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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

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

I make it short, the reasoning behind my ping was I am still behind hassled by Rusf10 (I was pinged by him). Since I am not allowed to comment on his comments and I have had no contact with him, I asked you and Floquenbeam to kindly ask Rusf10 to do the same. While I am disappointed you are "not interested", I am doing what I said I would and was told. This concludes my reasoning/explanation behind my ping of you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:29 on April 5, 2021 (UTC)

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

(If that's not the Dutch word for "hoax", I blame Wiktionary.)

Tomaatje12 (talk · contribs) has made a rather unusual edit here, seemingly confessing to having created a hoax article on nlwiki. However, I can't tell if they mean that they created it knowing it was false, or based on a misunderstanding (in which case it wouldn't actually be a hoax). If it's the former, we'll probably need to review their contributions to enwiki. So I was wondering if you or another Dutch-speaker ("-sprecher"? "-sprooeker"?) could take a look at nl:Marginale Driehoek (last version to which they were sole major contributor · ongoing AFD), and figure out what's going on over there. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They said it was first created in 2006--I don't have magic powers on the nl-wiki, and I don't know anybody there. That entry does not read like a joke. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Their only article creation here was a place in Belgium, Hulste, and it seems real enough. Tomaatje12, can you explain Marginale Driehoek? Was it deleted? And if so, why did you create it again? I know it's the Dutch wiki, but still. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I discovered that it was a hoax by accident. I made the page in 2020 and had plenty of sources. Various media sources mention the Marginale Driehoek. Vice Belgium described it "the place where the dumbest people life" [1] But they all likely refer back to the original article on Wikipedia of 2006. No sources older than 2006 make a mention Marginale Driehoek. I was unaware of the origins of the Marginale Driehoek when I wrote it. Tomaatje12 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up, Tomaatje12. :) And thanks for the assistance, Doc. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your concerns of MOS:COLORS on Story of the Year, however that isn't the page that discussion should be had on. Your concerns should be discussed on the pages that discuss the use of colours in timelines like Wikipedia:EasyTimeline. Not a random rock band's page that just so happens to have a timeline. The timeline as it was conformed perfectly to what is described on EasyTimeline and every band Timeline on Wikipedia. It may even be applicable to discuss it on Vital article pages that use it like The Rolling Stones, List of members of bands featuring members of the Beatles or Led Zeppelin. I hope you understand this and also that the disruptive editing tag your posted on my talk page, does not conform at all to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Be more weary next time. I hope you have a nice day. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean "wary", Issan Sumisu, because I'm weary enough of this already. You completely misunderstood: you are violating accessibility guidelines, and if you continue, I will block you. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed the point entirely. Your concern should be over MOS:COLORS and EasyTimeline contradicting each other. That is the discussion you should be having if you have a problem with the colours on EasyTimeline, it has its own manual of style. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Deepfriedokra, do you understand this? Editor keeps reinstating a timeline that even to the naked eye violates accessibility guidelines in terms of color contrast and light/dark contrast. There is no way that this table meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, but they seem to think this is some kind of minor thing that I should discuss on some Timeline page. How do I make this clear short of just blocking them? And Issan Sumisu, why do you keep reverting other parts as well, such as the bold print for the Members, when a heading makes editing much easier? There is a set of five lines for Philip Sneed--what colors are they? I can't tell, and I'm not even really color-impaired. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not trying to change your mind on anything. I'm simply trying to point out to you that your grievance with the page wasn't a grievance with my edit, it was a grievance with a policy that is contradicting another policy. You've uncovered something that should be fixed in that respect, in that EasyTimeline shouldn't have colours. This is the third time I've stated that in different ways, it seems as if you're ignoring every word I say. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't seriously think that in a clash between someone's advise on how to draw up timelines and a set of guidelines meant to improve accessibility for the visually impaired across all articles, in fact across all of the internet, that we should have a serious discussion over what weighs more heavily, because that should be obvious. Yes, the problem is with your edit, because you keep reinserting material that violates accessibility standards. And if you think that "well EasyTimeline says it's OK" is enough justification for that violation. then you are mistaken. What needs to change here is editors using colors in a way that makes it hard or impossible for visually impaired people to read it. If you want to take this seriously, and if you want to keep those timelines, then get to work on improving them. Picking a fight with an administrator who happens to care greatly about accessibility is not a productive way forward. Go fix the problem, and if you do I and thousands of others will be grateful to you. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I'm not even trying to be aggressive. I'm trying to point out to you that EasyTimeline is site wide and heavily used. I understand WP:Colors and its relevance, and I'm trying to help you get your point across about it. I was trying to be helpful to you. I'd never heard of WP:COLORS before today, and I'm sure most editors mustn't have been either, as coloured timelines are in place in the majority of GA-class band articles. Should it not be discussed when an article is reviewed for GA? I don't understand why you think this was an attack on you in any way. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not saying this was an "attack"--I just don't understand why, when I pointed you to MOS:COLOR the very first time you didn't take that suggestion (and the content of that page) seriously, and why you were edit-warring over this. I've been around the block a few times here and when I say "violation" I'm not kidding. But what you say flips around easily: I had never heard of EasyTimeline, and I am sure many editors haven't. MOS:COLOR is of course project-wide, and the moral imperative of accessibility should be obvious. The very section I linked to says "Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind or visually impaired"--well, that's easy enough to follow. If a bathroom in a building is set up in such a way that someone in a wheelchair can't get to the toilet, then you rebuild the bathroom: this is the equivalent of the ADA.

