Archive 145

←

Archive 149

Archive 150

Archive 151

Archive 152

Hi. Here are additional sources supporting the subsection that you deleted:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/police-brutality-victim-dies-of-fentanyl-overdose/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sonoma-county-jail-yard-counseling-case-settles-for-1-7-million/ https://kpfa.org/episode/flashpoints-june-8-2020/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-to-pay-1-9-million-to-people-injured-during-george-floyd-protes/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-police-fired-unauthorized-rounds-at-black-lives-matter-protester/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/anger-concern-mount-over-santa-rosa-police-use-of-rubber-bullets-other-le/ Isonomia01 (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Eh, please link the article next time? Drmies (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• OK. I don't need extra sources, but thanks. I see that sourcing wasn't the only problem. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Please try to be collaborative, assume good faith (this is a collaborative project and assuming good faith is important), and productive. Please don't just randomly delete content without any notes or attempt at discussion. While I appreciate being challenged, the way you're going about it is inefficient, and is making extra work for me. Your challenge is not nearly as productive as fixing the "Cities by population and crime rates" tables in the article for example. Please participate in discussion. Please support your assertions or conclusions with arguments/logic and examples (i.e. your assertion in the edit summary of "non-neutral", and your assertion here: "sourcing wasn't the only problem", both of which are conclusory, controversial, and probably incorrect). Sourcing isn't a problem in the way you're saying it is. Thanks. I am familiar with the situation, and the statements I made were objective. However, I can appreciate you double-checking that the statements I make are clearly and indisputably supported by the sources that I've listed because (although I am being diligent about limiting my edits to those supported by sources that I list) I am writing (in part) based on my knowledge of the situation after years of research, including sources from the lawsuits, and statements made by public officials. I still need to learn how to list those sources correctly per Wikipedia protocols, but your proof-reading is appreciated. If you'd like to provide any specific examples of statements I made that were non-neutral, I'm happy to listen to feedback and take it into consideration. Ultimately, the fact that the victim of the 2015 torture ring victim being shot in the face with a crowd control "stingball" grenade while peacefully protesting on video is notable, and is properly sourced at this point.Isonomia01 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Teaching grandma how to suck eggs comes to mind. Just sayin'... Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Cryptic and irrelevant. Isonomia01 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Allow me to elucidate: In one corner we have Drmies, an autopatrolled user, checkuser, oversighter, and administrator, 17 years 3 months old, with 405,385 edits and in the other corner we have Isonomia01, a registered user, 7 months old, with 173 edits. Maybe you could have started the conversation by avoiding the newby lecture, which really isn't too useful even with newbys. Thus, the proverbial grandma and eggs reference. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• To be fair, you should include the edits of Isonomia09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They were condescending and long-winded then, and they haven't changed in the interim.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23, I understand your removal of the section on my userpage. I'm not sure if the edits I made and re-added are agreeable to you, but please feel welcome to discuss, or make productive and polite suggestions. If you have personal criticism for me, I will take it into consideration if you (1) provide me with specific examples for reference, and (2) are polite about it. For the record, I just don't want my content deleted (1) without prior discussion, (2) in violation of Wikipedia's rules (I'm not saying this happened all the time, not trying to get into an argument, I think that all the past issues have been settled and resolved, and I'm also not saying that anyone acted in bad faith), or (3) remove content without adequate explanation or a note on the talk page. Isonomia01 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought you were calling me a talk page stalker, in conjunction with the grandma sucking eggs reference. My bad. Isonomia01 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Isonomia01, lawsuits can be cited with {{cite court}}, but are considered Primary sources and must be used with caution. Statements from public officials can be cited with {{cite news}} or {{cite press release}}, depending on whether the statements were reported by the news media or simply originated from the public office in question. Folly Mox (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Bbb23: Wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If you think the "newbie lecture" is interesting, you should see the redacted versions of their post to this talk page. Just sayin' -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you sure you mean me? You didn't indent this properly, so not sure. If you did, I have no idea how to answer. Maybe a little less pithy?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Just pointing out the versions of OP's posts here that they removed. The wut was in reference to the prior account you references. That intrigued me. Thanks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I prefer "talk page watcher." It's less alarming. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Good point and thank you. I hadn't looked at the TPS article in a while and missed the use of TPW. Learn something every day, especially around our good friend Drmies' Talk page. It's never a dull moment around here. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Isonomia01, allow me a few notes. First of all, please use "Preview" before you hit "Publish edit" so that I don't get 25 talk page notifications instead of 6 or 7. Second, you dropped a bunch of URLs here without telling me what specifically you wanted me to do with that--well, I'm not going to do anything with them, because we're not on the article talk page, which is where you probably should have started this, and again, there are no specific statements here about things in the article and sources for it.

I believe you cited my edit summaries, so it should be clear that I didn't remove information randomly. This edit has only one possibly acceptable source, from KPFA--but it's an announcement/link for a radio show, so there is no actual information on that website to verify--plus, it's an interview with the person who got shot in the face, so that's hardly the same as a news report. The other two sources are just not acceptable for BLP information on a politically loaded topic. The whole thing looked very much not neutral to me. But again, this is what you should hash out on the talk page, with specific proposals for sections and sentences and their sources, not here.

Oh, I see now what you posted on the talk page, but it's not very clear to me: it's a lot of text and a lot of other...well, stuff, and it's not very organized to me. But what I also see is that both User:Willondon and User:Magnolia677 pointed out problems, and there is no consensus on anything--perhaps if you'd let the other editors know, they might have given their advice: both are very experienced editors. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is six months old (correction: it started a year and six months ago, and ended six months ago). Magnolia removed my section on the talk page where I originally neglected to cite sources. It's my impression that consensus was reached, because discussion ended when I provided sources. There were no disagreements after I provided sources. I will be more careful about proofreading before I hit submit. I will also try to start with sources, and then add proposed wording after I provide the sources, rather than start with proposed edits and wording first. In the future, if someone deletes my content without making any notes on the talk page, I will plan on tagging them on the talk page, rather than on their user talk page. Marqus Martinez (the man who was shot with the grenade) is no longer living. To reiterate what I said above, it is notable that the victim of the 2015 torture ring incident who organized the lawsuit was shot in the face with a crowd control grenade while filming himself peacefully protesting in 2020. The sources I provided above here meet Wikipedia's standards. Isonomia01 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What I see is a discussion where two editors briefly commented on what you were saying followed by a lengthy section that no one responded to, and I think it's because that was added a lot later, without anyone being pinged. So no, you can't call that consensus: it's likely that neither knew there was something there. As for talk page/article talk page--if you want to call someone an asshole, their talk page is the place for it. If you want to propose text and sourcing, the article talk page is the way to go--but if you want consensus, you have to present things in a easily digestible method, with clear proposals for text and their sourcing, and in manageable chunks, not those long paragraphs. And you gotta let them know! I have no interest in covering up police brutality, and if the sources you linked above are good, go for it--but you gotta go about it somewhat carefully, with solid sources and neutral writing. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is the very sad story of Marqus Martinez. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow--that's tragic. Thank you Cullen. Perhaps you can help with that article? Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is too emotional for me, Drmies. My parents lived in Sonoma County in the years before their deaths and owned a small apartment building there. I have visited there and worked there hundreds of times. I have many friends there. I would have trouble being neutral about this topic. By the way, we had a very well referenced article about Dominic Foppoli for 4-1/2 years until it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Foppoli. One of the criticisms was "local coverage" although the Los Angeles Times covered Foppoli in detail and LA is 435 miles from Windsor. I did not learn about the AfD until the article was gone. Sad, really. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that AfD was close, Cullen. I have no doubt about your capability of staying neutral, though. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that Administrator Cullen also chimed in on Drmies' talk page, during the consensus discussion that I started there, regarding this edit specifically, and also indicated that he was also unsatisfied with the deletion of content without adequate discussion on this particular subject and stated specifically that he and others had spent a lot of work on content that had been permanently deleted without adequate discussion (other people I know personally are also shocked at the same deletion Cullen was talking about). Cullen328, that is a quote by Isonomia01 from their Talk page. I blocked them for one week on December 16, and they have been ranting about it ever since. I finally revoked TPA today because they refactored the last unblock request decline. They also have a bad habit of distorting what other editors have done and/or said. I don't see any support for the quote in this discussion; am I missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Bbb23, I did comment and explained my reluctance to get involved as well as my disagreement with the deletion of one particular article. But I am not interested in lengthy screeds by editors who want to right great wrongs by devoting undue weight to some admittedly bad incidents in a county of half a million people that was established 175 years ago. The article is not called Bad things that happened in Sonoma County in recent years and I am not interested in such fruitless debates. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328, I had noticed your comments about the AfD, but I hadn't looked closely at it - you're talking about the deletion of Dominic Foppoli, right? So, apparently Isonomia01 is trying to connect the deletion of an article about a "bad" mayor of a city in Sonoma County with the content they want to add to the Sonoma County article. And they're using you as "support" for that proposition. I suppose it's not a complete distortion of what you said, more an insidious and misleading representation to suit their agenda, which, in a way, is worse. Oh well, we'll see what they do after their block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23, yes, I was referring to the Foppoli article which I think ought to have been kept. Cullen328 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What happened was the Magnolia removed my section from the *talk page* with, what I view as, wanton contumacy for Wikipedia's rules, and then arbitrarily threatened me with a block, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which I view as crazy. I wasn't going to mention it, but now it has come up. I also don't think adding a section on objective and notable section about what I would call government corruption to an article that otherwise reads like a tourist brochure is anywhere near risking turning the entire article page into an attack page, so I really can't take that warning without a grain of salt either. In any case, I disagree that I should be asked to invite Magnolia to participate in a consensus discussion. The discussion was there. I responded to him multiple times, informing him precisely what I was going to do, and in response I got radio silence. Magnolia did not respond for 6 months. You didn't tag me in a discussion and seek consensus before you reverted my edits. I add sections on the talk pages regarding edits I intend to make, to create a forum for discussion. Again, I do that *before* I make the edits. I then allow time for people to discuss the topic. Then I make the edits. I expect people to participate, to the same standard that I am being held to, in consensus discussion. My time should be respected. People should not randomly delete content without participating in consensus discussion. Consensus is more than voting. It is more than whoever has more edits in their history wins the debate. It should be based on (1) Wikipedia's Rules, and (2) logic. Arguments that have neither basis in Wikipedia's Rules, or in Logic, should be discarded. Again, I don't believe that I should be the *only one* burdened with participating in consensus discussion, although I understand your suggestion because I am (relatively) new (even though I've been editing Wikipedia for multiple decades, off and on, but lost access to my old accounts). Likewise, though, if other people are not going to respect Wikipedia's rules, or are going to make arguments that are obviously illogical or false, I do not think I should be burdened with inviting them to participate in consensus discussion, and that they should just be able to randomly delete my edits, make obviously false arguments as to why, and instruct ME to participate in consensus discussion, when I already have topics on the talk page that they are deliberately ignoring. It's nonsensical, and disrespectful of my time. Especially after they removed my topic from the *talk page* with clear contumacy for Wikipedia's Rules, and then threatened me with a block, again with open contumacy for Wikipedia's Rules. Again, I wasn't going to say anything, but Magnolia removed the content, made an obviously nonsensical argument, and told me to participate in consensus, when I have sections on the talk page that they have not participated in. Please have the same standards for all people. This is a new issue, because Magnolia deleted content from the article, and did not participate in discussion on the talk page, and is trying to be deceptive in his edit remarks. With reference to (a) arbitrarily removing content from the talk page, (b) arbitrarily threatening me with a block, and (c) telling me to seek consensus when I already have sections on the talk page that they are simultaneously deliberately ignoring, it is logical to conclude that Magnolia is deliberately instigating conflict without a rational basis.Isonomia01 (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

