 14 editors oppose it, 16 editors support it, and one editor !voted "option 3 or 4". That doesn't look like an overwhelming majority, but perhaps I'm reading something wrong. wumbolo ^^^ 08:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• If the choice was to vote for 4 or against it, you'd have a stronger point. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  That's not true; !voting for options 1/2/3 implies opposing option 4. Are you suggesting that the RfC was malformed? wumbolo ^^^ 14:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not true; !voting for options 1/2/3 implies opposing option 4. In the same way that disagreement implies disrespect. Which is to say; not in any way that really counts. Without explicitly being told, you have no idea how many of those 14 !votes would be happy with #4 as a second choice.

Tell me all about it.

14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If they were any happy about option 4, they would !vote for it. RfCs have to allow !votes supporting a position, but also opposing it. If one option is to deprecate a source and other options are not to deprecate a source, then !voting for the other options implies opposing the deprecation. wumbolo ^^^ 14:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If they were any happy about option 4, they would !vote for it. See

Tell me all about it.

14:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Like my vote. PackMecEng (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

PackMecEng, right before your vote two people pointed out various problems. Plus the article's talk page lists problems (and links to RSN discussions) going back at least to 2013... Drmies (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

My point here was more to illustrate if someone had a problem with 4 they would oppose 4. More in a meta sense than what my thoughts or argument on it are. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I know PackMecEng, I know. But I was kind of surprised to find that comment of yours, so short and, well, it wasn't going to sway anything. I am used to seeing much more from you. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, twice i've engaged in this action (the first to fruition, i don't think the second time was 100% completed), now it's a given. Sick and tired and worn out after nearly 13 years, fed up with the constant bickering (even among non-vandals) for which i am partially/also to blame, no qualms admitting it. Why should i continue editing if: 1 - i am not having fun anymore; 2 - the world of pro soccer is disgusting as can be and then some? Baffles the/my mind...

If you as an admin cannot perform the action yourself, can you please remind me of the necessary steps to take? Take care, continue the good and hard work! --Quite A Character (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm I really don't want you to vanish. Bishonen probably knows everything. I'll be sad to see you go. I recognize your edits a mile away, even when you were IPing it a couple of years ago, and you have done us a valuable service. I especially like your global/non-nationalist attitude. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't know about vanishing. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

I've filed a report here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Courtesy_vanishing#Request_to_vanish). If it's not possible due to any reason no worries, i'll just stop using the account/logging in.

Regards to both of you --Quite A Character (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• You know I will miss you. Take care old friend. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Drmies, this edit which you made violates two of Wikipedia's indisputable rules. First, you deliberately reverted an article to include factually incorrect information. Second, you violated the principle of remaining civil with your inappropriate commentary. I therefore issue this formal warning against continuing either of these behaviors. Thank you for your full and immediate cooperation. The edit in question is here: [20] I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Actually it's Mrs. Drmies, but whatever you call me, I'm still not as laughable as this comment. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• I see that a better user than me has made edits to the article; I know this editor a little bit, and whatever they touch becomes better instantly. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I was talking with another editor about the talk page at Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players. I had just archived the page, which had items going back to March 2011. What was brought to my attention is that looking back at the main article history such as this edit from 2009 it seems there were talk page discussions long before March of 2011. Did the original talk page get deleted and then restarted in 2011? It's very strange. I see a series of page moves by editor Kwamikagami on March 3 and 8 of 2011, and then a revert of that move by Loginnigol on 23 Sep 2012‎. Could the tak page have been deleted when it shouldn't have? We'd like to get the old conversations back if possible and added to the archive. I saw you were editing the article around that time period so I thought I'd ask if you could figure out what happened. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. We found it at a different spelling Talk:World number one male tennis player rankings. Strange that it wasn't merged originally when the page was moved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting, Fyunck(click). Yeah, I'm looking at the page move by User:Loginnigol as well, and they moved the talk page also. But in the talk page history there's this gap between Loginnigol's move in 2012 and 2015, which I don't understand either. Tell you what, it's time to call on the master: Writ Keeper. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm old. In my day calling Writ Keeper for difficult problems would be like calling "Mr. Whoopee" from Tennessee Tuxedo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • WritKeeper is so young he can floss with the best of them. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I was thinking of moving the archive I created, Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 1, to "Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 4". And then moving each of the three archives at Talk:World number one male tennis player rankings to archives 1, 2, and 3 at Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players. That way a search will work when we look for old topics. I'm not sure your thoughts on that or whether we wait till WK takes a looksee. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello D. I hope you are well. The problem editor on India articles has returned as 64.134.174.36 (talk · contribs). They are blocked but some R/D work is needed. Hopefully it will have been taken care by the time you see this but, if not, please do the honors. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

