User talk:Drmies

14 February
Happy Valentine's Day!
	Alte Liebe; I Will Mention the Loving-kindnesses

With thanks to User:RexxS: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Please read and edit accordingly.

Talking

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Mutt Lunker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Long time no chat (lol)

Hi Drmies! While patrolling recent changes, I ran into an editor (Arrely11331) who kept changing the domain of sources on a bunch of articles to be 'gaylesbiantimes'. After looking at the history of one of the articles, I just happened to see that there was another account with a similar username that was blocked. And, as you can probably predict, this account is a sock puppet. The reason I'm messaging you about this is because you were the user who blocked the account that I happened to spot (Ars3nal311). Looking at the block summary you added, it looks like this user was trying to pull wool over your eyes by saying that what he's doing is legitimate. I was wondering if you happen to have any more information about this user, or if there are other accounts that you've blocked. The edits being made, while small, stick out like a sore thumb. I'm just not sure of what he's trying to accomplish... Advertising? Trolling? What also has me concerned is the fact that some of the edits by the account I blocked were modifying the URL of the source, which was already set to be 'gaylesbiantimes', and on articles of subjects where it's quite unlikely that this domain is going to cover as a source. I'm wondering if there's ongoing disruption that goes deeper and further back... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, I don't think I have much to add. I was alerted to the edits by edit summaries/comments by John Broughton and Epicgenius, and followed up, with the conclusion that you have already seen. But I don't know if you clicked on the link (my subscription to Gay and Lesbian Times lapsed, unfortunately, with the magazine's demise): it's total spam. I don't know if anyone needs bigger loads of semen, it's certainly something the world doesn't need, and Wikipedia didn't need those edits, haha. No, I didn't find any others; I just ran CU, and the IPs are different but geolocate to the same country, whatever that's worth--but it does seem like a concerted effort, and if there were two, there might be more. I wonder if other editors have seen these edits. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oshwah - Clearly the domain has been taken over by someone who uses it only for spam. Archived pages (at archive.org) are still valuable, but links to the site itself are not. I just checked and there weren't any active links to the current site, so that's fine - the two identified user accounts that that made the edits apparently haven't been followed by any others. And hopefully they'll give this up as a waste of time. 21:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jewish engravers

A tag has been placed on Category:Jewish engravers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

What a strange discussion this is. I have found that such category discussions all too easily evolve into antf*cking. Debresser, you frequently make some sense, maybe you can explain how religion/ethnicity is trivial ("Jewish engravers"), and nationality is not ("Dutch engravers"). That some engraver happens to work in NL, so what? That's sort of rhetorical, but not entirely. And you know that there were so many Jewish engravers in Amsterdam (and some cities in Germany) because they were Jewish and fled other places, so in fact it is not a coincidence that there are a lot of Jewish Dutch engravers. But seeing the trivializing jokes by people like SMcCandlish really take the fun out of it. I think next time I'm just not going to bother and thus write up categories that are red links. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is no coincidence. I also agree that SMcCandlish can be rather unpleasant at times. As to your main question:

Usually, fields of art or of craftsmanship are influenced by "schools", being centers of learning and tradition. These are often national. The Dutch masters of the Golden Age from the 17th century come to mind. These are usually not ethnic. They are called "Dutch" not because of the fact that they were ethnically Dutch, but because of the physical location. As that is an easy to identify reference. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, that was most definitely an interesting read. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Easy and frequently meaningless... I wish more people would read Patrick Geary's The Myth of Nations. What applies to the 17th century in one way does not apply to the 20th in the same way. Anyway, I'm digressing--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have a PDF version, I'd be happy to receive it. But at first glance I'd say nations often come with their specific culture etc., so not meaningless at all. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Tympanus

Hello Dr. Mies,

Tympanus, whom he just blocked, appears to be using an IP to comment now [1].--Ermenrich (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(with dramatic umpire gestures) "Bllllloooccckkkked" OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well watch Jamie run off with my $2 for a block evasion block. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Non-gilly weed

Ah ha! Now I understand. Of course I know that meaning of "weed", but the word has never been actively used in that meaning in any circle I have been a member of, so it does not automatically spring to mind when I see the word, as it evidently did to yours when you saw that user name. As for 420, that is totally new to me. Evidently I am seriously out of touch. All part of getting older, I suppose. JBW (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm you know, I wonder if kids these days say "weed". I'll ask my kids--but this is the vaping generation. "420", I think I learned that somewhat recently--maybe around the time I started editing Wikipedia, and I see it in usernames all the time, frequently in combination with "69". That wasn't in the username, of course, and again I thank you for your advocacy. BTW I'm still getting used to you not being JamesBWatson (or "user formerly known as"). I thought we also had a User:JBL, but not so, it seems. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
JBL, here's one: User talk:420pee. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Here in Bristol, a city where one gets whiffs of skunk when there is nobody within eyeshot, the kids certainly call it weed.TheLongTone (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  - You know what, TheLongTone, hook me up. It might chill me down some.
    Bristol...brutalist architecture...Portishead...Massive Attack...Neanderthals and Iron Age hill forts...just fucking beep me up already, will you? Drmies (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Well there is some Brutalist architecture in Bristol, the town received a pasting from the Luftwaffe in WW2 and a worse one from sixties town planners, but there are swathes of beautiful buildings as well... and you didn't mention The Pop Group or street artTheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Never heard of em, but I'm about to rectify that. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

magic

I think this might warrant some CU magic dust, I suspect there's been years of logged out editing and since they edited in the last month, data won't be too stale. Praxidicae (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I also can't believe this was ever kept at AFD, it's also part of the now blocked users attempts to spam (though it was created many years ago by someone else.) but you may want to take a hatchet to that too. Praxidicae (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) what exactly do you want to run checkuser on? There is one account in the retention window between both of those pages, plus some IPs we won't connect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I know you won't connect them publicly but there's clearly been some long term paid editing by that user and at least 2 others with semi recent edits. I'll just e-mail the paid queue so as not to give them more tips on how to evade scrutiny. Praxidicae (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector I looked through the history, real quick, but that now-blocked account--well, there's an edit from last December, so I suppose we could get something from that, but Praxidicae, I think use of CU has only limited benefits here, esp. since there's no recent IP edits either. I don't know. It's possible that some IP will provide the link to some sock farm, but we're dealing only with two articles, so far. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I see User:Arr4, a sock of Orangemoody, in the history of Rutan & Tucker. That can be a coincidence, of course--and do I remember correctly that Orangemoody socks sometimes made decent edits unrelated to what they were getting paid for, in hopes of being deemed legitimate? Drmies (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Rutan & Tucker was also a repeat draft creation by the Pizza guy before it was successfully created in mainspace by Rockencsh. Praxidicae (talk)

(Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rutan & Tucker) Orangemoody is just a little bit before my time but I do think you're correct, and Arr4's edits look at least passable, but at the same time from what I understand about Orangemoody checkuser was of little use. Still, that's all six years ago, there's nothing checkuser would reveal here in any case. Unless you have some evidence that the editor behind Bilder4u is socking recently, I really can't help you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I was simply discussing an option with Drmies, not demanding anything. There’s a lot of history behind this but I’m aware of the limits of CU. Praxidicae (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, it's all good--thanks. Without your edits I wouldn't have seen this spammer. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, you're a proud Canadian: I want you to know I've been playing Rush in the car all week. With the kids I went over the lyrics of "Witch Hunt", a remarkably timely song. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Kelapstick, calling all Canadians: if you can make Witch Hunt (Rush song) look a little better, plz help out! Drmies (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been a lot of enthusiastic air drumming this week, yes. Mostly in the house, though, the car stereo is not powerful enough. Funny you should mention Witch Hunt, I just happened to have given away my extra LP of Moving Pictures not much more than a week ago. I've mostly been listening to R40 Live, though, since I was at the second Toronto show where most of it was recorded. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it good? And how is that Feedback album? Rush live--I'm still wondering what to buy, which one to buy, whether it's worth it or whether I'm just getting a Greatest Hits album. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

They are all good! R30 is also wonderful and if you have the DVD, you get a bunch of unreleased videos from their past included. Rush in Rio has too much noise from the crowd bleeding in and Neil Peart apologizes in the liner notes that it couldn't be edited out. You need 2112 if you don't have it and Vapor Trails is excellent for a later album. Feedback is good but a little shorter as it is an EP and has all covers. If you went over the lyrics for Witch Hunt with your kids then you might try the same for The Trees. Counterparts is really good as well. Get them all. :)
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Haha BH--you must think I'm a rookie. I can't listen to 2112 anymore--too baroque and libertarian, and same with "Trees". No, I'm not getting them all, but I was interested in Feedback. I left off after Moving Pictures, so at some point I gotta get something more recent, haha. Vapor Trails? OK--thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you are limiting yourself ;), Vapor Trails and Counterparts are the two studio albums that I would recommend at the top of all those studio albums since Moving Pictures. You can't go wrong with either.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. And I am going to get Feedback--I'm interested. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have All the World's a Stage and Exit... Stage Left on vinyl and both are solid live albums from the band's early career. On the first they enthusiastically preview a track from their "upcoming album" 2112, and the second was recorded after the Moving Pictures tour. R40 is lovely: they play a reverse timeline of their music, starting with "The Alchemist" from Clockwork Angels (also an excellent album) and working backwards to their debut album, and not just the hits like some older bands do on tour. Really the recording is worth the trip just for Neil Peart's interpretation of "Working Man", John Rutsey was no hack but Peart blows him away. But take BH's advice: get them all, you won't hate any of them :) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess this won't surprise you

[2] Doug Weller talk 19:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not. "Socialistic"--ha. Yeah, Hitler says it was for all people so it's not right-wing... Thanks Doug. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Cape Party

I'm not sure if this would be of interest to you, but I stumbled upon it and removed a lot of stuff only about secession, mainly other groups and that mainly self-sourced, probably more cleanup to be done. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The Doors vandal

The Doors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Doctor. Regarding your recent comment. The most complete list of what was done (IP blocks and article semiprotections) is now at Talk:The Doors#Selecting the articles to protect. No objection if you want to relocate the information from that thread and put it in a subpage of Talk:The Doors.