              I can't speak for GAs or for other articles: it is entirely possible that one has a set of colored lines that do meet the requirements. So one of the things you can do is play around with colors and shades. Or make the lines wider. Or have fewer variables in there. I think you think I'm saying "all timelines should go per MOS:COLOR", but that is not what I'm saying at all: I'm saying this one should go.

              But you should notice also that EasyTimeline says nothing whatsoever about colors or contrast. It does not dictate that this timeline should have been done this way. Nor, and that is the weakest part here (I am not blaming Erik Zachte for this), is there any reference at all to MOS:COLOR or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. There should be. And updating that page, or adding some material about that, that would be very helpful. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EasyTimeline was published in 2004, and predates page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility which started at 2006 and probably MOS:COLOR, an abbreviation which I never even heard of. I abandoned support of EasyTimeline at least one and half decade ago, after admins introduced a patch without consultation which ruined many existing charts and refused to revert or even discuss it. Please don't drag me into discussions that are for me a waning painful memory. Erik Zachte (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Erik Zachte, thanks--it's unfortunate then that your name is still on it. You might could place a note on the talk page. And I didn't, and certainly didn't want to, drag you into anything--hence my "I am not blaming Erik Zachte". Thanks, and my apologies, Drmies (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at User:Paishsydydhdh. It's an obvious sock of User:Jinnifer for which you've blocked socks of recently. They're back using this account trying to force the same exact edits now that temporary protection on those articles has ended, as well as once again harassing users to make edits for them on articles they can't access. Today, they're harassing User:TigerScientist. NJZombie (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked, thanks to Daniel Case. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Yeah, it got a bit out of hand after contacting you. I appreciate you getting back to me though! NJZombie (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw the notification but was knee-deep in an SPI… Drmies (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries! Appreciated all the same! NJZombie (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that a QPQ is needed for Template:Did you know nominations/Three Notch Road when you have time. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you protected deleted Draft:Western Telematic... see above. More product of RBTWI19-620827. --- Possibly (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately they won (yes, you heard me well, screw Portugal and especially CRP!), better luck for me next time. Go Netherlands!

Hope you're also well, take care :) --Quite A Character (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has now taken to calling everyone else a sockpuppet. Lavalizard101 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth I have declined their unblock review and warned them that they will lose their talk page access if they make any further personal attacks. I am watching the page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, the crazy runs high there. I'm reminded of the old Tahash editor. Thanks Chillum. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He sure made my life sound interesting. More interesting than "clearly sitting on the couch all day long waiting for the lockdown to end". HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man that still isn't over? I'm so sorry. I mean, I'm sorry you live in a responsible country with a functioning healthcare system. If you were my sock I'd make you pay for that new heater that's coming today or tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I am currently in a country that has accomplished about 2% vaccination. They are being very responsible, but their healthcare system is below what I would call functioning. I am however safe and happy. Ask me on IRC and I can give you more details. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue if Special:Contributions/Wi11iam_1yons is just random trolling, a copyvio of somewhere, or some form of an LTA (the deliberate spelling of the username is what pushes me towards this option). Mind to enlighten me? Either case, likely needs a blow from the banhammer... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That name looks like an Instagram pornbot. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, it's hard to say. There is an LTA who keeps dumping lyrics into articles, but I found nothing there to suggest that's this one. There's also a Shrek LTA, though I haven't seen that one in a while. In this case, CU revealed that it's a school, on a blocked range, and there's a bunch of blocked accounts and one or two serious accounts. So for now I'm going with your first two options. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I thought you were an English major [2] oops on me. :-/ — Ched (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, when you get a chance, could you delete these death threats You should be shot in the head...You are a descipable individual who needs to be dealt with. See you in South Korea. from that users talk page[3], they are still visible. Thanks in advance. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, I think everything has been removed now, and editor blocked. — Ched (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you folks..this is terrifying, I feel sorry for Piotrus. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oops ..Ched I think you accidentally blocked the wrong user, [4] SangminChoe was the one who reverted that threat. This user posted the threat ---> [5] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damn - that's twice in 3 or 4 months I screwed up. TY GizzyCatBella, unblocked, and apology left. Hope that's enough. Earslore was blocked already by another admin. — Ched (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, no worries, with all that difficult tasks you folks constantly do, these things happen. It is understandable. Thanks for taking care of that so swiftly. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks y'all. Sorry, I was otherwise occupied today. Piotrus, Nishidani, I appreciate your work--y'all might know who it was, and Materialscientist does too, I think--thanks MS. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks pal, though I didn't notice any recent death threats, (other than that of age, which, well, is hardly a threat: just nature making way for youngsters!) from that source my way. But then again, I'm disattentive to these things. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would've said in the edit summary that there's a reason why the article List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters was featured as effort was done to cite sources adequately and polish it to a high standard rather than lump in a bunch of character sheets and call it a day especially if no indication of notability is included. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I'm in the midst of changing jobs and haven't been around much the past couple of months, but today I am being accused of vandalism at Kaffir lime by an IP, without contributions on any other articles, for deleting repeated references to those who would call this fruit by a non-colonial name as "woke." I reported to AIV but who knows whether the person acting on those reports will grok the issue versus denying for having not provided sufficient notice. Maybe I'm the one who's out in left field here.