​ Done plus some others — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you JJMC89. MarnetteD|Talk 23:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, not that one again. I cannot tell you how disgusted I am by that. Thank you for noticing, and JJMC89, thank you for cleaning up. OH! JJMC89, this is the first time I type out your name--I thought there were three letters in there. Anyway, we have vanity plates for the Alabama Bicentennial, and those tags all start with capital J, then two letters, and then three numbers, so I often think of you on my daily commute. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Disgusted, indeed. This isn't the first time I've had to do a bunch of mopping up after them. Seems the filter isn't doing it. — JMC895 (T·C) 06:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That IP is on a range where a bunch of bullshit seems to have come from--I see recent CUs by Berean Hunter, Zzuuzz, Callanecc, DoRD, Bbb23... A lot of our usual vandals and LTAs have been on this range. Maybe we should go Dark City and SHUT IT DOWN. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Filter 954, if anyone want to fiddle. There's plenty of scope for improvement. I might take a look if I ever stop blocking spambots. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlthewave has started a new talk page discussion, and again added a criminal use section despite a 2 to 4 consensus against the inclusion of such information in previous discussion.--RAF910 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

We have too many edit reversions in articles like these. I don't agree with removal of the undue tag and gave reasons on the talk page. I thought I would get your feelings on the matter rather than simply reinsert the tag. Springee (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I think that tag was way overblown. That section is SO small--you're talking about three sentences in a 100+k page. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Praxidicae (talk

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Dlohcierekim (talk)

• User:Dlohcierekim, I was just about to get up and make coffee, and get the ice cream ready for me and the kids. How urgent is your message? How exciting? Would you like to come over and play a Nerfgun battle? Drmies (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• • promised to address the unblock tomorrow. would love ice cream and nerfgun. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • oh quite exciting Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Rosie and I totally ambushed Liam. I need more Nerfguns. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Oof an escalation in nerfguns can lead to avoiding them by hiding in mine shafts at that inevitably leads to this :-) Best wishes to the whole family D. MarnetteD|Talk 02:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Dude. That's dangerous. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I am 100% certain this is not a commentary on current events. MarnetteD would never do such a thing. Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Though not nearly as exciting as gaping mine shafts. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm pretty sure User:Kelapstick has had Nerfgun battles in mine shafts. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
              • I am 100% certain this is not a double-entendre. Drmies would never do such a thing. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. Funny thing is, the ip editor is actually correct. Take a look at the apple website and it's actually the gold color not rose gold. I'm going to change the file name so we can change it on the iPhone SE page Hydromania (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Is it? It's hard to tell the difference, but it looks like Rose Gold to me. Fun fact: I was looking at edits from that range because there was a ton of vandalism coming from it, including dumb edits to Caucasian race that have been going on for a while. Anyway, I assume you have young, sharp eyes, so I'll leave it to you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow super quick response. Yeah some vandalism is how I got to that page in the first place. I just edited the description on commons, renaming the file seems more trouble than it's worth. you are more experienced so I'll leave that to you :). Hydromania (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Having initiated contact with the venerable Drmies whom he has watched from the sidelines once or twice before, he permit himself to waste their time with a trivial question

user FairchildFilm is an old SPA exclusively editing Veleka Gray and a few related articles and probably has a COI. I'm not sure if any recent edits are against policy. Figure I'd ask you to take a look. Hydromania (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm. I culled some. Yes, a COI is entirely possible but I'm not in the mood for tagging. Seems to me the article suffers, like me, from venerability--meaning it's on a relatively old subject (preceding the internet age) who's not that notable and hasn't generated that much coverage in the printed press. Hey that all sounds very familiar. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)