For a while, I was using underlines to show which articles were semied. When I get some time, I might try to update that section with your recent admin actions so we know where the remaining gaps are. Some Doors articles can be left open as honeypots. No point in opening an SPI except it would be a central place to stash the information. Or we could open up an WP:LTA report but I have heard that is a serious step. I don't know if a long-term case of nuisance vandalism would be enough of a reason for an LTA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha--thank you Ed. I think you're right on all counts. I mean, I do think that an LTA case is warranted but my threshold is fairly low, and the real question is what purpose it would serve. As far as I'm concerned the LTA section is like a clearinghouse, but a note on the Doors talk page with a link will probably suffice. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Crunchyroll and Fandompost Cites

Hello, Drmies. I'm sorry for adding those Crynchyroll and Fandompost citations. I don't want to add the citations from fansites and commercial websites anymore. Yoga Widya 1994 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I noticed that you no longer included some of those, and that is why you haven't been blocked yet--in other words, I had high hopes that you would see that those things just aren't reliable sources. But keep in mind also what one of those other editors said--for relatively simple, factual things we just don't need three or four or more links. Thanks for the note, and happy editing. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Drmies,

I would appreciate your input in a dispute. Would you have some time and energy for that?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Energy yes, but time, not so much right now. How big is this thing? Drmies (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- No big deal. Never mind. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Citations

Hellom Drmies ! Which is reliable or unreliable ? The most reliable is Anime News Network. Crunchyroll and Fandompost are not reliable because they were fansites. Yoga Widya 1994 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There are those who think that ANN is reliable. I personally don't doubt its reliability so much, I just think it's not a very good secondary source because really it's just an industry site--meaning it doesn't provide coverage as much as it offers press releases dressed up as news. So its editorial philosophy would be something like "whatever the companies tell us, we publish." So, for example, ANN hits should never count towards notability, in an AfD discussion for instance. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Drmies! Excuse me, can I add the references from Anime News Network ? Only one reference to be added. Not more. Yoga Widya 1994 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  - Yoga Widya 1994, you don't need my permission to do anything--I think it's generally used, so it can't be all bad. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    - This permission may have been misconstrued, as Yoga Widya 1994 has been copying/pasting text from Anime News Network into articles, and may need a timeout until they can demonstrate that they understand how copyright works. See User talk:Yoga Widya 1994#February 2020 for the templates I left before I noticed that you'd had some discussions with them before. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      - Drmies, I know you've got other things going on, but this user's recent edits are disruptive. They had apologized on my talk page for copyvio with an odd copy-paste of part of the warning message, so I thought it was simply a CIR issue. Today I see that they have changed the date format in only one reference in Nogizaka46 (my white whale, which I have been trying to slooowly change from typically shitty JPop article to acceptable encyclopedia article), similarly changed the date format only in one reference in another article, replaced a reference that supported a claim with an Anime News Network reference that does not, and removed an archive link. This is on top of the previous copyvio and pointless adding of references from ANN's 2014 PR summaries to articles. The Nogizaka46 edit is particularly difficult to dismiss as a coincidence or accident. Language issue? Obsession with ANN articles from 2014? Who knows. But why spend any more productive editor time dealing with it? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
        You had me at Moby-Dick. I don't know what to do here, really. I do think that competence is an issue, which is why I asked them that one question. The copyright issues--I saw that a few of them had been handled by Hut 8.5, and maybe they have something to say about the matter. It's a half a dozen, which isn't much, but I think you're wondering the same thing I am: are they getting it? Is our children learning? Drmies (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
        I don't have any particular opinion on it, I must have handled them as part of clearing out CAT:RD1. But yes those edits do look strange and I think there may be a competency issue. Hut 8.5 23:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
        
        Their answer does not impress me, and neither does going through the daily ANN PR from 2014 and adding announcements (of future events) as evidence of those events happening. But I don't have to be impressed, and unimpressive edits are still an improvement over copyvio/disruptive edits. Thanks for asking the questions. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Response to your feedback on editing

Hello Drmies, thank you for your message about my edits to the Draft page on Susan Magsamen. I wonder if you might be more specific about which parts of the draft are promotional? I recently attended a talk by Magsamen and I thought she would be a good person about whom to create my first page. That said, I am new to editing Wikipedia (this is the first page I've ever tried to create), and like any beginner I'm sure I will make mistakes. If you could be more specific that would be enormously helpful. Thank you! User:ECDonaldson (talk 10:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

ECDonaldson, I'm looking at a couple of things in particular. For instance, starting a section on her books with "a beautiful celebration of family life,’ empowering parents and children to connect", etc.--it's sourced from a review, but it's pretty much blurb writing and one shouldn't pick one quote to embellish what should be a list, or if not a list, a selection with a wide array of reviews (plus, books, yes, but we shouldn't list articles unless secondary sources prove them notable). The "Public Engagement" section is essentially a kind of meta-coverage, reminiscent of a folder with press clippings. We don't list interviews that people have given--imagine if we did that for every person. "Honors and awards" is likewise overdone, and the sourcing there is not OK: I see links to publishers, to organizations handing out awards, and one to something she seems to have written herself. Plus, a bunch of the award-giving entities there to not appear to be notable, and so this is very much like resume writing, or putting together a tenure and promotion application. The External links section falls foul of WP:EL and just emphasizes the promotional flavor of that draft. I hope this helps. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, thank you so much for this feedback! It is extremely helpful and opens my eyes in terms of what is actually appropriate to include. I will set about editing it down immediately; I seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "notable," on the one hand, and overestimated the credibility of some of my sources (think a review, and articles, would be okay to include). Would it be okay to trouble you to take another look once I'm done paring it down? Thank you again, User:ECDonaldson (talk 08:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Drmies Honestly, given that ECDonaldson is trying to edit in good faith I believe that you shouldn't give a level 3 warning right away. I don't really like to give really severe warnings right away, but given that the user is writing a draft I believe I'd settle with a level 2 warning at best. Seeing a red warning really scares someone off. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) (Report false positive) 04:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, good faith, sure, scared off, probably not, given edits such as this. But what do I know. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drmies and The Lord of Math, thank you both for your messages. As someone who is just learning, I try not to be scared off by things...but it also helps that I didn't actually realize that a permanent "warning" had been added to my draft. Nor did I realize, in fact, that anyone could see my draft as I was creating it. I'd say this was mostly a pleasant surprise, since I'm sure my draft would have run into even bigger issues (or just been flatly rejected) if I had submitted it without any feedback. That said, where is the room for learning? If my new draft page has been branded with a "severe warning" and it's not even off the ground, how can I recover? I have certainly made some massive edits...but are they moving in the right direction? Thanks again for your guidance, User:ECDonaldson (talk 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me

Thanks for telling me what to do. I guess I just saw one of them, and it legitimately looked like "one of the other vandals down the street" - I guess I'll have to increment my scales. Thanks a lot. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) (Report false positive) 04:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to revdelete all of their contributions. I see now that an IP editor, 80.230.61.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), had an opportunity ten minutes earlier to warn--if they had, you'd have stepped up higher too, and they'd have been blocked earlier. I'm glad they reverted but if they had left a warning... Anyway, there is no mandate that you start with 1. If it's bad, they should just get one single warning. I am having to look at all these articles: it wasn't just this a-hole who made such edits... Drmies (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Robot Girls Z

Hello, Can I edit the Robot Girls Z article ? I want to add only one reference from Anime News Network only. Crunchyroll and Fandompost are not allowed then. Yoga Widya 1994 (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yoga Widya, you don't need my permission. Have fun, go wild--but keep it encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Confused about a discussion

I'm having a discussion at Talk:Source-code editor#Questionning current "No addition" policy that's taken some disturbing turns. If and only if you have some extra time could you take a look at this? I hoping it will soon sort itself out regardless, but I'm far from any familiar ground here. Plus I'd like to know what I may have done to trigger the... distrubation. I understand if you have more pressing issues. Thanks in either case. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Abraham Goos

On 30 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abraham Goos, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that engraver Abraham Goos and merchant Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq were responsible for the first map of the Holy Land printed in Hebrew (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham Goos. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Abraham Goos), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq

On 30 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that engraver Abraham Goos and merchant Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq were responsible for the first map of the Holy Land printed in Hebrew (pictured)? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

New Westminster Secondary School

Thanks for cleaning it up. I have thousands of school articles on my watch list and sometimes I lose track of threads I should be following up on. Meters (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ha, I certainly didn't mean to point you to either your duties or your watchlist. I kind of enjoy responding to notes from editors from years ago. Yeah, that one was pretty bad, but I must have cleaned up hundreds of em. Thanks, and take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

#1Lib1Ref
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [3]