Hoping all's well in your world; it's 114 degrees in mine. Take care! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I wouldn't use "woke" as an adjective, because it occurs so often in quotation marks and is used as a put-down, and it's worthwhile noting that the article doesn't use the term either (BTW that's a good source--worth incorporating). I blocked the editor for disruptive editing--which here includes edit warring, false claims of vandalism, and NPOV. Thanks... (It's only high 80s here, but my AC unit is currently in pieces waiting on a new motor, haha) Drmies (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I'm getting popular... Already reported but would like to know if this has any relation with other known accounts or if its just some random troll. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have soft blocked this as too similar, making sure they don't edit until this is looked at further. If there is more history here that warrants a harder block I have no objection to another admin changing the block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Special:Contributions/CutePeach just decided that they didn't like the current article, and they've decided to remove the existing sections on the topic, and replace it with one of their own creation, and put it at the top of the article to give it undue prominence [6]. This is very unusual, and also very disruptive, and I'm stuck at three reverts (I've given them a warning for the blanking, and asked for an explanation on their talk page, but they don't seem interested and likely just want to see me revert them a fourth time so, you know, they can make a report for edit warring)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, I can't act on an editor named "Cute Peach". It's just not OK. Drmies (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I edit-conflicted with User:Shibbolethink. Drmies (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell me if I'm wrong: 3RR gives a first mover advantage (since the first move is inherently not a revert...), does it not - at least, according to the letter of it (never mind the spirit, one, or a well-explained two reverts, should be the absolute maximum)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah sorry, I was just reverting because they didn't explain their content removal. I definitely agree it's a case of WP:UNDUE. We should get a consensus on the talk page. It can go to RfC if it has to. But also we really do need to follow BRD.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's too early for me to start counting. RC, this kind of math is always tricky but yes, there is that advantage, which makes it all the more important to NOT get caught up in an edit war, and to rely on the collaborative nature of the project. Shibbolethink, I don't know why you're apologizing--my edit summary was pretty much the same as yours: unexplained edit warring is disruptive. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • • :) --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • They've just made a post at AE, where in other things they say I'm the one that created the discretionary sanctions, and where, of course, they are using this recent episode as some form of ammunition for their accusations (completely ignoring WP:ONUS)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Now a personal attack saying how I "poisoned the well"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now, "there is a small band of activists"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• ^{( Buttinsky)} Is anybody taking bets on how many TBANS are going to get issued as a result of this AE? Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. it's really very similar to the original ANI thread 5 months ago. A perfect example of WP:STOPDIGGING. It's almost as if in reaction to the thread looking like it's going "the wrong way," various editors are trying to edit more POV into those articles... More activity at Gain of function and the two AE report articles. Careful nobody gets caught up in that and battlegrounds! And report the edit wars...But I know I'm preaching to the choir.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Filetime? Well, [7] and [8]. (Also [9], but no disruption there.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. Well, what can I say. The false accusations of picture-stacking (is that what it is?), that's moving toward an ANI post. Setting that aside, the RfCs aren't going well for them, and I see User:SMcCandlish and others making very good sense. (I'll add Epicgenius, whom I know as an eminently reasonable editor.) Those RfCs are still happening, and, eh, I hate to say it, but maybe you need to go for the "I" that we know from "RBI". If the RfC goes your way, it doesn't matter what they say, right? Drmies (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This really shouldn't get out of hand. I warned them, but this might actually become an ANI matter--if you can phrase it in fewer than 200 100 words, haha, without bold print. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What? NO BOLD PRINT!! Not possible.
  I really have no taste for bringing this to ANI, so we'll see what happens. And, yes, Epicgenius has turned into a very respectable editor -- I told him so recently. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not the best editor on Wikipedia, but I require assistance again. User:Rootone left an angry message on my talk page regarding User:Rtkat3 and I undoing their edits to Steel (John Henry Irons) and Natasha Irons' page. They claim we ganged up on them to undo their edits and that we're trying to intimidate them. However, one of their reasons for us to leave them alone is essentially "I'm too old for this shit". For fear of antagonizing them further, I chose not to respond to the message. Rtkat3 suggested I seek out administrator help, and you're one of the only ones I know who maintains an active presence. Again, I'm well aware that I'm not a great editor considering my inability to remove every instance of fancruft and my reasoning for undoing Rootone's edit to Natasha Irons' page is definitely the worst. However, I would like assistance in, or at the very least advice, on this matter and how to proceed. Blazewing16 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blazewing16, thanks for the note, and don't worry about good or best. But I don't really see what the problem is--the edit histories aren't very clear and I can't figure out what precisely was being fought over (Rootone also isn't very clear in their edit summaries)--but if what they call "ganging up" is just you and the other editor agreeing, well, you can just let that be. You can remove the message from your talk page and just go on, right? You don't have to respond to their accusations which were clearly spoken in anger. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Sunshine!
		Hello Drmies! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first day of summer, Drmies!! Interstellarity (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete some many sourced paragraphs and sections? Why didn't you engage with people who know the subject?Vale.devin (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean like someone with a PhD in literature and a decent knowledge of WP:OR, and of this, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question? Drmies (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You deleted in a few minutes entire paragraphs with sources. Why did you delete the paragraph with Florio's proverbs? They are sourced.Vale.devin (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the edit summaries. "They had sources" is weak: in fact, the sources did not verify the text. And citing reviews instead of books and claiming that the argument which likely isn't even in the book can be distilled from the review, that's intellectual laziness and misrepresentation. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, you could have written "Florian influences on Shakespeare" or something like that, but you're going for the fringe view here. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You deleted an entire paragraph with Florio's proverbs, taken from Florio's works. They are not from reviews, but from the original sources. This is laziness at his best. Not checking sources and deleting them. The only misrepresentation is your censorship. You did not engage, you did not check the sources provided. You should be ashamed to have used the word 'monster' in another comment. Vale.devin (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Why did you delete the three phrases from Florio's works used in Shakespeare's plays? They were all three sourced. Why did you delete the sentence in which is stated that Florio contributed to the English language with over 1,000 words. There are studies about that. And it had been included the source (Empire of Words: The Reign of the OED, by John Willinsky, Princeton University Press, 1994). Why this censorship?Vale.devin (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete that three of Florio's phrases become Shakespeare's plays titles? This is pure laziness not checking the sources provided. This is real censorship.Vale.devin (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You boast that you have a Phd, did you read all Florio's mentioned sources? Did you read Florio's First Fruits, Second Fruits, Giardino di Ricreazione? If not, why did you deleted those sourced information?Vale.devin (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, "taken from Florios's work", to which you added OH THAT'S A LOT LIKE SHAKESPEARE. That's original research. And I did check the sources provided: here is a review from 1960 of Longworth de Chambrun which doesn't say a damn thing about Florio and Shakespeare, and here is another, which lists a whole bunch of "debatable" opinions, the only relevant one of which is "Florio taught Shakespeare Italian". And here is a 1953 review of Simonini's book, whose only relevant statement is that Shakespeare and Jonson owe a debt to men who taught Italian in England. None of these articles prove anything about the thesis, though you made it sound like they do, and the laziness is in using those reviews instead of the books themselves--not that that would have helped. That Florio added words to English is completely irrelevant to "Florian authorship of Shakespeare's work. I'm sorry, but you seem to completely misunderstand what Wikipedia is all about. You should write up a website--but maybe you already did: there's a lot of hits for the owner of that website in the article. Funny to see Gary Taylor in there--I studied with him. I don't think he'll tell you that Florio wrote Shakespeare. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• False, you didn't check the original source, which is "Giovanni Florio, un apôtre de la renaissance en Angleterre a l'époque de Shakespeare" a book written in French and published in 1923. The two-pages articles by Longworth de Chambrun you cited (Shakespeare: A Portrait Restored) have nothing to do with the paragraph that you deleted without checking the sources. Is this a correct behaviour You deleted an entire paragraph about Montaigne and Florio with citations from George Coffin TaylorShakespeare’s Debt to Montaigne published in 1925. Why? Did you read this book? Why did you delete the paragraph? You acted like a censor! Did you read Simonini book or you read just a review? Vale.devin (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) Why would we cite a book published in 1923? Isn't there, like, something more recent? Also, it isn't anybody's duty to hunt out a century old book to support your claims. The WP:BURDEN is on you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make no sense at all. Your citations are not from the scholarly works, one of which was already questionable according to the review you yourself cited. There were no articles "by Longworth de Chambrun"--there were two reviews of her book. Sheesh--this is all pretty elementary. Did you read Simonini's book? If so, why don't you cite from it, instead of from a review of the book? Can you not tell the difference between a book and the review of a book? You certainly can't tell the difference between primary and secondary sources, or you simply don't understand that we work with secondary and tertiary sources in this encyclopedia. But you are too tiresome, and this is in too many places: do not visit my talk page again. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This please. I have reported them to AIV as well. S0091 (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. What is wrong with people. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we could figure that out, we could solve a LOT of the world's problems. They have come back as 212.129.79.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) but just one edit so far. Went ahead and reported at AIV. S0091 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude's running around resetting his modem or phone or whatever. He'll have to run a bit farther in a minute.