As a gesture toward good coverage of policing in Sonoma County somewhere on Wikipedia, whether it's the county's article or somewhere else, may I proffer some photos of the sheriff's department and Santa Rosa Police Department staging to intercept protestors during the George Floyd protests? Not exact World Press Photo of the Year material, but they're what I've got. Wish I had some photos of when they started firing teargas, but I was too busy, well, being teargassed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin: The photos look like they were taken from several floors up a building. Did they shoot the teargas up there? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Third floor. We weren't their direct target, I don't think, just caught in the cloud. I think we received a relatively low concentration. Hit the deck, slammed the window shut, and rinsed our eyes out, and that worked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh Tamzin I'm glad you're OK. I'm trying to focus on all the good that happened after the murder of George Floyd, thanks to so many active citizens. All these awful statues and memorabilia that have come down. How does one thank a dead person? There's no thanking, I guess, but there's honoring. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Powerful scenes of the rioting in The Fall of Minneapolis. --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's Piermark JayCubby 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You've indeffed, so no further action may be necessary. JayCubby 02:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I saw that after I blocked, and I blocked because there was another IP making the same bullshit edits. User:JayCubby, sorry, but please make your signature MOS:COLOR compliant? I can't see your name, that blue on black, or black on blue, I can't read it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. I initially couldn't figure out how to get the link color to change, but thanks to another user I've figured out what went wrong. JayCubby 02:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT couldn't figure it out, so I had to think for myself. Trying times in which we live! JayCubby 02:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see now there's a whole bunch of such socks. How irritating, and sad. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I love high res signatures. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025
	Hello Drmies, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creepTalk 12:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Drmies, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Please leave your wooden shoes out for him to fill with presents.

Have a good one, Doc, and thanks for filling our wiki-lives with cheer.

Love, Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oh Softlavender, that is very nice of you--thank you very much. I assume you set your shoe too? Don't forget to put a carrot in there, right? That reminds me: I'll be making oliebollen for New Year's. All the best to you and yours, and thanks for sticking around and helping out on our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Ah, oliebollen are a new one on me! Here in Hawaii, we have a doughnutty thing called malasadas, which are eaten all year round, just like Spam musubi! Have a great New Year! Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Quack, quack.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm on it. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• I was, Ozzie10aaaa?? I had no idea--I think that also shows that it would be good if more people got involved with it. I think the backlog is creeping towards 2,000 again. Anyway, thanks: I appreciate it! Drmies (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Drmies, you probably wouldn't have been if we had an actual full year of data (that data is just from the last month or so). But if you kept up that same pace through the whole year... yeah, maybe you still would be. We truly need all the help we can get. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, this post is about the IPv6 range 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:0:0:0:0/64 that you partially blocked for 1 week from editing AN/I. A little less than an hour later, User:Cullen328 actually site-blocked the singular IP in that range 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B for a couple of days with no talk page access. Since then, like happens with many IPv6 connections, the user's IP address switched over to 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:9541:B21:E7F0:1D7F very shortly after, which allowed them to continue posting on that previous IP's talk page in spite of the previous IP's block with no talk page access. Given that this is technically block evasion, I'm thinking maybe the /64 rangeblock should be updated to a full one?

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, I left a note for Cullen cause I had to run, but I'll go ahead and stop that yapping. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry Drmies, my wife and I had to pick up some prescriptions (we're 72), go to the hardware store as part of our ongoing battle against the rats, and stop at Target. We just got home. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I took care of it. Rats? Brrrr. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah they are creepy and filthy and befoul any accessible food, but that's the least of it. They have twice chewed partly through pex fresh water lines in the crawl space under our house, which soaked a lot of insulation too. Very expensive chaos. Second incident discovered today. It's an ongoing debacle and I have a grudge against all rodents at this point. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

      @Cullen328: Do you routinely distribute rodenticide in key locations? I do so weekly, and the problems are much improved. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

      • Deepfriedokra, we live in a semi-rural area with lots of beneficial wildlife like deer, rabbits and squirrels plus pets like cats and dogs, so pest control professionals prefer to avoid most poisons and rely on traps and repellents instead. There is also the hidden dead rat odor problem. We are going to start a very specialized product called RatX in the next few days. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

        Oh Lord, rats are a horrible problem. Hope you can get rid of them. Do you guys have any cats? And I think that having a lot of insects and whatnot in your house is considered something of a way of life, but imo, definitely not true nowadays. My house suffers from a lot of silverfish, and my family has been trying to use boric acid to try and stop them. Strong substance, perhaps, but definitely useful. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

        I only use the poison in the house- behind stove, fridge, and washing machine. Fortunately they leave before dying. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

        I use road flares in their burrows outdoors. Close up as many holes as you can find except one, light the road flare and stick it fire side in and cover it up. Carbon monoxide takes care of it. Keeping livestock I have a significant rat population outside that I have to keep in check. As for inside, cats. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

        (edit conflict) Like Cullen, we too live in a rural area. Fortunately, we haven't had any rats (one bat, though - and that was horrible), but we do have mice. Don't know if they'll work with larger rodents, but we leave sticky traps for the mice in our garage, and, thus far, that keeps them out of the house, killing them before they can enter.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

        Is that better than roaches, Bbb23? Drmies (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

        You'd think an indoor pit bull would prevent rats. She does not. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

        Need a ratter, not a big dog. My little lady kills quite a few rats outside. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

        Mice are stupid and don't get too trap averse. Much more difficult to trap rats long term. With mice I've found a bucket trap to be very effective. A 5 gallon bucket with a ramp leading to the top. Fill it halfway with water, then cover the water with sunflower seeds. The mice climb up and hop in to get the seeds and can't get out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

        I do think cats make good pets too. They're good at catching mice and rats, as well as defeating snakes. I'm sure the reaction time of a cat is about 20-44 milliseconds compared to a snake which has like 44-70 milliseconds. I also think that cats are the general predator of snakes. But staying on topic, I do feel like it would be best to have a cat as a pet (I certainly don't have a cat, though) for catching rats. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I seen few deletion, need clarity to improve. 1. For Philanthropic activity the source 8th line mentions artist name, need to understand why the source is doubtful. 2. If "features" is wrong vocabulary could it be replaced with other word? As new writer I observed many articles already accepted those details from years. Need to understand how to represent here with proper writing. SakuraSmart (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not every time someone is mentioned in some competition they're "featured". If someone is featured it means they get a special placement, and there is no evidence at all that this is what is happening here. Yes, it's a buzzword now used for every guest performance and appearance, and we need to fight back, like linguistic warriors. I don't really know what you mean with "source 8th line", but if you're talking about this source, it's pretty obvious to me that that gossipy glossy website is NOT an acceptable, neutral, independent source for BLPs. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. For Philanthropic activity link ^[1] was used. 8th line suggest artist donation towards natural disaster. It was removed stating doubtful. If we mention actual ranks of few listings, instead of "feature" I hope it's fine provided link attached is not from gossip site and provides enough evidence. SakuraSmart (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • What 8th line? I see five lines, and then some weird image that took me 26 clicks on "Page Down" to get through--and then there's comments. Anyway, I see his name is mentioned, along with dozens of others, on a website that at best looks like a gossipy site for fans of entertainers. Whatever that site is, it's not publishing journalism; please see WP:RS. How much did he even give? Or did the record company give a few bucks in his name, to add to his resume? Who knows? Drmies (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oh you mean the seventh line of that picture with a list of donors--who knows what that picture is, and what its authority is. Again, that's not how we operate here. It's too easy to manipulate pictures, and there's no source or context--"according to incomplete statistics" actually expresses part of the problem well. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Wikipedia:Administrative action review Doug Weller talk 16:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Very exciting, Doug--thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) Run, run, the horse is a revenant!!! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • A tremendous amount of truly reprehensible stuff does happen on this talk page. However, in my opinion, none thus far had been quite so egregious as using the word "revenant". That said, I myself understood the word immediately by way of it being the true and accurate translation from the Danish of the title of Ibsen's Ghosts. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Hey I just learned a new word. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Well, @Softlavender:, a joke explained is not much of a joke. But what I meant by using the word was precisely a reference to the Danish sense in that the ghost of the quite dead argument had been revived by a (now blocked) user who started the (now closed) discussion. Let us hope for the new year that the argument inappropriately raised from the dead remains in the grave to which it was returned and that no further sticks are raised. Heaven forfend that I should post reprehensible stuff on this hallowed site. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
        • Let the dead bury their dead. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thought they had given up and taken a new hobby, but nope... Here is this IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:67D4:8700:461:2CED:6508:F5E3), for instance continuing with the transfer speculation at Francisco Trincão (and reinserting their ref that "supported" Sporting CP winning the title last season by mentioning a S.L. Benfica match!!), duly reverted! Ah, with a completely polite and encyclopedical edit summary, so let's see what their reply will be (because they WILL reinstate their version again!)...

Happy 2025, take care RevampedEditor (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring started already, please intervene (you or somebody) ASAP! --RevampedEditor (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• User:Girth Summit, User:Izno, can you please have a look, given your experience with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SukunaZenin/Archive? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• RevampedEditor, I found another one (User:Lazaric12), and removed some of that awful content. Take care old friend! Drmies (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm currently engaged in an edit war with a user who believes that two films released in 2017 and 2019 are canon to an animated universe of TV shows from 1992-2006. I've provided multiple clear as day sources from the people who worked on these that show this isn't the case.

You can read it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DC_Animated_Universe#Article_Cleanup Walterwhitehartwell (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• I tried to read that: it's clear as mud. But yes you are in the middle of an edit war, and you really need to stop. If you want that talk page discussion, and your editing career, to go anywhere, you might could try making smaller edits and explaining them on the talk page--briefly, with sources. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Blanking your talk page is not a good idea. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Walterwhitehartwell, is this your only account? Drmies (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. I had a previous account a while back that I lost my password too.