Arbitration

Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Nsmutte

Hey, I noticed you blocked Special:Contributions/2409:4070:2000::/36. Now that we have partial blocks, I was thinking that this could actually be a useful test of the feature. If we convert this range block to be a partial block on just Wikipedia: namespace, my understanding is that this would prevent any IP user on that range from editing WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:ANEW, etc. But they could still edit regular articles, like, say, List of Supernatural characters. What do you think? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, sorry, I meant to get back to you earlier--I think that's a great idea. I have played around with the function, or considered playing around with it, and I see your point--for this one that might work very well. Go ahead and change: I'll watch from the sidelines. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I've been skeptical of the partial block feature, but I think it might turn out to be ideal for the kind of trolling seen from Nsmutte, VXfC, Soft Skin, and a lot of other WP-space trolls. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I keep forgetting that partial blocks exist, especially as pertaining to AN3 reports. El_C 02:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Just imagine if all those years ago Acroterion would have blocked me from Brian Krzanich... I'd be much less popular on Reddit, but of course I also wouldn't have all this money Intel paid to me haha Drmies (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  - Well, that was trickier than I thought it would be. I wasn't really sure what options to set. Obviously, "Wikipedia" space needs to be blocked. But what about "Wikipedia talk"? I left that open in case someone has a legitimate complaint that needs to be posted to a noticeboard. Also, should account creation be disabled? It seems silly to disable account creation if you're going to let IP editors mostly run free? It forces them to edit without an account, which is a bit weird. So, I allowed account creation. Finally, should it be a hard block? I figured probably not. But now that means that anyone can create an account and use that account to immediate post trollish nonsense to WP:ANI. So, does the block even accomplish anything? I guess we'll see. I think it might need to be converted into a hard block eventually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems you are under the belief that Nsmutte does not use articles, article talk pages, and userspace for his harassment, trolling, and disruptive campaigns. He does. A lot. As recently as December 2019. --bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I know, I've seen it, but if we can place sizable rangeblocks on specific namespaces it will make life harder for them while allowing other users of the range to edit. It's one way to put a stick in their spokes. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Spam links such as Amazon.com in Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT artlcies

Hello, Drmies ! Can you remove these tons of spamlinks such as Crunchyroll, Fandompost and Amazon.com on Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT as you did on Dragon Ball (TV series)? Because it considered as the spamlinks then.

@Yoga Widya 1994: You may wanna take this to WP:RS/N. ミラ P 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, I removed 34 of them. I don't think anyone needs to go to RSN to have it confirmed that if more than half of the references are to Amazon, there is something wrong. Next up, Microsoft Store. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW WP:RSP states that it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). ミラ P 22:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. I know editors, even FA editors, sometimes use Amazon for basic information such as catalog numbers, but it should also be a question of balance and here the balance was clearly off. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Rafael Veloso

Hi there matey, all well? Sure bloody hope so!

Situation getting out of hand, and then some. User (with at least two accounts and an IP) keeps reverting the match fixing scandal section. No news have emerged of the ban being lifted (it could have, as another one of the banned players, André Almeida, is back playing pro football in my country), but anyway such ban was a fact (all over the news https://www.google.com/search?q=rafael+veloso+almeida+apostas&oq=rafael+veloso+almeida+apostas&aqs=chrome..69i57.5688j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).

Could be a open-and-shut case of WP:COI, his agent, a friend, Mr. Veloso himself? I talked with :@Mattythewhite: regarding the subject, he asked that i ask (oh, the redundance of it all!) to have page protected (auto-confirmed users only would prevent more vandalism, am i correct in this assumption?), Matty says he would do it himself but he is directly involved so he can not.

User seems to be from the Faroe Islands, so chances are they know jack shit of what happened in Portugal (but my money is on COI, like i said previously). Kind regards, from Portugal (they reverted me/us again, i'm close to breaking the 3RR so i better stop) --Quite A Character (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Done Take care! Drmies (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not telling you how to do your work of course, but does not seem to be the case. Utter nuisance switched to the IP and reverted again! --Quite A Character (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Widr took care of it. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Requested assistance at WP:FOOTY, nothing was done. Meanwhile, utter nuisance has created another account and continued vandalising. I give up, article stays like that! --Quite A Character (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe with the note you left them (i left another, very polite; doubt it will "reach their ears in full", as English does not seem to be something they master, per edit summaries), this will stop. I doubt it veeeeeeeeeeeeeeery much, but one can only hope! Cheers, thanks again. --Quite A Character (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  - I want to go to the Faroe Islands... Drmies (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Now you got me thinking about it too... All hail the mighty Bruno Varela, this year he'll surely earn an Eredivisie medal!! --Quite A Character (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Witch Hunt (Rush song)

On 6 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Witch Hunt (Rush song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the difference between live versions of Rush's "Witch Hunt" were seen as an instance of "translation" à la Walter Benjamin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Witch Hunt (Rush song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Witch Hunt (Rush song)), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Young Conservatives of Texas

Take a look at what I rev/deleted. But the whole article seems mainly written by members not bothering with sources. Doug Weller talk 21:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended family

I looked and haven't a clue. It doesn't help that the user has been mostly making edits that say little about their interests. I have let the rest of my family know about our long-lost cousin. They are thrilled! --Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sure they are. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Stupid pop-up

If this worked for you, would you mind doing the same thing with my username? Thanks, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Help?

I have to deal with Recent deaths (Mirella Freni, Volker Spengler), I don't want to deal also with edit-warring over an article title, Die Wolke. It was the writers wish - obviously - to have a harmless-sounding title, and not Fall-Out. Can we follow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

But it was published as "Fall-Out"--whether that is harmless or not, I don't know, nor do I know what her intentions were. I think our guidelines are to go with the translated title, but this is really something to hammer out on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I explained on my talk, - it would have been nice to have a discussion on the article talk after the first revert, instead of two more moves, and then telling me that I'm disruptive, because I interpret the guideline differently from him who wrote them. - Even the English cited book sources say "Die Wolke (The Cloud)" when referring to the novel, on top of the German sources. The present article Fall-Out is only good for talking about the translation, and I don't see it as the holy "common name" anywhere. + Never move an article on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

also Lucille Eichengreen, please watch --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

thank you - my little contrib to the day is Alte Liebe, - the other one started but not gotten far, + there's real life, and real death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Does this mean...

Does this mean the R-word is officially more offensive than the F-word on Wikipedia? :l Dark Knight 2149 02:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Correction - Abso-fucking-lutely :) Dark Knight 2149 05:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:POINTY/WP:SOAPBOX?

Special:Contributions/OldandGood2876 On one hand, it's a reliable source, but on the other hand, it feels like using Wikipedia as soapbox. Your thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ha. I think it's both. If it's valid, if it is suitable for an article on a business (and honestly, I don't see why it wouldn't be), does it matter what (we guess) the editor's intentions were? It's like...who is that editor that's always brought up on charges of editing at the speed of light when they were prohibited from using a bot...if you do the same thing so frequently, there's a threshold you cross. I don't know that the user is doing that. Ha, next thing you know someone is going to say there's a thin line between NOTHERE and Editor of the Month. I'm curious to see if the editor's work will gain traction on that project page that Floquenbeam directed them too--and Floq, while I'm here, thank you for unblocking that editor, who seems to take everything in stride. Thanks Jamie, and yeah, I'm curious. BTW THEY PAID ZERO TAXES...??? Drmies (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Err...I think User:Britishfinance makes some pretty good points at that same CNBC article:

To be fair to these companies, these are the “effective” rates and were calculated using publicly available filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The tax expenses reflected in those documents do not necessarily match those in the private tax filings, and the analysis does not include state and local taxes.

If companies aren't paying enough taxes, isn't it the government's fault for enabling and encouraging it? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the wider public understands how profoundly Trump changed the US corporate tax system with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), and particularly for the US multinational firms that used tax havens. Google, Apple, and Facebook etc., will have effective US federal tax rates in the high single digits going forward on their aggregate global business (previously it was 35%, which is why they all went to tax havens for their non-US business, and the US tax code was deliberately fractured by both Dems and Reps to allow this concession). Many US firms have achieved 0% effective federal tax rates in 2018 because there are additional tax breaks given by the TCJA to relocate intellectual property (the "raw materials" of corporate taxation) back to the US. This will dissipate by 2020/22.

Google moving all their entire global intellectual property back to the US in December [4] was a historic moment in US corporate taxation (which I need to update several WP articles for, but it takes about 12-24 months for the general RS to catch up with actual events in this field in a way that works for Wikipedia). Trump has turned the US into the same corporate tax platform as Ireland or the Netherlands. Everybody is waiting to see what Facebook does, who are still deciding about moving all IP back to the US (Apple is locked in Ireland until 2025 due to their Leprechaun economics action). This was why US productivity spiked in 2019 [5] (Ireland and the Netherlands enjoyed such productivity growth for years, but it was just tax-driven flows). Britishfinance (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