		White Knight defender of Wikipedia Barnstar
		'Right makes room where weapons want', Nishidani (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, Nishidani, thanks--but "white knight"? Hmm... Do you know I'll be preparing a class on the medieval origins of modern race/racist attitudes? The White Knights of the KKK will find a place in there as well... Drmies (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well those lethal arseholes, sorry, on wiki euphemisms are advised, so genocidal shitforbrains- had a six year start on Lewis Carroll when he wrote Haddocks' Eyes, where the good white knight appears and the White Knight is one aware of the difficulty when many names are used for the same thing ()86 candidates for the one WS). I must confess that that was the way I read the barnstar when someone posted it on my page, taking it as an allusion to my relatively advanced years. And since I don't know how to do most wiki things like formatting for barnstars etc., I had to poach, but mniracle of miracles did manage to tinge it with Alabamee's state colours, which alas, I now realize, were appropriated by the KKK mugs. That's a great course to teach. Lucky students.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha, we'll have to see about that, how lucky they will be. There will be some real work involved--let's hope no one calls me out for poisoning all those minds with Critical Race Theory. Had a conversation with one of the swim moms this morning about that: she's against, because she wants people judged on their character, not their color (she's Black, by the way). Well, I said, the white colonists of America certainly didn't judge the natives they killed and exploited on their character. That's the thing--those detractors think of it as some kind of moral injunction, "Judge people on race!", when it simply means "don't discredit race in describing history". And now those less-government-is-better-freedom-loving Republican legislatures want to curtain what we can and cannot teach. You should see what you can find in some of the older and sometimes newer history books for K-12. I saw one that described enslaved African people as "immigrants". Drmies (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's when you realise American politics are quite a bit off-center. But that's a topic best avoided in discussions, right? Let's talk about the weather (humid and very damp in my part - I feel rather like in England despite being an ocean away). But then you realise the weather is also caused by some political decisions... Darn! Can't escape it. Even in Shakespeare: is there a better source than this for the following analysis? "Why do they insist that off all the possible 'candidates' the only one who can't have written the plays is William Shakespeare? Though they work hard to deny it, most reasons Anti-Stratfordians offer is rooted in an anachronistic classism. Shakespeare was too lower-class, too common, too ordinary a human to have written the sublimest works in English literature [...]" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The conspiracy Shakespeare theories are simply a snobbish putdown of the idea of an intelligent order outside of the aristocracy. 'Homer' probably didn't have a brass razoo to their name, singing for their suppers. Drmies. 'Medieval roots'? Certainly took strong roots then, but Poliakov's The Aryan Myth traces it back to Isidore of Seville's Spain and is very good on the invented genealogies of descent throughout Europe, which later were redefined as races. You'll know that of course. But surely, this goes back to (a) Biblical genealogies of human groups, Sem, Ham, Japhet et al., (b) which take a sharp turn with Ezra and Nehemiah, who introduce rules for correct descent as definers of the in-vs outgroup. Western racism is essentially biblical. imagine touching on that in the USA and esp the bible belt would stir the dovecotes overly, and one would require the tooey deftness of Fred Astaire to trip the light fantastique over that minefield without being knocked off one's feet by a storm of hot air protesting. ps. I shouldn't be, but was flabbergasted to see that the slaves of the African trade could ever been described in any textbook wherever as 'immigrants'. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