  The person who I'm having an edit war with literally went and removed my sources, while his sources are non-existent or incredibly flimsy. Walterwhitehartwell (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional monarchy (2nd nomination) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 1 § Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional monarchy (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The article for Columbia High School (New Jersey) definitely needs additional sources and has to some issues of tone addressed. There are sources about the school available to update many of the issues you highlighted. Alansohn (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Happy New Year, Alansohn. I hope there are, and I hope they're grrrreat. That article was a bit excessive. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Got someone editing as an IP to escape a block and complain at the Teahouse. [1] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, they got globally blocked literally the minute I sent this lol. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, it's that one again. So boring. I wonder what their New Year's resolutions include. Haha, "this year I'm going to look for North Korean proxies". Good luck! Drmies (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"Resolution 1: Complain about being banned on a website for almost 7 hours" Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually forgot how long it's been. Has it been a year? Ah--I blocked User:MidAtlanticBaby indefinitely on June 18. I see they're now actually banned by the Foundation: I don't know if you know this, but you have to go REALLY crazy to get banned by the Foundation. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah, definitely didn't know that...

Also, this has been going on for MONTHS? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. When I say "childish" I mean it. This is likely a somewhat grown person with a driver license and the right to vote, who could be watching Georgia play football and make soup for their family and walk the dog. Instead, they're harassing a bunch of people including one who had nothing to do with them getting their dumb ass blocked. But they know some shit about proxies and whatnot and now they're just being cute, hoping to get caught and get attention. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, now whenever I feel down I'll just remember I'm way happier with my life than MidAtlanticBaby! Thanks for this Wikipedia lore Drmies. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, would you consider unblocking this IP range? I don't want to, both because I'm unsure of the situation, and because I'm a little bit involved — it includes the address I'm using for the wireless network at my local public library. I don't understand the reason for the block, since you blocked it almost a month after the latest edit appearing at Special:Contributions/120.21.0.0/16, and there are no deleted contributions. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hey Nyttend--I blocked the range because of one particular sock, who by now has created 215 accounts that we blocked and tagged, in a little over a year. There were two from that range that, looking at the block, were my immediate reason for the block, and since then it's been much quieter. Let me email you, lest I drop BEANS all over the place. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response. This response makes sense, and the email was great; thank you. Nyttend (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I stopped e-mailing you long ago, since it always bounced, but perhaps it may be worth trying again? Bishonen | tålk 09:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC).

• YES. I've been so lonely! Drmies (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

Please take a look at Addition_to_WP:NOTDICTIONARY and comment. Though this may be implied by other policies, I think it's worthwhile making it explicit. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not college football, but still... See WP:ANI#Footballnerd2007. I agree with GS and don't know why others are defending the user (casting aspersions indeed). Creating an RfA...doing so many moves it makes me dizzy...leaving trolling messages for other users... I'm on the edge of blocking myself for disruption, but a check would be helpful. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The ANI discussion has derailed into a discussion about whether Footballnerd2007 is using LLM, which they clearly are, but the user is choosing, unwisely, to wikilawyer, and GS, also unwisely, is trying to "nail" them. I thought about hatting it, but it's so rapid and I'm not sure where exactly I'd hat it. Oh, btw, another on my list above - read the user's Talk page - it's a cornucopia of warnings.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

What a mess. That got out of hand quickly--I'm also not happy with the alien's response. A check was run on the user, and I guess it showed nothing... Drmies (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. They are now being "mentored".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Drmies, alien was obviously not trying to defend the user (you can tell through certain, subtle signs, such as the use of a face palm emoji and the phrase "You're not helping your case right now"), they were trying to de-escalate things. Is this really how you want to treat them? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what prompted this, and I certainly don't understand that last, loaded question. Did I say that they were trying to "defend" the user? Where? What you could to is ask what I meant, if you're really interested in me and what I think. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

See UTRS appeal #98810. The claim is that Bishonen allowed a new account to be created, in comments over at User_talk:TTTEMLPBrony. What are your thoughts? Note that I have not looked at the checkuser technical data and... am dubious... --Yamla (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ha, yes, but Bish said that before I had a looked and confirmed that Looney had logged in (and I just checked again, to make sure). I can't read the VRT (I still can't log in) so I don't know what the "compromised" thing was, but this is socking going back to 2021. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take a look at this - a new but prolific ip with all the jargon. Possible returning sock? Greatly concerned about the reputation of Philip II of Spain. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Johnbod, there is a copious amount of logged-out editing there, though I don't see direct evidence of them using IPs to circumvent policy--but that the same person is editing without logging in is indisputable (and I warned them), so that leaves the actual IPs. In many cases the logged-out editing is from VPNs that have been blocked before, by User:ST47ProxyBot--who I see is retired? What is this world coming to... So I'm not exactly sure what to do, since that's not really my cup of tea, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Open proxies isn't very insightful. I see User:Malcolmxl5 is running that but they are not a CU, and it's at least three or four different ranges. User:Ponyo, if you know how to handle them, can you have a look and do what's right on those ranges? Yes, Philip II is certainly well worth our time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you walk me through reassigning user rights? I've discovered some PGAME at User:54rt678/sandbox and I blocked them while I redo the user rights. Sorry, I've not done much of this. I've got Special:UserRights/54rt678 open. BusterD (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The user has 509 edits, and 250 of them were done three days ago on the linked sandbox. BusterD (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Do I merely uncheck, leave a reason and save (and watch)? Just something I haven't seen done recently. BusterD (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It was so simple I figured it out myself, but I needed another editor to reassure me. Don't mind doing the job, but am sometimes nervous about affecting someone unduly. BusterD (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing. That editor is headed for an indef: incompetence mixed with promotional editing. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a very mature approach, granted. Hey, this morning I welcomed (after I reverted) a user who'd burnt the Packers in Caleb Williams's article. It will get weirder than that... BusterD (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

At least they apologized. I really loathe those kinds of edits, though not as much as the "daddy" variation. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Among their last 4 edits, two were adding commas to TP's post. Looking at that I'm not sure why we would trust them to edit any longer. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, Doug, but I found nothing--I was thinking of various returning nuisances but saw no evidence. Wait and see, I think. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to make it as plain as I could to the PGAMER that all their edits would be under close observation henceforth. If they can't hold themselves accountable, how can we? BusterD (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Ha, is that a rhetorical question? Drmies (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page B. J. Hollars, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page B. J. Hollars, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Returned to Francisco Trincão AGAIN, with that nonsensical ref about a BENFICA match for a SPORTING championship win (reverted it on the spot)! I guess the rest can stay (should you see that the sources are appropriate, if not remove it), will duly compose it (i.e. Style of play section) when i get home.

Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The conversation I pinged you in at Annoyed at rule changes was a continuation of the post right above at Please do not use template main in the lead. The editor broke it into two parts for some reason and I wasn't about to correct the nesting issue since the conversation turned turbulent. Since they did multiple changes to articles I thought it would be good to let them know that {{main}} is never used in the lead per the template itself. This was made aware to Tennis Project awhile back and several of us have been slowly fixing tennis articles to comply. A daunting task. I hope this helps you understand the situation I encountered. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

While template "main" should not be used in the lead, the template "further" is less clear on placement. I just looked and the template "see also" also says not to use in the lead and is used only at the top of sections. "Further" says nothing about placement and I can't help but wonder if that should also say not to use in the lead. Where best to bring that up? On the narrow Template:Further talk page? Or is there a more general template talk page that it should be talked about? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• That's a good question, and I don't have an answer for that--but I think Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout is the first place I would go to. I don't know that that page gets a lot of traffic, though... But if, as you say, there is a consensus for the other one, you might could ping some of the editors who discussed that. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I posted at Manual of Style/Layout first to see if anyone knows the answer. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I am really frazzled now. Someone is reverting edits by a user claimed to be a "Banned cease-and-desist photographer". I can not find any trace of that. You should expect some traces of that on ENWP, Meta or Commons, but no.

Do you (or your stalkers) know anything about this? It sounds a bit fishy to me right now. The Banner talk 14:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• No clue. I'll add to your note. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks, seeing the edits of this account, the editor did this wiki-wide. The Banner talk 16:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(stalker comment) I don't really have anything conclusive to add, but from what I see, the user who uploaded the images is not banned or even warned from either enwiki or Commons. He appears to be a professional photographer who uploads many of his images to commons, and then Wikipedia, replacing lower-quality existing ones if necessary (I guess there is a small chance its all a big copyright misuse but you'd have thought that would have been picked up upon, particularly as his work involves famous buildings and peopel so probably gets a lot of views). You can see on his talk page there is a message from an IP user in 2019 (who stopped editing in the same year) regarding 'excessive use of own images'. I'm unsure if any such rule actually exists, but in my opinion it was not applicable anyway as the use of the images improved the site, were not self-promotional in terms of including watermarks or anything to overtly identify the contributor, and was not excessive proliferation of photos within individual articles. The reverting user has only made 92 edits, half of which were reverting the photographer today. Not sure why they would even take this course of action, expect perhaps they noticed an image (one of their own?) replaced by the photographer editor, read their talk page, decided the 2019 message was something official and unilaterally decided it justified reverting all recent additions (in the same style as the 2019 user, which is suspicious too). Crowsus (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Crowsus, thank you for doing some of that leg work--I had looked at various things but managed to miss that IP comment. And that IP comment: well, "excessive" use is a thing frowned upon but you laid out the (common sense) practices pretty neatly; thank you for that as well. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

{{tps}} That photographer's license terms seem to take a strict position on the exact way credit must be given in off-wiki uses of their work. I'm not sure if they have pursued settlements against good-faith reusers or in other ways headed into license-trolling. I, like others, cannot find discussion about it on enwiki or commons.