- This is all going over my head very quickly. What I do know is that the IP, who was momentarily blocked for reverting the OldandGood user (one wonders if that user has been here before), said something about "well it's not a crime if blah blah"--sure, but didn't the OldandGood edits say "Tax avoidance"? That is pretty neutral, and I didn't see much tendentious language in their edits. If the objection is that the very inclusion of that information is not neutral, well, that's not very strong. Britishfinance, I hear you but I don't see how that is very relevant to us including or excluding the information, and changing tax platform or not, those companies did not pay much in the way of taxes, right? So to be "fair" to these companies shouldn't mean we exclude it: the question is, how is including it not fair to them. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  - Drmies, my reply above is not regarding the incident but to your question about THEY PAID ZERO TAXES. In regard to the editor in question, as I said at ANI, their actual edit was incorrect (it was 91, and not 378 firms who paid 0% effective federal taxes), and it was not "Tax Avoidance". Tax Avoidance is the legal use of tax rules to reduce your taxes, most usually in ways that the rules did not intend (e.g. the Double Irish). What has happened here is that the TCJA now gives certain US firms a 0% effective tax rate for 2018, without the firms having to make any effort to avoid those taxes. It won't last for all of them (at least not beyond 2020), so it is a temporary effect for many. Per the ANI, I think this point is more appropriate to go under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 article as the impact of the TCJA. Per my comments at the ANI, it could go on the article of each of the 91 firms in question, but not under a section titled "Tax Avoidance", but something like "Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" (or some have a "Taxation" section). However, better RS will cover this effect than the RS used (which was more of a news alert) – E.g. in the next few weeks, the WSJ will go a big piece on this going into the detail and getting feedback from the main US experts (e.g. James R. Hines Jr., etc.), that would be more encyclopedic. Britishfinance (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  - I think I agree with Britishfinance. When I think tax avoidance I think of companies getting consultants to find loopholes, etc. That doesn't seem to be what's going on here. If you aren't being asked to pay tax, not paying any tax is not trying to avoid paying tax. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    - I appreciate that note--but for these purposes I'm interested also in how we are going to handle this on Wikipedia--meaning, how this information should be presented, what the proper wording is, etc. I'm sure you have ideas about that and I hope to see what comes out of that conversation--and I hope it's a practical one, so to speak. But I should stay back a bit: I'm so busy and I haven't even read the ANI thread. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    - I had a pointy soapbox once. But alas I came back to find it was "up on bricks" Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
      - I have a Pinewood Derby t-shirt--does that add up to anything? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
        Let's hope it's tax deductable, or else you might was well just chuck it out the window. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your block of 2600:1007:b000::/39

Yeah, you definitely caught at least one LTA in there. Somebody from Southeastern Michigan has been adding fictitious material to animation-related pages for a long time. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspect there's two or three, including one of these cartoon vandals, yes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that somebody in that range is complaining about being blocked. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Alan Warrens page being amended because of to many photos yet Carl Van Rechtens hasn't

The other day you or someone else edited Alan Warrens page for having to many photos and said that I shouldn't do that. However Carl Van Rechtens page is almost packed full of his photos but not Alan Warrens. What the hell? Either keep my edits or change Carl Van Rechtens.

Dynamite16 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, Dynamite16. You were reverted for doing something another editor found excessive this crazy gallery), and your complaint is that the editor didn't immediately look for the same mistake in five million other articles. Sorry, six million other articles. Am I getting this right? Drmies (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No not at all, but it is that one page is packed to the rafters of photographs and another isn't. I got told off for something which I thought was unfair and that I was doing something reasonable, but then I found this other page of Carl Van Rechtens that was packed to the rafters so I thought that shouldn't that also be like only 6-7 photographs as well because of the (in my opinion silly but I am now prepared to go by) rules? Dynamite16 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Can I not quickly change it back just to get a copy of this so called crazy gallery and have it as pdf and afterwards put it back to its current format? Dynamite16 (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Click "History" and then select the version you want to look at. There's a permanent URL that you can save. How you can convert that to a PDF I don't know. Sure, you can revert, click "Download as PDF"--but you'll need to change it back immediately. Put something like "momentary revert" in your edit summary, so others can see what you're doing, that's not too disruptive. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, I have done so but I forgot to put momentary because I was trying to read your message. Do I edit the page to say momentary revert? As for download as PDF on the left hand side for me it says download PDF. I am not sure if that applies to anywhere else Dynamite16 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  - It's fine, although Dr.K. was probably wondering what you were doing. Those galleries are fine things, of course, and look great...but that's not what we do. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah Dr.K sent me a thank you message for reverting it to its current format. All is fine now many thanks Dynamite16 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the constructive feed back - Got it! I'll clean up the content and I will switch the URL's as soon as I learn to do it! Yikes! I'm determined to get it right! Thanks for your help! Harpmom39 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback appreciated

Hey Drmies , I noticed your edit to my draft Karlyn Percil and I'd like reach out to get further recommendations. I've made some edits to sources, which seemed to be the primary issue. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

and - which is better - still actively precious, or is it preciously active? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Tenuously old, my dear Gerda. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- “It's paradoxical that the idea of living a long life appeals to everyone, but the idea of getting old doesn't appeal to anyone.” ― Andy Rooney O3000 (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  - True dat. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Addressing my detail additions to movie plots

You wanted my attention, you got it. I'll make this simple. I feel that film plots should be as detailed as possible, in regards to what goes on. I have seen plenty of other film pages that have plot far beyond the 400-700 limit and no one has had any problems with them. Nashwalker (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You may feel that. Others don't. I saw some of the stuff that Millahnna reverted: they had an excellent case. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Some plot summaries can go over the length guidelines for various reasons, as stated at WP:FILMPLOT. Others, folks just haven't caught yet, which is probably a large reason why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, well, exists. BUt length just to have length, particularly when the text is not in keeping with WP:TONE and various standards of writing...there's no reason for that. It goes completely counter to the entire point of a plot summary in a wikipedia article. If you want to make a case for changing guidelines about that section within film articles, we'd love to have an insightful discussion about it at MOS:FILM or WT:FILM. Millahnna (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

THanks for your help earlier

I come and go and spend such extended times away that when I come back for a bit I'm always a bit hesitant in case something major has changed. I appreciated knowing I wasn't as far out of line as I first thought.

Wish me luck; I'm about to go try and deal with a basically non existent reception and box office section and I almost never play with ref tags. It'll be fun! Millahnna (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Good luck. I'd support you with Girl Scout cookies if you lived nearby. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- One last question about all of this. I was going to drop a note on the TV project's talk page about this. I don't like editing within tables (I find them hard to work around, particularly when they have large blocks of text) but wanted to give them a heads up that the problem edits I was tracking definitely hit their articles. FOr obvious reasons, I find I'm rather hesitant now, especially since my instinct is to link straight to the problem editor's contribs. Started to type it up three times but kept second guessing; Am I canvassing? Am I being snotty? Basically this nonsense has me completely turned around now. AM I better off just letting the people more active there spot it for themselves? The conversation yesterday and others like it are why I stopped editing to begin with. Millahnna (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  - I hate editing in tables too--it is especially bothersome for new editors. Like I said, I don't mind you checking on a troublesome editor's edits, and I think most editors wouldn't. And notifying the project is a good thing to do. The best thing--make one set of edits and then publicize that, saying "hey, this is what I found and this is what I'm doing." Good luck. I'll be happy to help. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on your new hat!

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Though, in all seriousness, if there was one bit of the admin toolkit I wish I could turn off it would be the pending changes reviewer bit. I never use it and I find the interface changes fairly frustrating (though, I have a custom .css that removes the pink watchlist banner of doom.) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Now just pull a bunny out of it! El_C 17:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wait, Tony, did YOU do that? I just checked a box because I got irritated with this YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO BLAH BLAH BLAH, which I didn't understand to begin with--I could "approve" people's changes already anyway. But yeah man, awesome! Drmies (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I am the last person to ask about MediaWiki configuration, but you have +sysop so you should be able to do anything PCR would do. Maybe xaosflux could lend some insight into the technical issues you are having. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Drmies, yeah, my understanding is that the sysop flag already has all those permissions bundled. El_C 17:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And yet I was told in some little screen that this change was not accepted. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

In those instances you need to accept your own submission. El_C 18:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It got stuck in the line somewhere. This edit needed approval and probably hadn't been approved yet. You came along and edited while no one had reviewed, and thus your edits got stuck by the IP. This is one of the many reasons I don't use pending changes protection ever... JzG, I switched it to 10 days semi-protection since it's become active enough to start causing technical issues. Didn't think you'd mind, but if you do, feel free to revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, pc is generally a drag. But I still accept requests for it whenever it's fitting. El_C 18:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Not criticizing anyone who uses it. I just find it pretty clunky and you get weird results like an admin/CU/OS not being able to edit a page correctly. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it is totally clunky. As mentioned, I, generally, am not a fan. El_C 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of protection--El C, last year you protected Libertarian capitalism because User:PhilLiberty was edit warring. They're at it again, over a range of articles. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Haha, Deepfriedokra, I see you did the same thing for the same reason. C.Fred, you blocked this user at that time. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh no. I am choosing to take your warning to them as a final warning — we can proceed from that starting point. El_C 19:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I made the final warning official. El_C 19:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The amplifying factor on PhilLiberty's edit warring when I blocked them was that they were removing "far right" from a political article. So, I got them for edit warring plus agenda/non-NPOV. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Iz someone need partial block(s).Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal concerns

Hi there, You recently deleted tables from a page I was updating on the basis that I had no citations. The page was for Woodgrove High School, under the band program page. I am a band student at Woodgrove, and all of that information was from personal experience. I would like to have the tables back, so I would like to know how you believe I should cite that information. Thanks in advance. Andrewcstewart21 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what's personal about this. You included an enormous amount of unencyclopedic information, which I removed because it was unencyclopedic. The Wikipedia article is not a repository for remembering what song was played at what occasion. The stuff that I marked as unverified is already tenuous, and contains information (about living people) that should be properly verified. See WP:V and WP:RS. I'm a bit surprised that this is news--why would anyone include information that is not verified? But the most likely outcome is that you will not easily find secondary sourcing for this information, and that Wikipedia:SCHOOLGUIDE suggests this information is not actually of encyclopedic value. It is probably valuable to your school, but that is not the same thing. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, you indicated that this is from "personal observation"--sorry, but that's a no-no here. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- So do I have no way of getting that information back? It means a lot to us if we could get it back, even if it's just to keep in personal records. Andrewcstewart21 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  - Sure there is a way: click on "History" and select the version you want; you can copy that information. Sorry, but you've been here for almost two years and you never learned how to edit or that information needs sourcing? See Help:Page history. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    - That wasn't anything even resembling an encyclopedia article. I stubbed it. John from Idegon (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Vita" - the Life of Josephus