also trying to spread sunshine - with thanks for diligent reviewing, exposing good people and fighting strange behaviour --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerda Arendt, thank you--and thank you also for your content creation. It is truly impressive and I appreciate it very much. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last week you kindly blocked User 119.18.2.245 for disruptive and repetitive editing in regards to changing team names and removing information. It seems whoever was doing the edits on that IP has moved onto a new IP and is doing the same thing. I have asked User Talk 119.18.1.210 to stop but it looks like they will continue and then when the other IP ban ends they will just move back on to that one.Sully198787 (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a word I don't see a lot. Wann es gibt Schweinerei, macht das Wikipedia zu einem Schweinestall? Tschau. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's probably plenty of it in my log... Drmies (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies. If you have time, could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taha Khattabi. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm I can't see anything. You're better off asking Maxim. I looked at the talk page, but I can't open the first report (something messed up about Word on my laptop) and I can't read the second one (no hablar Espanol...). Drmies (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @M.Bitton:, there's nothing in the technical data to suggest that it could be the same person, so perhaps it's a case of meatpuppetry. Maxim_(talk) 16:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies and Maxim: it could well be a case of meatpuppetry. Many thanks to both of you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes that's what I found too, but I thought Maxim maybe knew more (history) than me. Now, that their only edit is that revert is very telling, of course. I just wish I could read those sources. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you active at AIV; could you revdel the disruptive summaries in the history here? Not sure what exactly this user is trying to do, but whatever it is, it's disruptive. Home Lander (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure thing. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blocked Stonkaments for edit warring. Well, fresh off the tail end of that block, they decided to revert again, this time in a way that led another editor to accuse him of trying to hide it.