There was a previous case (long ago, different license-holder) where consensus formed that the effect of mass use of a certain creator's content on-wiki was to induce innocent/good-faith but not "strictly by the not-quite-expected license terms" use off-wiki, enabling forced legal settlements. There was thought that the creator themself was actually intentional about using wiki in this way, and that all of this exceeded the community's tolerance and good-faith. DMacks (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

DMacks, yes, thanks--I remember a case too and I think it played out on Commons, that guy who posted videos of himself ejaculating and stuff, and there was a guy who sucked his own ****. But more to the point, I also remember a case of a photographer who, it was judged, was basically here to promote their own business and I think an ANI post led to removal of some of those images. But I can't see what practical guidelines User:Arne Müseler is supposed to have broken. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is off-wiki evidence of actual legal actions against re-users, or claims that WP sites are inducement. But I also assume anything I'd find by googling I couldn't mention here for OUTING anyway. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, and any kind of case should be either discussed on-wiki or submitted privately if there's some privacy concern, rather than signaled (if that's even the word) with a boilerplate and vague edit summary. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User:The Banner, I have reverted those edits. Thanks for bringing it up. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your welcome. I hope the editor just made a mistake. The Banner talk 02:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

For every one who's interested, please see User talk:RAL1028. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for helping reduce the use of "served as", "serves as" and such like for what are not public service roles. In those two examples, "was" and "is" would be preferable (this last sentence is obviously not for your benefit, but might help someone else who reads this). Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I appreciate that--but I'm even stricter than you are: I think it's almost always a euphemism for "work"... Drmies (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I would like to be stricter, but encounter too much pushback from other editors. I think at most it should only be for unpaid, genuinely altruistic activity. As an example, and without wishing too be too cynical, far too many politicians are self-serving. And of course, we need to take into account that some reliable sources often still use the term for state sector jobs, military and politicians. Perhaps once it is removed from more business bios, we can start an RfC. Edwardx (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Edwardx, thanks--I thought I'd be careful, since I didn't want to butt heads with you after you sent me this nice message, but I agree with you completely. If you get paid, it's not service. If you get underpaid, it might approach service--but if you are underpaid and still make a fair amount of money (like, for instance, as president of the US), "service" is a bit of a euphemism. As far as reliable sources go--yeah, but in "serve as president" the operational part is "president", not "serve". I teach at a state university: is this service? I like to think so, for various reasons, but it's ludicrous to pretty much equate that with philanthropy (another item we see in ALL those articles), as if it didn't come with a paycheck and possibly health insurance. No Christmas bonuses, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There's something seriously wrong with OhNoKaren. The account is about a week old, and she's already created many AfDs. That's pretty much all she's done. I vaguely remember some deletion socks, although I don't recall that they had problems with the procedure as she does. Even if she's not a sock, I'm thinking her editing is disruptive enough to block, but I have to go eat dinner. Can you check if you're still around?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Well, we did just block an AfD troll, a few weeks ago, but this one has a clean record, from my perspective. I need coffee, BTW. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Later, after logging out, it occurred to me that the new user's name is similar to Ohnoitsjamie, not similar enough to block for impersonation, but I wondered if the user's conduct rings any bells, Jamie?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a "sour grapes" account, someone upset that their vanity bio/company page was deleted? Not sure what the specific case would be. I suspect a sock check would turn up multiple accounts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Sorry to disappoint you. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • See analysis on User talk:OhNoKaren - she did nominate multiple vanity bio/company pages, and I think those will actually get deleted. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
        • If many of the nominations have merit, it makes her less disruptive, but not less suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • CU would probably be stale, but User:Light2021 comes to mind; after I deleted a page they created, they became very active in AfD; some of the noms were good, but many were not and they were eventually blocked, unblocked, then reblocked for violating terms of their unblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
        • HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU REMEMBER STUFF LIKE THAT Drmies (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
          • That's a great question; there's plenty of more useful stuff I wish that I remembered. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
            • The two users don't write at all the same. Light2021 doesn't sound like a native English speaker. Drmies, was a check ever run against Light2021? Looks like they were accused of socking (their block log is, um, busy)?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
              • Yep--by User:jpgordon and, to stay on the topic of memory, by you. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
              • It's documented here, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light2021/Archive, and Jpgordon checked after an unblock request in 2018. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
                • Ha! If you remember, my memory is almost non-existent, and as far as CU-related stuff, I repress all of it as bad memories. That said, I suspect that if you were to check the CU log of Light2021 vs. the data on Karen, you might find that they edit from different continents, pretty much ruling out that she's a sock of Light2021.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
                  • Hmm no I don't remember that. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

How can I convince user:Sky258 that, per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, airport connections need independent sources? Nearly all his/her additions are unsourced and reverted. Warnings did not help but blocking seems over the top. Do you have any ideas? The Banner talk 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hmm I disagree: they were warned by multiple editors, and the content is unsourced. I was going to ask about talk page consensus, but there is project-wide consensus... Drmies (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Okay. The Banner talk 23:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, the learning curve after the prior block is best described as flatliner... The Banner talk 02:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Hmm Banner I jumped on that too quickly: it was not a complete flatline, and I left the editor a note, which one might call a final warning. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
        • I disagree: unsourced addition 1 (Nha Trang) and unsourced addition 2 (Chendu). The Banner talk 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yamla (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yamla, yes--go for it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there something pressing I should be looking at this eve? BusterD (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Haha I don't know. Can you make OSU and ND lose? I saw MidAtlanticBaby was at it again, yawn. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I saw the AN was protected from move. So somebody's active. I imagined today's DC stuff might create a bunch of new pages. I've been traveling all day and wanted to look around before I hit the sack. BusterD (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits at Silicon Slopes. I had prepared this for a COI report, but was waiting for that editor's response:

• On November 30, 2023, that editor stated here: "this account is not a business account, anyone using this account will be doing so with direct supervision of the account owner, ie. I will be standing behind them any time the login is used".
• That editor then made a number of edits at Silicon Slopes that removed content sourced by secondary sources, and added content of a promotional tone, sourced by primary sources.
• That editor wrote a lengthy declaration of their purpose on the article talk page, stating, "I kindly request that any changes avoid undermining the hard work and dedication of many business owners and community members who have strived tirelessly to erase the stigma and stereotypes associated with the region."
• A Google search of "invise" and "Mike L." adds depth.

Certainly seems like a single-purpose editor trying to cleanse the article of well-sourced negative content. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, I feel the same way. Did you see what they tried to post on your talk page? See the filter log. But the problem with the article (I'm sure you saw my pruning) is, in my opinion, much bigger than just that. The negative information isn't about that organization, as far as I could tell from that confusing article. But they're p-blocked from the article now; who knows, maybe they'll figure out how to gain consensus for anything on the talk page. I will reiterate that the argument "it's negative stuff and it shows up in a search" is completely inappropriate here. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to add some well-sourced content back to the article. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure. You think, Magnolia677, the subject is notable, that organization? Cause all I see in a quick search is some promotional BS. It may be better to consider treating it as an economical "ecosystem". Drmies (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait. I'm wrong: I should have figured that there was more in the history, including a lot of you. The article was about a region and for now I'm going to go back to this version; hope that's okay with you. Then we can take it from there. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This is where it got messed up. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Utah's tech community has been nicknamed Silicon Slopes, a reference to California's world famous Silicon Valley high tech commnity.
— Sanders, Doug; Herrington, Lisa M.; Waring, Kerry Jones (2015). "Making a Living". Utah: Third Edition. It's My State! (3rd ed.). Cavendish Square Publishing. p. 73. ISBN 9781627131780.

Increasingly a growing technology sector—the so-called Silicon Slopes—has developed around the Salt Lake–Utah County line.
— Brown, Adam R. (2018). Utah Politics and Government: American Democracy Among a Unique Electorate. Politics and Governments of the American States. University of Nebraska Press. p. 48. ISBN 9781496207852.

In Utah Valley, the coinage "Silicon Slopes," invented by Google in 2013 upon announcing that Provo would be the third city in the nation to receive a Google Fiber network, has been picked up eagerly by business leaders […]
— Farmer, Jared (2014). Alter, J. Cecil (ed.). "THIS WAS THE PLACE: The Making and Unmaking of Utah" (PDF). Utah Historical Quarterly. 82 (3). Utah State Historical Society: 188. doi:10.2307/45063063.

The non-advertorial independent sources strongly disagree with that first paragraph, Doktoro. Personally, I am inclined to take the word of the Walter H. Annenberg Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania published in a state historical society journal over what is said in a self-published corporate blurb. Uncle G (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Uncle G, I don't know what I did wrong: that is NOT the version I wanted to restore. Thank you. And it's nice to see you again. Keep your distance: I got something from my boy and I don't want to pass it on to you. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Take out your mask and pass Gustin 2013 along to Magnolia677, Doktoro. That, in addition to the history professor, will get you the Google Fiber connection. Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Gustin, Sam (2013-04-18). "'Silicon Slopes': Google Fiber Planned For Provo, Utah". TIME.

Thanks for catching that. It was a misclick. Things happen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• I caught something? Yeah, some awful bug--been coughing and wheezing and sweating for days now. Kudpung, how are you doing these days? I would love to see where you live. Time is running out, isn't it, for all of use. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, given what you said above about being ill (sorry), I'm not sure you'll want to do this, but perhaps it would be a distraction. A new editor added unsourced material to Danylo Zabolotny. I left the editor a warning, and they re-added the material, this time with sources. The sources are unverifiable (by me at least), and there are various other issues, copy editing if nothing else, and I think you'd be much better than I at reviewing the material. My knowledge of long-deceased foreign epidemiologists is nil. Besides, articles about disease are not ideal for a hypochondriac. If not up to it or uninterested, I understand. Regardless, I hope you get better soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not a hypochondriac--in fact I'm an inveterate optimist, unfortunately. Yes, I'm ill, and I think I have some infection that's also making an infected tooth unbearably painful: I need this root canal done quickly, but everything here has ground down to a halt because of two inches of snow. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Pretty normal in the South. I remember once being at work, a few flakes of snow fell from the sky, and there was a mad dash for the exit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Yup. But this cold/flu/whatever I have delayed me: by the time I got to Blockbuster there were no copies of any of the Die Hards left. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Even when you're sick, you're funny.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
        • I do what I can on a budget, Bbb. So this guy was indeed a badass--I got a bunch more from the source that was already cited, but there should be English sources as well for someone like this, and I'll have a look--and polish up my Ukrainian. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

OK "badass" is not enough credit. He worked with Richard P. Strong during the Third plague pandemic which killed maybe 15 million people. Have a look at this here--I was confused because I didn't see a thumbnail, but this lengthy description accompanies a photo of him and Strong in full moon suits. Amazing. Can we use it? I'm about to plow through the "First Report of the North Manchurian Plague Prevention Service", and there's this article. These are just the first couple of hits; we need to do better. Talk page followers, get to work! Papa is actually sick! You shouldn't let him do all the work! Drmies (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Voorts and I ran through the door at the same time, bonked heads, and fell to the floor.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• So who got the ten bucks? It's $10 for legal threats, right? Drmies (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • My standard retainer is $50K and your first born child. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Her retainer was only $5000. Are we talking about the same thing? Drmies (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      • You get what you pay for. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
          • I was talking about teeth... When I became admin we had a list of what kind of block was worth how much, with money transferred from the Foundation's San Francisco office via PayPal. I believe that well has dried up. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• I just want to see what kind of letter these guys wrote and who they sent it to. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • As a member of Drmies' legal team, I'll try to remember to send you a copy.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Shoot I got it all wrong: it's User:Cabayi's team who should be getting the letter. Seriously, I don't get it. I'm dealing with something similar at User talk:Footballmetadata--first there's the edits made in complete ignorance of what we are and what we do. Then there's the combative responses and the complete lack of the editor reading what was actually said and linked. Then there's one or two or three more editors saying the same thing, and the persistence on the disruptor's part, and then it's over, and no one feels good about it. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      • As I understand the threats, it is clearly a case of all your base are belong to us! You have no chance to survive! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello - when I noticed this edit, I opened an SPI case for these users, but I see now that you've already blocked both, so there might not be much point to the case. Is it helpful to keep the case open? And if not, is there a way for me to withdraw it? (I couldn't find a way to do that.) Thanks! Wburrow (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's all too obvious, isn't it. Let me have a look and see what's best. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Doc! As you may recall, during a little kerfluffle a few years ago, I said I wouldn't block users who overtly support Trump, unless the disruption was blatant. To my slight surprise, that has almost never (maybe never at all?) come up—most people don't plaster their pro-Trump views in visible places, and those who do mostly fall under blatant disruption. Today, however, I've run into one who's not quite blatant enough for me to feel comfortable going ahead with a block, especially because I've reverted one of their content edits, but is still a DUCK for sockblock purposes, to anyone familiar with Architect134. Would you, or a talkpage watcher familiar with the case, mind taking a look?