User:Drmies, shalom. I noticed in your recent edit on the "Vita" Disambiguation page here that you deleted the entry for Josephus' work entitled "Vita," a term often used to describe the book Life of Flavius Josephus. In my humble opinion, many scholars and academics know Josephus' fourth published work purely by that title, as you can see here, and here, and here, and here, and in the summary written in this article here, and if you scroll down in this Encyclopædia Britannica article here, under the heading "Josephus as Historian," you'll find the paragraph that reads: "Appended to the Antiquities was a Vita (Life), which is less an autobiography than an apology for Josephus’ conduct in Galilee during the revolt" (End Quote). Often, citations taken from the book are simply listed under the title "Vita," as you can see in the first paragraph of the next web-page here. The title is also used in the abstract here, among other places. In consideration of which things I say that, perhaps, it may have been premature to delete this important entry from the Disambiguation page. Perhaps we can get more feedback on this issue from other contributing editors.Davidbena (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

But my dear Davidbena, that goes for just about everyone who has had a vita written about them. Here's "commentary on the Vita" of Gregory the Great, here's "the vita of the Fenland hermit Guthlac, here's "the protagonist of the Vita" and it's Boniface... One of your links specifies "Josephi vita" at the top, and that's how all these work: you define which vita you're talking about, and from then on you use vita to refer to the text, specifying more only if necessary--like Vita altera or vita tertia or whatever. I do not believe that anyone has a claim to the word more than anyone else.
What we really do need is a more clear signpost to indicate that it is a common word for such a document, and what we really need is a list of vitae. I mean, we have f*ing lists of everything--here's something that is actually important. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Still, the entries in the Disambiguation page are not that long, and this is precisely why Disambiguation pages were created in the first place. Besides, Josephus and his works are notable enough that I would think should warrant an entry in that Disambiguation page. Perhaps we can get feedback from other editors.Davidbena (talk)

OK, sure--but this business of saints and hagiographies, I have a bit of professional knowledge here, and I can assure you that there is nothing special about the one vita that warrants a special mention. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not "special," but if it helps someone understand what is being cited in peer-review journals, it's worth restoring it IMHO.Davidbena (talk)

There are no peer-reviewed journals or books that will single out "vita" as being somehow special to this one. I really don't understand what you think peer-reviewed articles will show here. Go search "vita" in JSTOR and work in Josephus, or Boniface, or Martin--there is nothing you will find that marks Josephus's life and the usage of vita as being in any way different from the others. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is true. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I have personally seen many books and journals that speak on Josephus, and whenever they cite the "Life of Josephus," the usual citation is Vita. By the context, it is readily known what author and what book is implied. I will make an effort to show these to you.Davidbena (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You may wish to see page 635 in this JSTOR article here, entitled "Roman Greek: Latinisms in the Greek of Flavius Josephus." Davidbena (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
You may also wish to see page 94 in this JSTOR article here, entitled "Is the Greek Version of Josephus' 'Jewish War' a Translation or a Rewriting of the First Version?," and where Vita is used exclusively to refer to the book, The Life of Josephus.Davidbena (talk)
As one would expect in an article on Josephus. This is getting silly. I pulled an article from JSTOR.^[1] It has 27 occurrences of the word vita by itself, and all but one refer to the Vita Willemi, the biography of William of Gellone (whom I also had never heard of). The one "bare" mention not to the Vita Willemi isn't actually bare at all: "Ainsi vers 930, dans la Vita sancti Geraldi, Odon de Cluny, met en avant le premier modèle de miles christianus. Comme l'a écrit Dominique Iogna-Prat, Odon, dans cette Vita...", "cette" clearly pointing to this life of Gerald of Aurillac. Comparisons are drawn between the Vita Willemi and a life of St. Martin of Tours, which in all cases is referred to as Vie de Martin or Vie de Martin.
This is simply how the word vita is used. There is nothing specific about its usage in relation to Josephus. Nothing. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies:I kindly ask of you to take a second look at the Disambiguation page Vita. You will see there many entries, each having a different connotation for the same word. Since Josephus is a well-known personage and his works are used and named by a myriad of scholars, shouldn't we at least make reference to this important work, Vita (Josephus), which was composed by him? I, personally, see nothing wrong nor amiss about having it added to the Disambiguation page, but, then again, my own personal judgment may be wrong. We may wish to ask ourselves what wrong will it do by adding it to the list? Since I do not rely upon my own judgment (which is often in error), would you agree that we get a larger consensus on this issue, such as by posting a WP:RfC? Shalom. Davidbena (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. Ealdgyth, do you see any reason for undoing this edit? Drmies (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I can't see why one particular vita should be listed there when there are literally hundreds of others. I think that the problem here is that there aren't a lot of ancient texts titled "Life of X"... unlike the late antique and medieval periods where that is pretty much the default title for any hagiography. Hell, it's listed right there in the page "Vita (Latin for 'life'), a hagiography" - so there's no reason to single out one particular one. --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- See here ... where most of the "life" titles would be "vita" in Latin. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I can agree with both of you that we need not to specifically mention Vita, by itself, for Josephus. However, since we cannot deny that scholars often cite Josephus' work by that one name, as we see here in the book, Survey of Western Palestine (s.v. Kh. Benit), perhaps we can make the distinction by adding his name after "Vita," like this: Vita (Josephus). Perhaps User:Rosguill can give us an opinion about this.Davidbena (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to have a section of the dab page list notable vitae for which we have Wikipedia articles. I wouldn't pretend to know how many such examples we currently have on Wikipedia...if the list is overly long, we may want to have an SIA for List of works known as Vita. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Would the Wikipedia article, The Life of Flavius Josephus, comply when the title "Vita" is only mentioned within the article?Davidbena (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Davidbena, I think so. A rule of thumb would be that if the redirect Vita (Name) is a valid redirect to a given work, then it could be included. I'm not an expert in this field, however, so I may be missing something. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Rosguill, the thing is that there really are no things simply called vita. It is always given meaning contextually. It's like placing a link to Churchill: Walking With Destiny on Biography (disambiguation). Drmies (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You may be right, Drmies, but I'm still having a hard time understanding you. The best thing to do, in this case, is to submit an RfC and receive a broader input from other editors. Vita of Josephus is still a book by that title, although it is also used differently by others. It is not similar to adding a link to Churchill: Walking With Destiny on Biography (disambiguation). When I add the RfC, I'll put there a link to this page and discussion.Davidbena (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You might want to check out the (very incomplete) Category:Latin biographies - unlike The Life of Flavius Josephus, these were actually written in Latin. "Vita" for that is a misnomer really, perhaps only used, because it is such a common term for biographies, when the context is known. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Whether the term is used widely in other Latin biographies or not, the name is still referred to as such in English works treating on Josephus' fourth book (i.e. under its Latin title). Most people who see a reference to this work in an English book or journal will not think to translate the title from Latin back into English. Most people will accept the name as its bona fide title. Anyway, enough has been said about this topic. A WP:RfC has been added here. Feel free to voice your opinion there.Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Drmies - nb, you've commented but not!voted there, in case you forgot. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Meyers, Jean (2014). "La figure de Guillaume de Gellone d'après la Vita sancti Willelmi (v. 1125): quelques remarques sur ses modèles hagiographiques". The Journal of Medieval Latin. 24: 131–52.

Goulven of Leon

Nice work. Cassianto^Talk 21:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cassianto. It turned out to be more interesting than the article suggested, but the paucity of sources isn't helpful. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately, very common. I've lost count of the number of times I've come across an interesting subject, only to find that there are absolutely no sources whatsoever, and therefore unable to write about it. And when a book does eventually appear, you think "well how on earth did they [the author] find the sources to do that?" Cassianto^Talk 07:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this user someone you're familiar with?

See the caption for the picture that was added to User:Ava-Mae Holman. Figured I'd let you know about it... :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked a few of these throw-aways today (e.g. Dipperty Dawg). Just delete the page and sock block any that pop up.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it's that idiot again. They started out as a merely irritating IP and look at them now--a full-fledged socking troll! BTW I hate Disneyland, and I get my country kicks from CabaRay. I'm probably the only one in the world under 65 who watches that show. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP violation at Julian Assange talk