There's more, BTW. I could document a long-term history of problematic behavior, if needed, but I mostly just wanted to bring this incident to your attention, in case you want to do something about it, or see what another admin thinks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it appears the IP who added all these external links into the article tried to contact you at the You've got mail-template talk page. The IP and a user who left me a note on my talk page appear to be same person. Apparently one of the book's co-authors.. Just wanted to let you know, ofc up to you whether you send them a message or not. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies. I'm not exactly sure how to file an SPI. But since you are a CheckUser here, I've decided to bring you this information.

• This IP...86.175.217.223 seems to engage in meat puppetry with this IP...2409:4063:6c13:a910:2d02:7544:94d8:f8f0. Randomly came to the noticeboard to side with IP 86....
• From editing diffs..see [10] and [11] IP is dynamic but I am certain this is a case of Meat Puppetry, clearly seen in contributions. They are siding in disputes. Fizconiz (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be, Fizconiz, but from those IPs you can see about/almost as much as I can. If geolocation points to the same place, you may have something, but SPIs won't comment on IPs. Plus, I don't know if this is a big thing--the usual editorial tools (revert, rollback, warnings, etc.) usually suffice. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. You already ran this by AN, where Sandstein looked into it. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. As I was writing to you, they blocked IP 2409... But I think it was the case about the comments they left. Just wanted to give notice about the potential meat puppetry. Fizconiz (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fizconiz, I placed a small rangeblock, but I have a question for you: do you really want sexist content like "Most Desirable Woman" in these articles? As for meat, you're dealing with a country of 1.3 billion people, many of whom speak and write a variety of Indian English, and in this case I'd say many of them are horny teenagers, and those all utter the same kind of grunts. So maybe the other IP needs to be blocked if they continue, maybe, but not yet. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really have an opinion on that phrase, so I'll leave that to you. You are far more experienced here and you know what type of content should stay and what content should be removed. Regarding the meat, yes, I'm aware of that. I just found suspicion in the contributions because they randomly went to the talk page as their first edit. Like how would they know there is a discussion taking place at the BLP in which they weren't even involved? Then, they go on to make an edit where the dispute arises from (lead content) and that's the only thing they change in favour of IP 86.... Further, how did the same person on dynamic IP know there is a discussion taking place at the noticeboards? Seems odd to me. I do agree that some sort of action needs to be taken if the IPs cause more disruption. I'll let you know. Fizconiz (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Three Notch Road, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Three Notch Road, covering 233 miles (375 km) between Pensacola, Florida, and Fort Mitchell, Alabama, cost $1,130 to build? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Three Notch Road. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Three Notch Road), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Celestina007 (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See 2001:2D8:E139:54B6:A971:E1A:3F49:23E6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Looks like a 6 month block didn't deter them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Drmies, I am looking for help on a problem you have dealt with in the past. A user [[User::WallyFromDilbert]] continues to remove valid and sourced information from Owen Benjamin. Most recently, he removed a post about a new article from Media Matters.The fact is, this is original research. I have no problem reporting it as what they allege, or even mentioning that MMFA is left leaning. I noted that this is what Media Matters reported, and did not state it as fact. I am looking to understand how I can escalate this issue, as it is clear there is persistent and a concerted effort to control the page. I followed the WP rules on allegations. The user also didn't even leave a comment or reason for immediate deletion. Thanks, TruthBuster21223 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Before I look at the article, I'll give you some general pointers: look at the article for the outlet first. Media Matters for America is a self-proclaimed watchdog (but maybe other outlets support that, I don't know and it doesn't really matter) and they are, well, blatantly biased. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but that does mean that what they report should be properly attributed to them. The next thing is always to check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and the consensus there bears this out, but in addition it says "no consensus on reliability", and that's not a really good sign. It may be that there wasn't much discussion, in which case it doesn't say very much--but if it was a significant discussion, with lots of seasoned editors participating, "no consensus" just isn't good. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, a few things. First of all, User:wallyfromdilbert did give a reason (twice) for removal: there are edit summaries, and that suffices. I don't know what you were looking for--a talk page post? But that isn't required, really, as long as they give a reason. They pointed to MOS:LABEL, and that sort of bears out what they're saying: "...best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". For "racist troll"--well, that is pretty contentious, of course, and I think one problem is that the sentence is real short and consists, besides the attribution, mostly of just the labels. If this were based on some report, on some serious investigations either by Media Matters or others, and if that is reflected in the article text with some context and background, I personally might let that slide, but I have to say, for now, with the one source, and with no context or dates or background, it's really UNDUE.

  And I also have to say that "a persistent and a concerted effort to control the page" is a very serious accusation (certainly if you mean by this one editor) and requires serious proof. Now, if you escalate to AN or ANI, you can make that case, or try to anyway, but that's most likely going to end up in a mudslinging content. And of course they might say the exact same thing about you, since the history shows you've been duking it out with Wallyfromdilbert. And I can go further: the history shows the numbers for both of you--you are the #2 contributor of text and Wally isn't even in the top 10; as for number of edits, y'all are almost tied: Wallyfromdilbert 69 (22.1%) vs. TruthBuster21223 59 (18.9%). So if you're saying "they're controlling it" they can say "no you are". I don't see, unless Wally is clearly guilty of whitewashing or BLP violations or whatever, that this is going to go the way you want it to go.