• Tubend (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

If it's not obvious on username and behavior alone, see [2].Courtesy ping User:JuxtaposedJacob, since I mentioned this to them elsewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S. If you run a check, I'm told the geolocation's a bit different lately. Obviously I can't see the shiny stuff under the hood, but I think Special:Contributions/129.222.253.60 was him. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they removed content, which we established in a talk page discussion was against content norms; would have AGF until Tamzin mentioned the LTA matter. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 07:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd almost forgotten about the outing and the smearing. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The right-wing trolls are out again, Tamzin. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

On January 20, I blocked BoneCrushingDog for one week for edit-warring at the above article. Another user, AndRueM, older than BCD but with an editing gap between March 2024 and today, started editing at the article and the Talk page. Their first edit to the Talk page started with "You can see in my above sections that I had the exact argument as you to no avail." But the user hasn't edited in any of the above sections. Also, both users' editing style and editing platform (none) are the same. Behaviorally, I would indef AndRueM as a sockmaster and increase the block on BCD to indefinite as the puppet, but just in case I'm wrong, can you run a check? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• When I was working on the ranch in my youth, I learned how to sex chickens. But how do you sex a sock? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

By the shape of its gusset.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

But seriously, if there is socking it's more of the WP:MEAT variety.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I'm fine with blocking as meat, particularly because ARM is doing all this while BCD is blocked, but I'd need to know based on the CU, how likely it is to be meat. Maybe you could provide a finding as you would normally do if this was at SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

 Unlikely from a purely technical standpoint.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, y'all, thanks--missed this. I was distracted and the stupid cat wanted food. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Your story has a ring of untruth...there are no stupid cats.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't let the cat hear you, Drmies!--Kansas Bear 22:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree with the Kansas Bear. Hide your shoes if the cat hears you, lest you receive an unwelcome and odiferous nighttime deposit. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

We're not keeping it. I guess that's not funny for the one or two people who don't follow me religiously on Facebook. And now for a dinner idea for Liam and me. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Polygnotus, thank you so much for your help in this. I'm spread a bit thin right now. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • No worries, happy to help, you can't be everywhere at once. And 9999 times out of 10.000 you should revert, block and ignore. Polygnotus (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I saw your note and acted on it. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Thank you! I've been bold and removed the warnings from that IPs talkpage and replaced them with a welcome template. The article is not perfect yet, but I think that the most important stuff has been fixed and I think this will be the end of the editwarring. Polygnotus (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Es-tu encore malade? J'espere que non parce-que tu peux donc regarder l'article. L'ecole est dans un tres beau quartier residentiel. Comme tu peux voire, j'ai des problemes avec un nouveau utilisateur qui est un eleve a l'ecole. This is becoming too hard. I removed unsourced material from the article, some of which is not noteworthy, as well as some blatantly promotional material, although there's still quite a bit. You can see our "discussion" on his Talk page. Right now, we stand with his version because I can't revert anymore. I've left warnings on his Talk page for adding unsourced material and edit-warring, but that hasn't stopped him - although it's stopped me. :-) His latest accusation is that I'm "blackmailing" him. Probably a language issue coupled with a bit of old-fashioned French melodrama. After all, he accused me before of "defacing" his school.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree has reverted the user's edits and blocked him from editing the page for two weeks. BTW, I'd still like to know if you're feeling better.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping :) A speedy recovery from me too in case it's still there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Merci, mes gars. Yes, better--it's an upper respiratory infection, bacterial, and it's getting better, but its aggravating this tooth business. Antibiotics are helping: I had a moment of clarity thinking wait, if my tooth is pounding, it's bacterial, and I can take some old pills. This was 1:30 AM, two nights ago, haha. The tooth will have to wait until March, grrr. Anyway, yes, getting better all the time, thanks for asking. Tobias doesn't play around, does he? One hopes that such editors see the light--sometimes that happens. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Although the responses from that editor are poor, xe did not actually write that content, most of which has been in the article since its first revision. I'm not sure that I agree with edits like Special:Diff/1271559474, M. Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb, when sources like MVDP, confirming the Beck and Rieder information (and itself citing a dictionary of biographies with an apparently relevant biography), basically fall straight out of the search engines. I think that we really shouldn't be hitting the editorship over the head with blankings without at least a little effort to try to find out whether there's a source for the names and dates of the directors of a fairly well-documented school.

I don't see why the two first heads of the school are sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. Neither has an article, nor is likely to, what's the point? Maybe you should write an article about Beck (or both). :p --Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean Théodore Beck? ;) Drmies (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Blimey, you're amazing! --Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Jean Théodore Beck (1839-1936) and the special circumstances of the Ecole Alsacienne". Musée virtuel du protestantisme.
• Encrevé, André (2015). "Jean-Théodore Beck". In Encrevé, André; Cabanel, Patrick (eds.). Dictionnaire biographique des protestants français De 1787 à nos jours (in French). Vol. 1: A–C. ISBN 9782846211901.
• Mayeur, Jean Marie (1993). "BECK, Jean Théodore". In Encrevé, André (ed.). Les protestants. Dictionnaire du monde religieux dans la France contemporaine (in French). Vol. 5. Beauchesne. p. 61. ISBN 9782701012612. Agrégé d'allemand dès 1881, il devient le directeur de l'École alsacienne en 1891, succédant à Frédéric Rieder (1828–1896), qui en avait été le premier directeur. Sous la direction de J.-T. Beck — qui dure jusqu'en 1922 — Î'École Alsacienne connaît une grande extension en raison, notamment, de son goût pour les expériences pédagogiques novatrices.
• Encrevé, André (1983). "BECK Jean Théodore". alsace-histoire.org (in French). Fédération des Sociétés d’Histoire et d’Archéologie d’Alsace.
  • Uncle G, how do you see all of that? The last two have no visibility on GBooks and I don't know where else I could look for them--nowhere according to Google. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    • This must be the first time in decades that I actually have (even if only slightly) greater access to sources than you have, Doktoro. I have found a legible copy of Encrevé's 1983 biography for you; the later ones seeming to have been expanded. The fr:Dictionnaire biographique des protestants français de 1787 à nos jours is published by les Editions de Paris, if any of the talk page lurkers are feeling adventurous. Uncle G (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Uncle, anyone who's been tracking our relationship knows you're full of it. You've always found more than me. I think I saw that Dictionnaire already but I'll have a look: thanks! I'm going to put Beck up on the front page, maybe with a "no punishments and no prizes" hook. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
        • I only find things like transcripts of testimony given to government inquiries, Doktoro; which aren't sources. It does not help that AFD patrol has me looking at places in somewhere called Staffordshire at the moment. I just found out that Shire Oak, Walsall was a tree. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Spalding Common (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Oh no, Doktoro! Pommiepedia strikes again.

Did you know … that the Provident Allotments Club didn't lease some land because of Mr White's grand bullocks? ^{(SBM 1899, p. 1189) harv error: no target: CITEREFSBM1899 (help)}

I need to go and lie down in a darkened room. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you review these? If these articles are also insufficient, please add them to the draft page.

• Siege_of_Akhalkalaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The_First_Caucasian_Expedition_of_the_Seljuk_Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battle_of_Rey_(1059) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The_Struggle_for_Tohoristan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kartal1071 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I am using Google translation. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kartal1071, can you clarify what you're using Google translation for? -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

to contact you Kartal1071 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The_First_Caucasian_Expedition_of_the_Seljuk_Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Siege_of_Akhalkalaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is there any problem with these two? I will proceed with the arrangement accordingly. Kartal1071 (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You're using Google translate to speak with other editors? What languages are you fluent in? -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Since you already commented once here, would you mind terribly stepping in again and perhaps resolving things? Thank you; I apologize for the inconvenience. DS (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• No, of course--I saw one or two responses but then I lost track. I think the whole thing is silly. We're formalizing the fun out of everything. But I don't know if I can "resolve" anything--there are some editors out there who can slap with paperwork and alphabets much harder than I can. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, I think the user who modified the article is using an IP as a sockpuppet account now. Please have a look again, and revert. Edit: I have tried my best to revert it. Please correct if there's still inconsistencies.

Will link it here for convenience.

Gemini (chatbot) Thank you. Paowee (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks--I don't know, they didn't add that weird text and reference. But an unexplained change is often unproductive. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems that (User talk:Wamalotpark is undoing article changes for MOS:GEOLINK on United Center and Charlie Sheen. I just wanted to give a heads up. I posted on his talk page again.

Thanks Brotherbenz (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I started a conversation with you on your talk page, and made an edit request on those pages instead of undoing. I made sure to say I would start a talk if you disagreed after I explained my edit if you still disagreed. I have also made an effort to start talks for any other dispute I have. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I accept my mistakes and I am trying to make efforts to be encyclopedic and form discussions instead of edit war. @Brotherbenz can you give me a reason as to why you think your MOS:GEOLINK edits are warranted? That's all I ask. If you don't want to, or if this is not the right spot, I'll let my edit requests on the respective pages play out, and I won't bother on the topic anymore. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Wamalotpark, thanks for coming by--I don't have time for more than one quick remark, and I haven't looked at all your contributions, but I'm wondering--if this is indeed what happened--why you'd go and make like a TON of changes with a similar edit summary pretty much in the same area that got you in trouble before, without seeking advice on project pages or whatever. If you did and I missed that, I'm sorry--but I just think it's a dangerous thing to do. As with the "Genesis's" dispute which popped up here, this may not be a case where right or wrong is the deciding factor, but rather consensus and style. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey! I'm not sure if I understand your question, I made those changes after we had a discussion on the baseball Wikiproject. And for what it's worth, I changed them to "baseball" from "professional baseball", even though my initial stance was "professional baseball". Wamalotpark (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

And for the edits on United Center and Charlie Sheen, you're right I should have asked for advice on the article pages. I thought by being willing to start the discussion myself if there was another reversion was the better option first, but that was wrong. I don't know what you mean by "Genesis's" dispute. Wamalotpark (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I would just like it to be known that I accepted my temporary block and understand why it happened. Any articles from this point on I will have a discussion if there is pushback on my edits.