Hi Drmies, I'd like to bring to your attention a BLP violation at Talk:Julian Assange. SPECIFICO has referred to GRU agents as Assange's "accomplices": diff. The fact that SPECIFICO is referring to GRU agents is clear from the context of this discussion: [6]. The word "accomplice" implies both that Assange is a criminal, and that he conspired with GRU agents. This is a very serious BLP violation. I have asked SPECIFICO to strike these comments (diff), but SPECIFICO has not done so. Please take the necessary actions to make sure than this serious BLP issue is addressed. Also pinging Bishonen, who might be able to help. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what to say about that: that article with its 239,798 bytes is too dense for me to determine right off the bat whether that term is a BLP violation or not. Maybe JzG, who I think knows more about it than I do, has an opinion, and for the legal aspects I'd call either on Alexander Shunnarah or Newyorkbrad. NYB, do you have any thoughts? Sorry, Drmies (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, the statement itself does not seem to violate BLP. It's informal usage and there's no realistic dissent from the accepted fact that Assange worked with GRU agents to undermine the Clinton presidential campaign by publishing stolen emails. Thucydides411 seems to be moving from one angry dispute to another in the AP2 arena, with the same aggressive approach at each article, and pretty much the same results. Guy (help!) 15:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Although court rulings can never be predicted with certainty, that wording would probably not be actionable in a legal sense, at least in New York, because in context it could considered an assertion of opinion rather than fact. Whether it is best practice to use that terminology on Wikipedia is a different question. It certainly wouldn't belong in an article; as you know, we allow a bit more leeway on talkpages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. Guy, I don't want to delve any further into that matter right now but I appreciate the note. Brad, I appreciate your expertise and it corresponds with my rough and semi-uninformed assessment. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that Guy should not be the person summarizing the discussion at Talk:Julian Assange. At Talk:Julian Assange, Guy has been quite uncharacteristically complaining about "Assange cultists" and "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more" (referring to publicity surrounding a letter in support of Assange by 130 prominent figures from German politics and media, including one of Germany's most famous journalists and a recent Vice Chancellor / head of one of Germany's two major parties). In response to questions by a number of editors, Guy has not offered any substantiation for these wild claims about cultists, MRAs, etc. I have serious concerns about Guy's impartiality here, and if such comments themselves do no violate WP:BLP or WP:NPA, it is only because they are so diffuse that one could plausibly deny that they're directed at any one person (e.g., the former Vice Chancellor of Germany, the journalists for Germany's largest papers who wrote articles about the appeal by 130 prominent Germans, or the many editors at Talk:Julian Assange arguing for inclusion of the appeal).

@Newyorkbrad: Is it acceptable for editors to be opine on talk pages that living people are part of a criminal conspiracy? This is what you seem to be arguing - that unless an action is clearly legally actionable, it is no violation of WP:BLP. I thought that WP:BLP was supposed to be applied very cautiously. Asserting that a living person criminally conspired with intelligence agents (which is not an established fact in Assange's case, and I'm very surprised that Guy is making that unfounded assertion here) is surely a very serious attack on a living person. Without very good sourcing, it cannot be made.

As for whether the statement is admissible because it is an opinion: any comment left by an editor could be construed as being an opinion. If editors' opinions cannot, by definition, violate WP:BLP, then BLP is a hollow document on talk pages. But to the contrary, WP:BLP states, "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages." If editors can make unsubstantiated, defamatory claims about living persons under the guise of opinion, why even apply BLP to talk pages? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I'd also like to point out that WP:BLP is not limited to legally actionable statements. WP:BLP mentions the laws of the United States, but it talks about much more than just what the law requires: material about living persons, including on talk pages, "requires a high degree of sensitivity" and must adhere to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and other core policies. I think it's obvious that calling a living person a criminal conspirator working together with intelligence services is a violation of these tenets, whether or not they would legally be considered opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides, "an unholy and toxic mix" etc., that's JzG commenting on all kinds of things that happen in the Internet world--I don't see where he's talking about Wikipedia editors, for instance. That there's plenty of conspiracy theories surrounding Assange, is that even in doubt? Anyway, none of that is for here. You got the opinion of two editors/admins (and I'll count me as a half, since I agree with NYB); it seems to me that if that is not enough for you, you should consider BLPN. Three admins here don't yet see an actionable BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy (JzG) was specifically commenting about the appeal by 130 prominent Germans. They could have been referring the people who signed the appeal, the journalists who wrote about it, or about the editors who were arguing for inclusion. If they were talking generally about "things that happen in the Internet world," then it's unclear what relevance their comment had to the RfC at hand, and Guy never provided any clarity about who they were referring to (much less sources to back up their claims). I'm very concerned here that an admin is going on about "Assange cultists" without any substantiation. Julian Assange is a BLP, and the type of commentary being hurled around on the talk page is very concerning. I'm surprised to see that you and Newyorkbrad are comfortable with insinuations that Assange is involved in a criminal conspiracy with GRU agents, references to his "cultists," etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is that controversial? "The U.S. Intelligence Community, as well as a Special Counsel investigation, concluded that the Russian government carried out a hacking campaign as part of broader efforts of interference in the 2016 United States elections. In 2018, twelve Russian intelligence officers, mostly affiliated with the GRU, were indicted on criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller; the indictment charged the Russians with carrying out the computer hacking and working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to spread the stolen documents." Our article says this--do you want that rev-deleted? But seriously, don't answer that, don't answer that here. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Can't believe you brought this here. O3000 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am not aware of any claims by the Mueller investigation that Assange conspired with GRU agents. Assange has not been accused of conspiring with GRU agents. If you have reliable sources that claim otherwise, then please cite them. But making such claims on Wikipedia talk pages, in the absence of very strong sourcing, is prima facie a BLP violation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that "working with WikiLeaks" sort of covered the same ground. But go ahead and see if you can cite me for a BLP violation. Last time I asked you something (don't answer that here") you didn't do it, so I assume it'll be the same this time. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

		A demitasse for you
		Presented to Half-Admin Drmies For tireless dedication to Wikipedia SPECIFICO talk

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Drmies for his fearless defense of Wikipedia in the face of specious onslaughts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

For sorting out that BLP issue last night. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts--it was my pleasure. It's one of the things I am most adamant about in this place. Here you are, churning out thousands of articles on people who by our standards deserve to have articles, and some little shit comes along in some sexist/classist vendetta. I appreciate all that you are doing: you are really leaving a mark, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates it. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi there, There is an editor who is asking me to move a draft to the main space (convert it to an article). He said he can't do it because he is not an extended confirmed editor. Should I do that? Here is one of the drafts Draft:Fkhrettin Koca. Can I do that? Thanks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you have the right, no? Just try it--see if there is a "Move" (under "More) that you can select. The article is short but clean and referenced, though you might could check a few refs real quick just to see if it's a hoax. When you start the Move process, there's a pull-down menu where you select all the Wikipedia "spaces" (you know, Talk, User, etc.)--you want to select "(Article)". I think it's in parentheses because it's the default. Go for it! Drmies (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I just realised that he is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. He is messaging me through telegram. If I copied the article source and then requested deletion under G5 then recreated the article, would that be okay?-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Wait, what? What is "telegram"? The process you are describing is really not OK--you would be editing by proxy, while taking credit for someone else's work. Don't do that. Now, I'm not one of those admins who thinks that all content by blocked editors should be deleted, but the community's opinion on that is split. What you certainly shouldn't do is take that content and make like it's your own. If you think it is valuable, move it to main space but do it openly. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

One more thing: maybe you should look at all the sources of all those drafts to see if they're OK. Interviews (like what I removed in Draft:Yusuf Katipoglu) shouldn't be in there. We shouldn't have links to articles written by the subject. That sort of thing. ST47, you dropped that CU block--is there anything that you know that's relevant here? Like, is this someone who wrote hoaxes, or was paid, or doesn't know his ass from his secondary sources? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I just did a bit of work on Draft:Ayman Otoom, but can't find a lot of sources (though I did find that his last name is also found as "al-Otoom", which doesn't help...). Your sock friend is a sloppy writer--and Wikipedia's coverage of Arab writers needs serious improvement. If you can drag yourself away from politics, there is a lot of good work you can do. ;) Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam, I don't know what time it is where you are at, or what you are doing, but I am telling you that THIS IS NO TIME TO SLEEP ON THE JOB. Ayman Otoom, now in mainspace, is interesting, but, ahem, I can't read Arabic. I need someone, YOU, to go through the sources and the searches and produce some reliable (and hopefully independent, unlike Akeed...) sourcing on this guy. Something, anything, after 2013. I don't even want to know how long he was in jail for that 5000 dinar fine--I want to know what he's done in the last six years, and I can't find a thing. What is in here? for instance? So wake up, get up, boot up, make some tea, and get to work. Ha! Drmies (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! that was very quick. I am currently outside, I will work on it when I get home. Thank you so much for your help. I made some research about him, he seems notable. He was arrested for two days because of some issues with a publisher company. After he got arrested he wrote in Twitter "writers are treated like criminals in this country", rumors then spread that he was arrested because of his book. This happened in 2016. I really appreciate your kind response.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Grime--moved

Hi, why do you think the grime comment is irrelevent? Not sure if you are from the UK or understand the culture but it's an important revelation in the fact it reveals an insight into the dark humour behind some of the lyrics. Please can you tell me why this is a problem for you?