  One of the best editors we have in this alt-right BLP territory is GorillaWarfare. I don't know how she feels--but I do think that for this one particular edit she might agree that this needs more than this one source. Another expert is User:Muboshgu, who has seen this article too, and if they can drag their butt away from the most boring game besides curling, they might have an opinion for you. So, sorry--you may have been looking for me to agree with you, and while it's possible that I agree with the MMA report (if I were to read it), I wouldn't defend its inclusion in the article. Maybe GW and Muboshgu have an opinion; if they agree that this isn't good enough, the best thing for you to do would be to revert, if that hasn't been done already by that time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Drmies. I was not simply looking for you to agree. I was looking for your opinion in general, so thank you for that. Firstly, I did explicitly attribute it to Media Matters in the opening line. Yes, he does consistently whitewash. I would like these other posters you mentioned to look at the post and review. If they want to give more of a description of the article instead of one line, that would be great. How could I get these users to take a look? Would you be able to ask them to please? Thank you again TruthBuster21223 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I know you attributed it, but that's only one thing. I pinged these editors and that's all I can do, I suppose--if they're interested they'll contribute one way or another. What you can do is start a talk page post and ping them from there (including Wallyfromdilbert, obviously). But I cannot conclude from this one set of edits that Wallyfromdilbert is guilty of whitewashing, for reasons I mentioned. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a handful of left-leaning partisan sources that I typically try to avoid in articles about US right-wing topics, even with attribution, unless they are paired with more reliable sources (and even then it's often better to just use the more reliable sources). MMfA is one of them; others are Right Wing Watch, Democracy Now!, etc. I will occasionally use MMfA for very basic stuff like to verify a quote if they directly quote an article subject, but I otherwise tend to avoid it.
    In this specific case, there are other sources that comment on Benjamin's history of racism and so it's at least not the only source describing him as racist, although I do note that some of the other sources being used in that section are heavily left-wing sources to the point where they should probably be attributed (RWW and SPLC). There are plenty of WP:GREL sources mixed in there also (Daily Dot, Daily Beast, The Atlantic) but they are among the most left-wing sources that are accepted as GREL. There is no requirement that we include sources from across the political spectrum, but I try to, and I am much more comfortable making strong statements about a BLP subject ("racist troll", "dangerous", etc.) if they are coming from centrist or right-leaning sources as well as left. Perhaps a good-example of this is Laura Loomer. That article describes her as far-right, which is a label BLP subjects often object to, but it is sourced to left-wing sources (The Daily Beast, Vox, SPLC), fairly centrist sources (The Hill, the Associated Press), and right-wing sources (The Washington Times, Fox News).
    All that to say, I think this article could be much improved by basing the "Views" section much more heavily on the GREL sources, rather than the hyperpartisan ones. Introducing some more centrist (even left-center) sources would also probably help. I might take a pass through it this evening when I have more time. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • GorillaWarfare, thank you very much. This is all very sensible. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This single-purpose account has already unsuccessfully brought my behavior to ANI (archive link). Drmies, you have also repeatedly warned this user about their aspersions towards me in the past. At what point do they face consequences for this behavior? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wallyfromdilbert, you are right: I looked at a bunch of things but not their talk page. Let me think. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TruthBuster21223, after looking through your edits again, and the notes that I've placed on your talk page, I realize we've reached a threshold and maybe we crossed it already. So I am going to tell you something. First of all, you need to read over GorillaWarfare's comment and take that to heart for any future edits. Wallyfromdilbert has just reverted your edit again: leave it be. Second, you are to leave that editor alone. Any time that you revert one of their edits without sufficient warranty (as it did this time, as it turns out), or any time you talk about about them, you are likely to see one of two things happen, depending on your edit/comment/revert: you will be blocked from editing that article, or you will be block for harassment (you're in HOUNDING territory). If I had paid more attention even to my own earlier warnings to you, that might have happened already. If, as you suggested you do, you try to "escalate this issue", then both of these things might happen. I hope I'm clear. In addition, I'm going to put a few relevant notes about discretionary sanctions on your talk page.