I started a discussion on the page I was blocked for at United States Board on Geographic Names.

I was part of a discussion on the baseball related articles at the Wikiproject for baseball, and actually changed my point of view to the opposing side and made corresponding edits to MLB teams about it.

An undo to an edit I made to United Center, I was sure to add that I was willing to start the discussion myself if there was still pushback on my edit, which there was, but I guess I should have just started a discussion in the first place. I have made an edit request on the talk page. As for Charlie Sheen, that one I take full responsibility for, I honestly did not know that I had made that same edit to that page that was contested.

Overall I hope you can see my intention is to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, I just left you a note in the section up there. I gotta run, but thanks for writing and I'll get back to this if you need me to. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• I gather from the conversation on WP:ANEW that you've been going about it the right way, I think, so that's all good then. Thanks. Genesis: look up, a section or two. It's really about a similar thing. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am not looking to argue, or fight. Yes we had a small discussion, but you kept pushing that my edits were wrong on the talk pages (ie.Talk:United_Center#Edit_request and Talk:Charlie_Sheen#Edit_request, and your revisions are right. Just saw you reverted me on United Center, and going around on other articles doing MOS:GEOLINK edits. I am waiting until someone can visit the articles and make a call. I am not going to continue to revert and get banned over something so stupid as Wiki. Brotherbenz (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fair, I won't revert anything further as well. As for other MOS:GEOLINK edits, I am free to make those. I would appreciate if you answered my discussion with signed replies in the talk page for United Center as to why you think that link is necessary to add to the text. Also, we came to an understanding on the first part of the edit regarding the United States, so I wasn't sure why you were willing to talk with me about that and not the other part. Wamalotpark (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Btw, a third-party editor updated the link in Charlie Sheen for us. New York City is such a large city that it doesn't have to be linked at all. Wamalotpark (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if you could help. I have come into an unusual situation whereby what I consider to be edits that are indisputable have been disputed. On the Genesis article, I made an edit so that the use of possessive apostrophes would be correctly applied as per MOS:POSS. That edit is here. An editor, @ToaneeM: reverted me here, citing a discussion that was neither relevant nor policy. I confess I was bewildered, as I have never before encountered problems with what I consider to be an unambiguous application of the MoS. I have attempted to discuss on their talk page, but they reverted me, inviting me instead to seek CONSENSUS on the talk page to apply the Manual of Style, which I don't think is in the spirit of the MoS. After some back and forth, which I can only explain by my bafflement, I was again reverted by a different editor @Pickard's Facepalm:, who suggested I was incorrect in my understanding of MOS:POSS, while restoring singular nouns without 's, in what I understand to be a direct contradiction of the MoS. This edit is here. I then attempted to discuss with the second editor on their TP, as I don't believe this to be an article-specific issue, but rather one that relates to editors incorrectly assuming that the MoS is subject in its application to CONSENSUS. I was tempted to go to ANI, but I'm not seeking any retribution, just a simple correction/confirmation that I'm correct in thinking that the MoS should be applied consistently across English Wikipedia. If you think ANI is a better route, I can take this there. I think, however, that an admin's input would be useful, as I'm as sure as I can be that my reading of MOS:POSS is that there singular nouns must always be followed by 's in the possessive. Any help appreciated. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Without having looked at everything yet, I think I'm on safe ground when I say that the MOS is not the law. As far as the law on genitives is concerned (better term than "possessive"...), even Strunk and White weren't so sure, and I believe there's significant variations in usage (what's funny is that I stumbled over one of them today while recording a lecture on the Odyssey--can't remember the word). If I am correct in those, and if those editors are maintaining what has been the status quo in that GA, then their position is the firmer one, but I haven't looked yet at who all said what and in what way, which is another matter. Until I can dig a little deeper that's all I can say right now--sorry. Who knows, some of the talk page watchers may have time and ideas. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted @NEDOCHAN:'s edit back to the state the article was in. I presented an edit saying they should not edit war but instead discuss the change on the article's Talk page. This lets NEDOCHAN present their reasoning and for all article editors to be able to see it. Unfortunately, they declined (later seems just refusal) and instead (a) unhelpfully reinstated their changes and (b) unhelpfully tried to discuss on my own Talk page, thereby shutting out all other article editors such as @Pickard's Facepalm:. I again put the article back to its original state, again repeated the invitation to talk to editors. Again, unfortunately NEDOCHAN edit warred, refused to discuss with the group and posted to me only. They've explained themself above this involved multiple editors yet refused to engage with them.

Despite requests to talk, there was no sign of WP:FAITH ("When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus. When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them.") but sadly instead there was relentless edit warring, ignoring all requests for group discussion first. The words and actions came across as, "I'm so right why do I need to discuss anything with the group, I'll just announce instead", and were very unhelpful. One-on-one discussion with me is not what's needed.

I just don't have time today to pursue this, I'm very busy elsewhere. It would have been simple and WP:FAITH for NEDOCHAN to start an article Talk discussion and let all the editors have time to reply. NEDOCHAN may have then found something beyond what they expected to find. They may equally have been discovered as correct and managed spread their message through agreement rather than edit warring. I will look into this further...but not right now, I can't drop everything. In the meantime, I have put the article back to its original state. I hope NEDOCHAN will take a new path for the time being.ToaneeM (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Looks like @Picard's Facepalm: has taken both editors in hand. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks Geoff. That seems valid to me. I'm not convinced BTW that this is a difference between BE and AmE, but I do know that the MOS is not a law, and that either way the s's thing is not a matter of grammatical correct- or incorrectness, but a matter of style and convention. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think this is the point. It has nothing to do with BrE or EngVar. Perhaps I misunderstood the MoS, which I thought took precedence. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Geoff, Not, let's not redefine it as some 50:50 playground spat. NEDOCHAN refused to discuss before editing on article's Talk page, edit warring instead despite multiple reverts/notices from me (earlier one thanked by Picard's Facepalm). The problem is solved when NEDOCHAN observes WP:FAITH and discusses first to resolve, not ignores and forces changes in. Resolved now but took the long way round. ToaneeM (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Throwing my 2 cents in here. Firstly - I mostly conducted the edit with the very pointed summary because you both had crossed 3RR, and it needed to stop. I opted for that vs. 3RRing both of them - as they are both experienced editors. While some consider it bad form to notify experienced editors with templates, I often refer to WP:Do template the regulars. I opted not to this time.

  However - I also did it for a few other reasons:

  • On the band's official website they use an apostrophe without a trailing s. It has been this way for many years, and I believe that it may even be a part of BE that isn't documented (or at least not on WP).
  • In Eats, Shoots & Leaves by English precisionist, Lynne Truss, it is stated "that an exception should be made for words ending in an "iz" sound such as Moses where the possessive is Moses'". Seems Genesis falls squarely into that camp, as well.
  • Just like was or were they a band, and was/were they a band which has broken up or are they a band which has retired - this trailing s issue has been going back and forth for many years on the article. Every time it seems to achieve a consensus or otherwise gets worked out - several months later someone new comes along and we start the whole darn thing all over again, with editors even ignoring the wikicomments within the code. It has gotten insanely repetitive and exhausting.

  Like @ToaneeM, I also stated in the edit summary to take the issue to the article's talk page, where it had gone before. Instead @NEDOCHAN opted not to, first bringing it to my talk page, then on to this one - and who knows where else. I don't like chasing conversations around WP and I am not at all a fan of fractured discussions split across multiple pages. Talk pages on articles (and policy/guideline pages) exist expressly to solve that issue.

  This situation - among others on that page - has become quite testing and tiring, and I am even considering removing it from my watchlist to avoid WP:OWN - as at this point it seems like a losing battle. Appreciate the input left so far, and any more to come. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Myself, I think that it's very unfair of all of these people to ask you to explain Modern English. They should know that in your field, Doktoro, the use of singular "you" is still a bit of a shock to the system, a novelty that is employed by the trendy youth of today, that makes the grown-ups think that they might be anarchists, or Protestants. Never fear, though, Doktoro! As always, we support your quest for youth cred, and will help you in keeping up with all of these hep and trendy fads of the modern beatniks. We will have you spelling "ghost" with an h in no time. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oom G, je bedoelt "geest"? Drmies (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • No, Doktoro. I didn't mean gs. That would make "ggost", and there's no preceding short vowel nor following i or e to necessitate that. An h. Trust me; it may seem like anarchist nonsense but it really is what the kids are doing nowadays. Uncle G (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This goes back a while--this isn't even the first example from one particular editor, a different one from the three above. NEDOCHAN, if you want to argue that this is a matter where the MOS decides, or some style guide of your choosing, that is not correct, I believe. I mean, in no particular order, the apostrophe is not governed by grammar, I do not believe this is necessarily a national variation though that may have some influence, the MOS is not the law, and usage--for Genesis, for Wikipedia, for the editors--should be the guide and that's a matter for the talk page. What I see is a longstanding consensus which I believe reflects a preponderance of usage perhaps particularly among BE users (and Genesis being from there, this makes sense). Any changes to that need to be discussed. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, just a note that I partially reverted your edit, since professional player is too ambiguous. Nobody (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• OK, but I didn't write "professional player". Drmies (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  • You changed professional ''[[League of Legends]]'' player to professional player, which I'd says counts as you writing it. Nobody (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oh, I thought you were talking about the other one. I wonder if I was trying to remove the wikilinks and misclicked. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Happy New Year, Drmies! In 2024, other editors thanked you 1093 times using the thanks tool on the English Wikipedia. This made you the #11 most thanked Wikipedian in 2024. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2025! Mz7 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Haha thanks, Mz7--and I just hit you with a +2! Drmies (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Bbb23, happy new year, and how is it that you are thanked more than me??? I thought I was the good cop! Drmies (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • It's a conspiratorial ploy by the perps to cozy up to the bad cop.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Shoot I just thanked User:Gerda Arendt for an edit, and she was already ahead of me. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• As explained on my talk, I hope I do more real thank-you than lazy click-thanks ;) - Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Did you watch Masilo talk and dance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• ... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• I have more vacation pics to offer, and today's story of Werner Bardenhewer. I took the pic, and it was my DYK on his 90th birthday, in both English and German. He spent the day in Africa, and after his return said - chatting after a mass of thanks he celebrated at Mariä Heimsuchung - that we'd have to talk about these articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

… that Wallace Putnam Reed was "sandy-haired, blue eyes, a six-footer, and married"?^[1]

We see you creating articles to prove a point, Doktoro. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• I DID know that, cause I just read it! I'm kind of disappointed at the lack of sourcing I could pull up. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

… that Wallace Putnam Reed spent most of his childhood in Montgomery, Alabama,^[2] published his first story at the age of 15,^[2] and married a Shaver?^[3]

Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• You got me--I had no idea. OK, now listen: how'd you find this? And I'm trying to find out what the "Fulton County Sketches" subdivision really mean--it's not clear to me/wait I see: it's biographical sketches, but why they'd organize that by county (and not put that in the ToC) is not clear to me. Ha the "Miscellaneous Biographies" section proves that. Weird--Joel Chandler Harris writes the first section, but I haven't discovered yet who's responsible for the biographical sketches--clearly whoever wrote up Reed was a friend or acquaintance, given the joking around that happens in it. Kind of disappointing that my Lanier boys aren't in here. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oh, and, Alabama or Georgia? If Harris wrote it up I suppose he'd have known. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

… that a sketch of Joel Chandler Harris would be "entirely incomplete without an account of his inseparable friend and editorial associate, Wallace Putnam Reed",^[4] whom Harris reported to his son Julian in August 1890 had "been on a tremedous drunk, ending up in the caboose"?^[5]

Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

If your library lets you borrow books, Doktoro, Joel Chandler Harris: a reference guide at the HathiTrust Digital Library apparently has some very short blurbs on a couple of Reed's works — stuff that he wrote about or in conjunction with Harris, of course.