I'm moving this here. When you post on someone's talk page, please post at the bottom--thank you. Whether I'm from the UK or not is irrelevant. That you think this insight is important, that's your thinking and in an encyclopedia editors' opinions don't usually matter. More importantly, that insight, if that's what it is, is not in your text at all: it's some stuff about a humorous side to a particular collaboration, and that is not the same thing. Plus, as I noticed, this "opened up" language is just off; we're hardly talking about a confession. Finally, when you revert someone, it is a bit rude not to explain why in an edit summary. You did it twice; next time, please leave an edit summary. Because I still haven't heard a valid argument from you about why this chatty and gossipy content (with a blockquote?) should be in this article. And there is something else, now that I looked closer: "UKF" isn't a reliable secondary source. I thought it was just a website, but in a way it's worse: it's the website from a record label, UKF Music. That is not the kind of thing an encyclopedia should be citing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Bryanlikealioninzion (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC) It's at the bottom for you now :) That particular collaboration was one of the biggest tunes by some of the oldest artists, a pivotal moment in both their careers. The interview is directly from the perspective of the producer of that record. UKF was a music blog first, the record label stuff came later and is not their main line of business. That particular track was definitely not on their label so don't see how it can be biased. Maybe you could give me a list of reputable sources where you can quote underground music artists from? I don't think these are the kinds of artists you will see in the mainstream press as its underground music. The whole concept of grime has strong underground roots. Bryanlikealioninzion (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC))

The comment says, in a nutshell, "it was funny". Drmies (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Good summary :) The interesting point being is that isn't something thats been said publically by a key artist in this way before. It's a heavily overlooked facet of the whole genre. Bryanlikealioninzion (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but if that's the case, it's either really overlooked and there's no coverage so it's original research, or reliable sources have noted that at some point it's overlooked. The problem with this and other such articles is that they become repositories for anecdotes and incidental remarks and comments and records and whatnot, and it becomes impossible to see the forest for the trees. That whole article really needs an overhaul to carry it from a list of individual things and thingies to a comprehensive and more general article. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes

Money emoji

Athaenara • DeltaQuad

Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A new twist on an old problem

Hi Doc. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Normally, I wouldn't bother you, but this concerns a revert based on a past RfC we had commented on. After this revert, I opened a talkpage discussion because I realised that, before my revert, the concerts of the band appeared twice in the article: once in the prose, and then at the table. Apart from the old argument of notability for these concerts, having them appear twice in the article seems excessive, at least to me. Dr. K. 23:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(Not)Lost in Translation

Hi there man, all well?

Let's work together to improve (yet) another article in this encyclopedia, shall we? Can you please add the translation to the source #12 in Adrián Dalmau (from Voetbal International)? I have a slight hunch as to what it may mean, but i don't want to take any chances, do accommodate by all means :)

Thanks in advance, keep it up --Quite A Character (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I wish you were writing up things for DYK so we'd get some cool credit for it. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you believe in 13 years (and counting) i never once did that? --Quite A Character (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm...eh...no. Do it! Write up some Portuguese stuff! Translate it! Your family's village! The local art museum! Your favorite poet! Drmies (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

1008rajpuranalas

Hi Drmies - I've been looking at the three users, and one IP's residual edits - Any chance of removing User:1008rajpuranalas/sandbox, User talk:Shanaleshwar and Draft:Shree Shanaleshwar Swayambhu Mahadev before these get copy-pasted again as a mass of "new" articles? - Arjayay (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Berserk Kerberos

Can I ask you a favour? Ealdgyth, Agricolae, and I have been trying to get a new user, Berserk Kerberos, to pay attention instead of edit warring. You can see all the relevant conversations on their talk page and by looking at the history of articles they've edited. I don't usually deal with things requiring administrator involvement; can you take a look and let me know what you think a good next step would be? ANI seems awfully harsh for some who does seem to want to help, though they are not in the least cooperatively minded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

He's returned to his previous problems, and is now blanking my comments on the talk page as well as blanking large sections of articles. contributions, for reference. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Block review?

I was surprised that the block on User:Kingarthur581 is 42 days. The editor has indeed been disruptive at times, but per BITE, I attributed this to just taking a bit longer than some to learn WP procedures. Part of the reasons for blocking was given as vandalism on Military, ignoring WP:V, and refusing to discuss. But when the block occurred, I was in a discussion with the editor at Military#About Updating the military power comparison list Capability development section about comparing quality of sources. Also, I don't see how the edits in question on Military are actually vandalism. To me, it seemed like the editor was in the midst of coming over from the dark side when blocked.

I'm not familiar with blocking criteria and length; if this seems in keeping with custom to you, or even just not that significant, then fine, no response needed. But if not, what might I do, if anything? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You'd have to ask User:Yamaguchi先生, but a quick look shows stuff like this. Sorry, but that's all I can say and I can't delve into it more right now. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A box

Scaledish (talk) has given you a doggy!
Thanks for supporting contributors like me by sending thanks

OK now that's cute. thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"Let's do that without adding a thousand spaces"

Sorry. You're absolutely right. I think it was an automated thing with the visual editor. Thanks for correcting that. I'll correct that myself on Sarah Boyack.

Is that what it is? I have seen it before so I figured that's what it was, some setting--if you figure it out, plz let me know so next time I can tell the editor what's going on? Drmies (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you Drmies! You are helping me get started on Wikipedia as a editor. I hope you have a good rest of the day!

Editor420691337666 (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Madwoman (book)

On 12 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Madwoman (book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the collection Madwoman, Jamaican-American poet Shara McCallum uses both English and Patwa, a creole she heard while growing up but never saw in writing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Madwoman (book). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Madwoman (book)), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Losangelosgenetics

Please revoke talk page access, as the spam links continue. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, God knows what they're here for--is that even spam? I see they're globally blocked too. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Scouring of the Shire

Hi, hope you're keeping well amidst th'encircling gloom. Will you be available to look at this over the weekend? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Shoot, I should have done that already. I'm sorry. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Complaint

Why did I edit everything and revert it back to its original format? സുദീപ്.എസ്സ് (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Why were you blocked? Drmies (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been able to edit for two or three days I was blocked until March 14, 2020. സുദീപ്.എസ്സ് (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Why? Drmies (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know സുദീപ്.എസ്സ് (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

I just took offence to the almost constant aspersions and self justification there. I do not like being talked about in that way when I did try to advise them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I know, it's OK. But yes let the admins figure it out: you have done your part. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

And now this [[7]], continued falsehoods (And I only just noticed continued claims of bias and now of being a secret NRA editor), the assumptions of bad faith continue. I also note they continue to comment on me (and note I did not in fact revert their edit first, that was done [[8]] two days before I weighed in) on their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Should (indeed how) I respond to this [[9]], to be clear it is riddled with falsehoods (as they have already been told some of these claims are not true, yet still repeat them)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The editor was just blocked for a week, so maybe just leave it be. Oh, that third opinion thing, I reverted it--the editor is not there to argue their point. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have had to reply at ANI as this is beyond a joke. I cannot stand idly by whilst blatant lies are told about me. Why are these ABF against be still being allowed? That ANI should not have been allowed to be reopened as it is without any foundation, and should now be closed as it is with out any foundation, is is just cock full of self justifying wikilaywering and deceit. Can you please close it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

He has now suggested that you are ambivalent toward Nazis and we are NRA supporters (an organization I despise) [10]. Of course, as editors, we are supposed to act ambivalent to the subject (well, neutral, but ambivalent on close calls). But why simply close it? The longer it stays open, the quicker he’ll be blocked. WP:ROPE. He’s his own worst enemy. As I said just a few days back, first rule of ANI: Don’t manifest the problem at ANI. O3000 (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to be fair, he is a new user. The problem is Don't bite the newbie (like AGF) should not be a suicide pact.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And, no good deed.... O3000 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Then again maybe I am wrong, as they seem to not only not get it but seem to not even though its there.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Daily Caller

I'm a bit puzzled. The RfC on this last year that you closed says "There is an overwhelming majority, arguments and all, for option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail."[11] but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be attributed." That's quite different and makes it closer to how we use the SPLC, which is not what your close suggests. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. That is not the same thing. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Francisco Trincão

Hopefully all is well with you and yours, how is the Netherlands coping with this wrath of God? In Portugal it's so-so, and where i live is as of today untouched by the plague, or so it seems.

This guy in this article is really (in my book at least) being a handful, they continue to add pretty much the entire storyline in the intro, which should be nothing else than a career summary (and in this case, we are talking about a 20-YEAR-OLD who has done nothing in football so far, nothing of relevance that is). They even insert nicknames (Arsenalistas, how S.C. Braga men are known)!

Could you have a word with them please? I feel i might do more harm than good if I engage (NOTE: that is if you agree with me, if you agree with their approach just undo me and i'll stop).

Attentively, thanks in advance and regards --Quite A Character (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, VASCO. Is this so bad? It's long compared to the rest of the article, but if it's true and verified. I think your current version is more concise and therefore better, but I expected something much worse. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Bringing it here

If you could clarify precisely where I accused Carthradge of socking, I'd appreciate it. You maybe confusing me with the IP. I did accuse carthradge of assuming bad faith, etc., but that's hardly the same thing.

And, of course, you can hardly be suggesting that I was accusing them of socking by recommending an ANI case: after all, SPI is thataway, as any fule knoweth.

All the best! ——SN 54129 13:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The IP said "sock" and you said "yep". That's all. I hope Carthradge lays off this whole thing since I haven't had breakfast yet and it's no fun blocking on an empty stomach. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yep. Looking forward to the ANI case. But enjoy your grits! ——SN 54129 14:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

DrMies, hoping you had a good breakfast. when I look at the talk page of Carthradge I see an editor who has made a couple of mistakes getting baited and taunted by a couple of IPs. I hope everybody involved settles down and gets back to writing an encyclopedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I did, thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

TruthGuardians

TruthGuardians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is being disruptive as usual with his baseless personal attacks and mass canvassing Jackson fans for retaining a POVFORK. Here he falsely alleges me to have been blocked for "edit warring" and misrepresents my unrelated edits to this subject. He also alleges a couple of us to be an SPA and here he engages in mass canvassing. Excelse (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No one has personally attacked you. Only offered historical facts. There is no canvassing going on as you allege, just your false allegations. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI 1.0 is thattaway, y'all. Drmies (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion... Drmies (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Who hates you and Maxblumenthal?