    Wallyfromdilbert, my apologies: I should have paid a bit more attention to things beside that article, but clearly my memory needed jogging. Thanks for doing that. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Drmies, no worries at all. I appreciate your assistance. I have tried working with TruthBuster21223, and my personal opinion is that there are many choice words I would agree could be applied to Benjamin, but that does not mean that content is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please let me know if you see any issues with my behavior on the article as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. I remember there was some talk about that zoning business, and I commented on RSN and BLPN. I don't think I followed up on what the outcomes were, but judging from the article some middle position was reached. Now, there's one thing you can do: clean up Wally (Dilbert)! Drmies (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was helpful getting more eyes on the zoning issue, and I think it turned out well, with more neutral language and citations to two decent sources. However, your suggestion that my namesake article needs any cleanup work has now deeply jaded me into not doing any real work. Thanks a lot. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I closed the discussion at ANI, but then it occurred to me I'd never placed a topic ban before. I notified the editor at her talk; can you check my work? And is there anything else I need to do? I didn't close it as community-placed because that didn't seem appropriate with the low level of participation and since it was my own proposal. —valereee (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, did you log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions? — Ched (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched, hm...have I already f'ed up? I didn't close it as a community action. There's nowhere at that log for this? Does a t-ban require community action? —valereee (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's discretionary sanctions for BLPs, and while it's not very common (I think) to enact those based on promotional editing, WP:BLPBALANCE gives you a warrant to do so. And that you can do as an individual, neutral administrator. I think with that discussion it will be easier than to distill a consensus out of that plethora of commentary. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Valereee - I just recently got my head around applying discretionary sanctions. You need to log the action formally - ping me if you want a hand finding your way through the paperwork. (The alternative might have been to PBlock them from the article for disruption as an ordinary admin action, which is less hassle, and would probably achieve the same end...). Girth Summit _(blether) 19:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to GS's talk for a tutoring session, thanks all! —valereee (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's really all about what kind of thing you're doing and why, and it depends on which box you checked at WP:Ban authority. And that will determine what you do at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions. I agree that blocks are easier to do, haha, and that partial block thing, I'm really starting to like it--I just placed one here. On the other hand, bans serve a purpose as well and the paperwork trail can be useful later. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies (or any other adminstrator), can you please take a look at User:BananaYesterday where I am discussed? Is this appropriate? Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, I see that as a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC, and have removed it. I've asked the user not to reinstate it. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 20:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't actually get my head around what their problem with you is. I see they've been blocked a couple of times, had a couple of drafts deleted, and been caught up in an SPI once, but your name doesn't appear in relation to any of that stuff. I'm not interesting in trawling through all their contribs to work out where that's coming from, but it's an obvious accusation of bad faith, and unacceptable. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, thanks. It has to do with the BLP LowTierGod, an individual who is a troll magnet. I have been insisting on adherence to BLP policy and some editors seem unhappy with that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, ah, that makes sense. Just seeing the name of that articles rings bells for me, it's on my watchlist from regular NCP stuff. Troll-magnet-a-gogo. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correctamundo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, that was not OK. Thank you Girth Summit. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me use your talk page, Doc. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are always welcome to my page--and to our house and our pool. Come as you are. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly another UK IP showed up on the article A Just Russia — Patriots — For Truth which was a favorite of Gordimalo's socks and decided to restore the version to one by a sock from months ago claiming "non-neutral" changes. Now trying to force this down. Right before restoring, they made a minor edit to a random geography-related article, which only reminds of what Gordimalo's socks have done (such as [12]). What do you think? Mellk (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I think that, unfortunately, there is not much I can see that would confirm that. Maybe the edits themselves can make the point, that is, per DUCK. That edit is pretty big: can you point at specific things in there, besides the obvious implausibility of the edit itself? Drmies (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Nicholas Wade#Wikilink for lab leak hypothesis, Stonkaments and Bonewah have been refusing to accept a clear consensus of multiple other editors, and repeating false claims. There's also a lot of personal attacks by Bonewah and Terjen in that discussion, which are getting a little tiresome. I'll find you the diffs of those, if you want me to highlight them, but I'm mostly asking for the discussion to be closed in a way that discourages immediately trying to rehash it.

This is over that same issue that Stonkaments was edit warring over. Neither of them have done anything other than to regurgitate arguments that have been long-since debunked, and tell bald-faced lies like As near as i can tell, the whole notion that Wade's article = misinformation is original research by you guys (They've been shown at least 8 or 9 sources which debunk Wade's claims).

At least 9 editors have endorsed the use of this link, either at the discussion I linked above, or at the BLPN discussion; Me, NightHeron, Generarelative, RandomCanadian, Alexbrn, Masem, Hob Gadling, Calton and Novem Linguae. Possibly 10, as another editor, Thriley, has just advocated for expanding coverage even further without ever indicating a problem with the link.

Meanwhile, Stonkaments, Bonewah and Terjen have been the only ones supporting this to any real degree. Peter Gulutzan has supported removing the link, but not with any arguments, and has been mostly absent from the discussion. AnimalParty seemed to support removal, but apparently changed their mind, as they stopped arguing after RandomCanadian and I responded, and later, AnimalParty thanked me for the edit in which I told Bonewah that their arguments had all been refuted and I would ask an admin to close the discussion if they continued to refuse to accept the consensus that had emerged. Which might mean the actual count of editors supporting this link is as high as 11.

I know consensus isn't a vote, but that's 9-11 editors supporting keeping the link, and 4-5 opposed to it, at least 1 of whom (and possibly a second in AnimalParty) doesn't seem motivated to actually discuss. I outlined their arguments at the end of my last comment there, if you want to read it. I know I'm hardly a neutral party, but there's not many ways of phrasing "ignore all inconvenient facts, including sources which contradict my claims, and cry WP:OR and WP:BLP repeatedly," that won't look pretty condemnatory.

And thanks in advance. Even if you're not inclined to do this, I appreciate your efforts to tamp down disruption around this question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]