Also, see the book review at McCarley 1993.

Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, borrowing books, that's old school. I'm going through Harris's letters to his children and ran into a reference to Frank Lebby Stanton. As luck would have it I went through the microfilms yesterday of the Constitution for April 1905 and ran into a Stenton article published for the occasion of Confederate Memorial Day. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Also, I don't really know how to reconcile your citations with mine and I'm just not going to worry about it: life is too short. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for resolving the Serbian IP sockpuppet mess on my talk. I will always be grateful. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 20:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing--it's all in a day's work. Let me know if they come back. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Good intervention. I suspect Sitush may be away. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Tim you know I have a habit of just interrupting people but in this case I thought it was warranted. Your interlocutor does not, however, understand the basics of proper sourcing, although there were sources done (how did they do that) in that draft. The thing with sources in that area is that 19th-c sources are often written by these colonial hobbyists, antiquarians in the Sir Walter Scott sense but of the subcontinent--followed by totally partial government publications aimed to sustain a political and racial status quo. Well, that page that I can't find now explains it better than I can. Hey, thanks for all your work and all your patience. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Which one?
    • Project:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172#Are British Raj ethnographers unreliable?
    • User:Sitush/CasteSources
    • User:Sitush/Common
    • Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs#Clans
  • Uncle G (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    • @Uncle G Is this an area where you have a good understanding? If so please join in on my user talk page. It is not a topic area where I feel competent.

      Drmies: all interventions are welcome.

      I think the editor may not have a good working knowledge of written English. I am content to be gentle at this stage. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

      • Yes, and no. I have a lot of experience with 19th century sources, and a good nose for what one should really ignore; like all of the florid hagiographic stuff in the sources for Wallace Putnam Reed that Doktoro and I have discarded. I am currently busy with 19th century sources being abused to invent English suburbs that do not exist. But not because the sources are inherently bad, but because they've been string-matched and not read at all. For example, at User talk:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB#Hatton Park where an 1875 report of a cricket match is abused to make an article on a supposed 21st century suburb when we already had the article on the cricket club by almost the exact same title. Or User talk:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB#Spalding Common where, until cleanup got at it, a string match of an ICC case list that said "H. DOLPH SPALDING COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION. Decided January 4, 1954." was being used as a source. There are about 400 of these.

        I am already missing out on getting back in time to discussions such as Civionics (AfD discussion) where supposedly more-definitely-not-Mufti sources were again Mufti if one read the author lists at the starts of the papers. And since I still have to get back to what I was doing about 3 diversions ago, which was a tiny improvement to what we have related to some fella named Marshall Field, I'm not really best placed to patiently hand-hold a non-native speaker through that as well.

        Uncle G (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

FYI I am 99% sure Zayyanid56774849 is socking - I'm going to go through the Septimus talk page archive tomorrow when I'm at my computer to check a few things... including the username of the sockmaster. But, yeah, I've seen this before on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Links, please. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Here's the SPI case for Potymkin who I think is the sock master. Evidence there. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, is it "Dee Are" or "Doctor" ? DS (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Doktoro's name is unutterable by the human vocal apparatus. Also, it never being said is one of the few things that has been a firm rule since the 1960s. Uncle G (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• In my mind it's always been "Durr-Mees". I know that's probably extremely wrong, but I somehow can't help it. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • That's how I read it too. Time to form a WP:CONSENSUS? DMacks (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    • I always pronounce it as "Dee-Are Mees". I don't know why, but it's always the one that comes to mind. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
      • The only way you are going to get close is to run over a Frenchman's foot with an automobile. Trust me; this is not something that the French enjoy, and will get very cross about. Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The question came up at my RfA, asked by the wonderful Atama, who is dearly missed. The idea was always "Dr. mies", but it quickly taught me things about speaking and writing, and how we talk (write) about talking (writing) on the internet. DS I'm almost scared to look at that DYK discussion since it's not good for my peace of mind, which I've been professionally nurturing this morning with the help of some serious self care. My friend has been kickstarting this morning with a more potent brew and I worry about him. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, how's it rolling?

Please have a look at this when you can, this crap is really winding me up! The "user" on the article edits SOLELY there at WP, and seems to have a problem with the fact Mr. Lozano dated/had a daughter with another woman previous to his current one (here's the ref they keep REMOVING, clearly mentions a WIFE and a DAUGHTER https://www.diez.hn/fotogalerias/alessa_games-esposa_hondureno_choco_lozano-barcelona_b-KYDZ1086783#image-1)!

I don't know (don't care?) about that kind of celebrity gossip and akin, and to be honest i don't know where the buck stops in terms of what is encyclopedical or not in that regard (but i do imagine we're not going to to list all the guys and girls this or that person dates/takes to lunch throughout their life!); all i do know is that this "user" seems up to no good, and i really have other things to do here than be worried about this (as we speak, maybe i have alredy been reverted again). "Interesting" to see that this relatively "big" player (several seasons in La Liga) does not seem to be on anyone's watchlist, or if it is they seem to think the actions of this "user" abide completely by WP's guidelines, when they do not!! If you think the whole content is unencyclopedical (i would say not, he fathered a daughter with the first woman, and married the second; more than this is irrelevant i would say), just remove the darn thing mate!

Attentively, and a belated happy 2025 (i just had to click on David Gilmour when i saw your edit there to see if he was still with us (30+ years of hearing his music, i still don't know if he's best at shredding or singing, such is his talent), the "vital coast" is clear for now, but the man is nearly 79...)! RevampedEditor (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

EDIT WAR just started, i'm beginning to lose interest (vandal/wife just learned how to use the "revert" button, to be even more of a nuisance)!! Gonna help out or not, so i stop bothering you and leave article how this person wants? --RevampedEditor (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Browsed the web again just to be 200% sure. Mrs. Alessa Gámez was indeed his wife (see https://iconosmag.com/categoria-estilo-de-vida/entrevista-anthony-lozano-iconos-mag/ and https://www.laprensa.hn/fotogalerias/deportes/conoce-alessa-reina-belleza-esposa-casada-choco-lozano-barcelona-LELP1092108#image-1 for example), so the info is false (per the vandal going to town on article, with only me addressing this) my derriere! --RevampedEditor (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) @RevampedEditor: Forgive me for butting in, but the edit History looks as if a content dispute has indeed charged into an edit war. My advice is to try working it out on the Talk page (as neither party has tried to do thus far) and then, if necessary, take it to a forum for dispute resolution, perhaps WP:BLPN. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Not going to engage with such a person! Cannot prove it of course, but would not be surprised if it was the player's CURRENT wife or someone related doing this (see sources above, the other woman EXISTS and they were MARRIED, where does this vandal get this idea it's "false" - per their summaries - information?!)!! I'll wait to see what Mies has to say (while stopping the edit war, at least from my part you're safe), thanks for your input and continue the good work. --RevampedEditor (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I agree that the content of this edit is not encyclopedic--but you didn't warn or notify the other editor, and you called them a punk in an edit summary, so if this goes up on a board you're actually likely to get blocked. I think you know that. I warned them because that's not properly encyclopedic and all that, of course, but that's something you could have done too...neutrally, without getting personal, etc. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey no worries! Should they remove the content again i'll leave it be, only making the necessary adjustments, it will be as if Mrs. Alessa Gámez had never existed! Not excusing my summaries one bit, but i cannot believe how's this not an open-and-shut-case (against them), that's what i conclude from people telling me to go and discuss this in the article talkpage.

Attentively --RevampedEditor (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

You, Drmies, are the most RESPECTABLE and GREATEST specimen of humankind (if not even higher) that I have ever encountered at Wikipedia. And that is certainly saying something as there is an abundance of candidates for that accolade. How you can continue to strut about on this site so selflessly and obliviously unaware of your own humility is beyond me. It is truly astonishing that you've been getting away with this for so long with no one commending you. I sincerely hope you take the time to reflect on what you are, as you are certainly liked BY EVERYONE. Yours sincerely, ~~~~

(Enjoy the love letter. Still can't top Bgsu98's one though.)

The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• FUCK YEAH

When your fan writes you've been getting away with this for so long with noone bringing you to task, I wonder if the reference is to Peter Noone. That would be cool. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, nope, not trying to sell you a clock or ceiling fan or more, rather requesting a block for Clocks Ceiling fans and more (shouldn't it be Clocks, Ceiling fans and more!). You reverted them about a week ago for adding problematic content to Ceiling fan. Since then they have continued to add unsourced trivial content and have received several warnings but have continued and the last thing that article needs is even more unsourced trivial content. S0091 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

OMG - could this be the return of David Beals???-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Good god Ponyo, haha yes, maybe. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been here far too long.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes you have. Please stay. OK, not him, I don't think--but look in my log to see what else is there. ;) Drmies (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

	The Profundity Barnstar
	Verbosity is the enemy of clarity. [3] Words of wisdom. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Aw thank you! Drmies (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. I can't recall the last time I bestowed a barnstar, but something about that turn of phrase really tickled me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Well I appreciate it. If I ever turn LTA you'll recognize me by my impeccable prose, Fowler style. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

      Don't worry, I'm no snitch. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

HI, it is regarding the IP you blocked yesterday. They are back with another IP and a new ID. Similar style of edits [4] [5] [6] [7]. Have a look. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Gotcha. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Another one [8]. Similar diffs [9] [10] [11]. Have a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, this uncomfirmed user (2A06:5902:3418:D300:B579:8070:ADD5:964A) is making similar trivial, useless edits as someone you blocked recently (92.71.60.61). I'm not sure if a block is warranted yet but maybe a warning? Thanks for any help or suggestions you can offer. Ksu6500 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think consensus for a TBAN was pretty clear. Would you mind taking a look again or reopening for another admin to close? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• voorts, I'm sorry, and you are right: I was looking at the indef proposal and I'm not sure how I skipped the other part. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. This is the aforesaid Riventree. I'm back from a vacation, and I find I am indefinitely blocked, without an opportunity to even APPEAL it for six months?!?