Use your spidey powers on this to see the edit summary. It's clearly libelous - I would email it to you, but that wouldn't work.[12] It's also obviously a sock. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, they came back as an IP with the same edits and edit summary plus a threat to put a bullet through my head. See the Functionaries list. Doug Weller talk 19:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Grawp. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Aha. Southern California. I have to say, that's somewhat anti-climactic. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone else after the good Doc

Tracked it down and squashed. See this diff. Suggest a revdel. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. He sounds upset. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Michael Douglas

Appreciate your help over at Michael Douglas. Sorry you had to go through all those revisions! -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I just blundered in at the tail end but hear, hear. Huge thanks to User:LuK3 from my vantage point. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:LuK3, there's a new functionality that prevents a lot of RSI. Thanks to both of you. Louisville IP, BLP vio, yeah it's that person. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

But User:LuK3, next time I think your time is better spent looking for an admin on call rather than reverting. If you don't revert, there's nothing more they can do, and they won't clutter up the history with three dozen edits. Click Recent changes and see which admins are active, and report on AIV as well: I think that's more helpful than reverting. I know it's counter-intuitive not to revert, but still. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies, I usually head over to the revdel IRC channel for those types of edits. For whatever reason I didn't go there once it started up. I appreciate the heads up. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you do IRC--I guess that would work quickly too. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't use IRC but my go-to for "after-hours"-ish sprees like this is buried in the veritable Hoover Dam of text at the top of WP:ANI. About 2/3 of the way down there's a link (Ctrl-F "skip the drama") that generates a list of recently active admins. (As it happened, Drmies beat Northamerica1000, Rosguill, and the couple of other mop-wielders I notified this time.) - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Globally locked

Hi. Can you please globally lock 93.143.66.255 (talk · contribs)? This self-confessing Muslim Bosnian has just threatened to kill me on my IDwiki talk page. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a steward... Drmies (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, are you around? Drmies (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you block all Croatian IP as prevention? Because this is an IP hopper. Or maybe block all from Dubrovnik and Split. Flix11 (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah no, I can't do that. Even if I could, technically, I couldn't. If there are any more IPs, you can let me know and I will see what I can do. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Done I could not identify a blockable range. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you much, MusikAnimal. Drmies (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

Can you please protect (or at least semi-protect for autoconfirmed users) Tiri (footballer)? I am going out of my wikimind, if it hasn't exploded already!

It's like this user said here (https:/wiki/User_talk:Fodbold-fan#Footballers_playing_for_amateur_clubs_post-retirement, his reply was to a mere technical question, but that's OK. As you may well know, i use hystericals in my summaries a lot - not proud of it - but never insulted this person), i definitely should get a life.

Kind regards to you, thanks in advance --Quite A Character (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ha. Unexplained edits quickly become disruptive; I've given it one week, which should be enough time for you and User:Robby.is.on to get a firm consensus somewhere. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but that did not stop anything. Idiot (or idiots) resorted to an account (maybe created with the sole purpose of disrupting the page) and resumed the shenanigans (Mr. Tiri is like the eighth or ninth player i see that "plays" for Kerala Blasters FC according to these "users"). Cheers! --Quite A Character (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, but your edit didn't provide an explanation in the edit summary, and you didn't leave a warning if, indeed, their editing was disruptive--which your unexplained revert suggests you thought. Please do those things. It may be tedious for you, but it makes everything easier for us, and that means that we can do more for you. In this case, you are dealing with a user who's already been warned a bunch of times, and that can add up; right now, there's really nothing for me to act on. The next thing to do is to get with this Robby editor, and editors like Matty and Giant Snowman and hammer out that consensus, which will help take care of all these problems. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again; And unable to post some edits; Page Protection

I went past that edit too quickly without thinking about the level. I always appreciate the reminder to think about that.

I have been having some trouble saving edits. Most have gone through a little slowly but I can't edit my user page. I get a Wikimedia error about fetch errors. My user page was rather long. I split off over one-third of it into a sub-page. I can't save either one of them. I have put off looking for help for this mainly because I have been spending time writing some new articles in connection with the WikiProject Military History backlog reduction drive this month and thought this might take some time to figure out. I know the page is long but not so long that changes have not taken until this month, and the page has been much longer for quite some time though it may not appear so at first glance due to use of collapsible sections.

If you can provide some help or guidance, I will appreciate it. I realize this may not be an administrator's area so I do not want to take up a lot of time on this.

I have put an updated version of just the first part of my user page at User:Donner60/sandbox#Sandbox user page temporarily. Since my user page had quite a lot of vandalism in the past and was semi-protected by Delta Quad in 2016, I thought it might be a good idea for that page to be semi-protected in case some vandal discovers it. So I ask that you semi-protect that page.

Thanks for you help. By the way, I hope the coronavirus is not affecting you or your family and that it is not causing you too much inconvenience or even loss. Donner60 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Donner60, we are well, thank you--hope you are too. I don't know what to tell you; I'm not that technical. I saw what you did here, User:Donner60/AIV Reports--but frankly I can't help but wonder if there's much purpose to it... Anyway, yes, when you see racist swinery, go for a higher, much higher level warning that 1, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I thought it was a good idea to list the AIV reports when I first started them to show, to myself if to no one else, that I was on the right track with them. After years have passed, I suppose there is not much reason to keep that record except out of habit. In any event, the reduction in bytes did not cure the problem. As I noted, this isn't an administrator's area so I thought I would ask just to see if you happened to have run across it. After I finish with the backlog month at the Military History Wikiproject, and probably my tax returns, I will seek out some advice from the Village Pump or go to the Wikimedia site. I had done the latter without quickly finding a way forward. I may be wrong but I have had a feeling it might take a little time and trouble to pursue this so putting it off for awhile seems fine. We are doing fine here. Our area has not been hit too hard but we are being cautious as well. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you clear a talk page of an IP?

I cam across User talk:77.97.43.28, full of warning out of 2011. I do not believe that the same user will still be using that IP. And I think that a new warning should not be c0onnected with an earlier sockpuppet. So, can I clear it and add the new warning? The Banner talk 13:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the sock template as it should never have been put on the Talk page in the first place, but the history of warnings should not be removed. It's not normally done, and there's no real way you can know if it's the same person or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

After nine years? But okay, it was good that I was cautious. The Banner talk 13:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:BD2412, I am sure you can weigh in on this matter. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We have had several discussions on this point, and there has consistently been a general consensus of the community that ancient IP talk page messages should be blanked and templated. There are several specific reasons for this practice, primarily that it can be confusing for a new IP editor to receive a notice and, upon following that notice, be taken to a page full of warnings; and because IP talk pages can become loaded up with links to articles (particularly disambiguation pages), so that editors checking to see if there are improper links from various namespaces can find it bothersome to have a large number of IP talk page links on the "What links here" page. The main point of disagreement is not whether these pages should be blanked, but how old a page needs to be to merit blanking. I routinely blank and template IP talk pages if the last edit was more than five years ago. I typically do so if the page is more than three years old and contains only a single warning. BD2412 T 16:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We clear old IP talk pages as a matter of course, and have done so over half a million times...at least. ——SN 54129 17:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi Drmies, just a note to say thank you for this which I had great delight in reading today. Currently, like most of Planet Earth, I'm struggling to find things to do; Spring is yet to indicate as to whether it's safe to carry out this year's first batch of garden chores; the classic car is still in hibernation, so that was out of bounds; my other classic blew a head gasket last weekend, but there's nowhere open to get the bloody thing fixed, and there's not much on TV that offers a break from all the corono-depression that is currently bleeding out of my tv screen. So it was both a thrill and a pleasure to come across The Coral Island today, on my travels around the turgid nonsense going on elsewhere on WP. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 18:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor who is adding original research

Hi Drmies, could you or any of your page-watchers please intervene in Christchurch mosque shootings article? The article contains original research in the background section which seems to be added there to justify what that terrorist did. I was reverted by an editor who seems not to understand what an original research is.see here-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources there are related to the shooting. It seems that it was added there just to justify the terrorist attacks against Muslims.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

My bias

shows up in the thoughts I hope you can read from my mind about a discussion at Talk:Nazism by Kike korrektor (well, that was their original username, they wanted it changed to Kkorrektor but didn't get that either}. Anyway, if you read "To spare me from the necessity of writing an essay , please read National Socialist Program points 7. 11. 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 20. 21. So the nazis stated 'social policies' (or however you want to phrase that haha) are a key tenet of their ideology. Given how many points address it, given all the policies they've implemented to achieve it, I find 'embettering the social aspects of life' (subject to rephrasing) to be one of the major ideas of nazism. So I propose to include that in the article about the nazi ideology." and then look at those points at National Socialist Program, guess what I'm thinking? NN Doug Weller talk 20:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the poorly written rationale for that username, and the fact that an unblock was accepted. If I understand it correctly the editor is saying they're Jewish and proud of it--and then go on to argue that Nazism was good for workers and for the social atmosphere. Their arguing that Nazism is "embettering the social aspects of life" is kind of like some kid sitting on a smaller kid's face and farting, and then saying "REALLY THIS SMELLS DELICIOUS YOULL LOVE IT". Drmies (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

CompactSpacez

You blocked this user a few months ago for a personal attack and their talk page history is nothing but warnings to knock it off; they've decided to go guns-blazing into an AfD and drop the n-word into the nom and go polemic because 'white house staffers' use the term. I'm not sure this is on its face blockable (I'd warn on the AfD in response, but I'm not into serving troll food today), but it does seem like they're trying to come in and use fighting words to goad out an argument from some poor AfD regular just looking to vote! and nothing more. Nate • (chatter) 09:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

[1] Meyers, Jean (2014). "La figure de Guillaume de Gellone d'après la Vita sancti Willelmi (v. 1125): quelques remarques sur ses modèles hagiographiques". The Journal of Medieval Latin. 24: 131–52.

[1]