1. I've never edited a relevant article on such a topic, nor added such content
2. It seems that the "violation" that brought this on was the (indirect!) implication that feminism can be seen as political. I know that this decision was taken in the heat of the moment, but an indefinite topic ban on gender/sexuality based on my opinion that this COULD draw the ire of politically loose screws in the US seems a little steep. I know that voorts/Andy has little love for me, but perhaps cooler heads could reconsider? My only desire was to steer the Wikipedia I know and love from the bizarrely twisted eddies of US politics, not to strike a blow for (or against!) feminism myself.

Not that an indefinite topic ban on THIS TOPIC would affect me all that much (See mmy contributions for proof) but it's the principle (and the thinking) behind it.

Anyway, I would appreciate your thoughts. Riventree (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion about you. I accepted your apology and said that it was okay to lift the indefinite block. As for the topic bans, there was evidence presented in the discussion that, on this and on past occasions, you acted rudely and aggressively toward other editors when you were challenged for making disruptive politicized edits to various articles. You are free to have whatever political opinions you wish. You are not free to ignore WP:NPOV and try impose them on our readers and other editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Riventree, I don't think I've ever run into you and I had no part in the discussion, but there was a clear community consensus, which took over a week to develop. I'm only now looking at your edits (my job was merely to confirm whether there was a consensus for this or that measure), and on Talk:Retelling, if I had seen those edits when they happened I would have probably blocked you on the spot for them. I think you should count yourself lucky that there was no consensus for an indefinite block. You are welcome to try and get the ban lifted earlier (on WP:AN), but it is unlikely to succeed. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

OK. Just wanted to reach out. Thanks Drmies Riventree (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with the recent vandal! FarmerUpbeat (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

From Laura, Indiana (AfD discussion) and Moody, Indiana (AfD discussion) and Lewiston, Indiana (AfD discussion).

This is what happens when one reads books from Indiana, Doktoro. Be warned!

Also, those Indiananians have no trouble letting their University Press publish trivia books, Doktoro.

Uncle G (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• But those are shallots? I don't mind reading a book from Indiana. I can't remember his name now--former MfA professor at Alabama, lovely head of hair, he was from there and put out a book on it. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I have found some Yellow Danvers just for you, Doktoro. But the sheer effrontery of the IUP! They've let a journalist write a book. Of fascinating facts. That one could ask people whether they knew. A journalist! Writing facts! When there are English professors begging on the streets, who would write a whole sonnet for US$10‽ That's just not right. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Well first of all that is a steal--ten bucks? And are they writing this with pen and paper, to save on overhead? I wrote a villanelle once. It was not very good; my repeating line was too heavy on the adverbs, I remember. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Oh, found him: Michael Martone. Never seen him with a hat, though. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I see what you're thinking, Doktoro. In order to get the old English Professor Vacuum sucking as hard as it can, rather than write some dreary recitation-of-facts hook like I suggested at User talk:Mangoe#Onions! we should write it like an English professor would, in some really fancy literary form. I'll start you off: Did you know that …

A swamp farmer with lots of onions^[1]
sought to not get terrible bunions.
He dug lots of drains^[2]
and made private trains;^[3]
…
to escape from the quick running grunions. (by talk page watcher)
Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Eh, yes that's exactly what I was thinking, but I'm not sure the bunions will make it through review. I mean, they're very picky these days--and there's the last line, which needs that railroad in there, rhyming! Drmies (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Doktoro, you need to supply something, so that the robots can come here and blame you afterwards. If one has performed thorough academic research into the Chicago & Wabash Valley Railroad, and a Bing Images search, then stuff does suggest itself, such as, say

    and his bridge didn't need any trunions.

    Uncle G (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Geoff I appreciate what you're doing, and I looked at those fishies too--but I can't make it work in that article. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Well, rats! Of course, there are no grunions in Indiana! Couldn't make it work poetically with perch. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Uncle, I assume you'll be all over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitt, Indiana? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'll handle the Indianaianians trying to sneak Knight Rider in along 60 South, Doktoro. You handle making Chicago & Wabash Valley Railroad the correct blue colour. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Can't--got distracted by your mention of the Barbas book, which led me to Grover Cleveland Hall, Jr.. Plus, I need that book--it has the reference you found to the lawyer for the plaintiff in NYT v. Sullivan (remember the Beauvoir Club?), and I'm finishing up a paper for conference presentation. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    • You're still on Beavers, Doktoro‽ That's from 2023. Lurkers! We must have an Articles for creation backlog drive. And for goodness' sake, do not tell Doktoro about ISBN 9780817301361/OCLC 8708742 or we might be waiting for Doktoro to approve the article on the onion railway for weeks. Uncle G (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Talking of invented geography, Doktoro: The creators of {{mountain passes in Europe}} have quite an optimistic outlook for the prospect of a list of mountain passes in the Netherlands. They're probably on hallucinogens for redlinking Malta. We shall not mention Belgium. Uncle G (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I kept coming across de Colange's name whilst citing sources for our current peregrinations around Indiana being led by The Mango to places like Jay City, Indiana (AfD discussion) and by you to Kitt, Indiana (AfD discussion), but oddly xe seemed to have been published in the U.S.A. and in Europe. The London-published gazetteer of the U.S.A. seemed particularly odd. It turns out that there's an 1880 biography of Auguste Leo de Colange LL.D. that explains this.

Did you know that xe was a French lawyer who became a botanist after marrying into money, and only got into the encyclopaedia and gazetteer game after xe lost all of xyr money speculating in the stock market in xyr 40s? And that xe wrote one poem?

Uncle G (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Duyckinck, Evert Augustus; Duyckinck, George Long (1880). "Auguste Leo de Colange". In Simons, Michael Laird (ed.). Cyclopædia of American Literature. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: William Rutter. pp. 866–867. (Cyclopædia of American Literature at the Internet Archive)

Mate, me again pestering you...

remember the IP range you blocked because of their shenanigans (i guess i can say that, but not "punk" or "lousy vandal" in spite of many people being just and nothing more than that!) at Francisco Geraldes (in January 2024 if memory serves me, with the aid of the edit history of course)? Time to hand out a punishment again i feel (new address here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/138.75.67.186).

And now that Mr. Geraldes has finished a loan and returned to Johor Darul Ta'zim F.C. (the club this utter nuisance supports), chances are (highly) they'll start "contributing" there too! For starters, check out what they did at Jonathan Viera (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Viera&diff=prev&oldid=1274250502) and Álvaro González (footballer, born 1990) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Gonz%C3%A1lez_(footballer,_born_1990)&diff=prev&oldid=1274250438), REFERENCES removed without one word!!

Attentively, continue the good work RevampedEditor (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• OK--how about this. Here, write an edit summary, saying "unverified" (and maybe leave out the "vandal" in the next one), and simply slap a preformatted warning on their talk page: Template:Uw-unsourced2 or whatever number is appropriate. Also, I don't know what the range is--a subset of this one, no doubt, but /18 is probably too broad. And I looked at Francisco Geraldes but I don't know which IP you're pointing at there (it's not 193.137.135.5, for instance), so I don't know. Dealing with editors like 138.75.67.186 is really simple, actually: you reverted them on 6 February already, maybe earlier--if you had warned them then and continued to do so after subsequent infractions, they'd be blocked already with a simple report to [{WP:AIV]]. That saves all of us work and aggravation, and it would actually stop them sooner. Now, really I can warn them, but I can't really block them because I don't see an earlier block for that editor under a different IP. Go ahead and warn them, and just use the appropriate template rather than writing something up yourself, and put it in the edit summary as well--"unsourced", "improperly formatted", "not in accordance with guidelines", "unexplained", etc. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you unblock Assistantbvdk please? It is a follow-up from User_talk:Drmies#Above_average_section_header. They created a new account (Assistanttobvdk), because they don't understand the rules, but they appear to be editing in good faith and I am willing to keep an eye on it.

The reason I ask you to unblock Assistantbvdk is so that their new account Assistanttobvdk won't be blocked as a block-evading sock. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: since Assistantbvdk was blocked for a WP:USERNAME violation (I assume because it could be considered a WP:ROLE account) and was allegedly used by someone other than its creator (WP:COMPROMISED) perhaps it would be best to ask them to create a new account, and have them use editrequests instead of directly editing the page? I am not sure what the best way forward is. Polygnotus (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I don't understand. It seems to me that the best way is to block the new account and start things back up from the old account, were it not for Yamla's note. I cannot see what Yamla saw anymore, unfortunately, so I am going to leave it up to them. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I think they should create a new account. I would not view that as block evasion. However, I would expect they continue to avoid editing Bessel van der Kolk directly (suggested edits on the article talk page would be a really bad idea, but permissible so long as there's zero hint of further whitewashing) and would expect them to declare their conflict of interest prior to editing. --Yamla (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Thanks Yamla. Will you block the new account? And really on the first account, that partial block should be a full block then. I wouldn't ask you to look into this if it weren't for that note. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla: and @Drmies. Drmies, have you forgotten this? I was kinda hoping you guys be a bit more flexible. Don't block any accounts; like I said it is a goodfaith user who is willing to follow the rules. Do you not see how badly we are treating newbies? First we falsely accuse the dude's boss of something he didn't do, and block those who try to fix the problem, and then we demand that they jump through hoops. zero hint of further whitewashing removing a false accusation is not whitewashing. Talk:Bessel_van_der_Kolk#"Female_employees" Polygnotus (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, I'm sorry, but I don't really get what you're asking for. First of all, in an ordinary situation, User talk:Assistantbvdk would have responded to Yamla's declining the unblock request by addressing the matter at hand--first of all the username, of course, but then there is the matter of COMPROMISED: someone created an account with a role name and then edited without taking into account the COI. Yamla says the account is compromised, and Assistantbvdk, having read Yamla's commentary, could have created an account whose username is appropriate, and declared their COI properly--and no one would have batted an eye. Instead they create User:Assistanttobvdk, and they do the COI stuff, but it's still an unacceptable username. You're asking me now to NOT block that account, which I haven't, and you're taking me to task, it seems, over a judgment on article content, but none of that matters: isn't the most simple solution for Assistanttobvdk to just request a name change? I mean, I haven't even talked to Assistanttobvdk, let alone blocked them, so how am I mistreating a newbie? The only thing that might stand in the way of this simple solution is if Yamla has any more reason to wonder if the Assistanttobvdk is compromised too; personally I don't think it is, but that's really for a CU to decide. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I was unclear. I am not saying you are mistreating anyone, but Wikipedia ("we") are.

Most people on this planet are not geniuses and do not have decades of experience living online, which means that their experience differs from ours.

I don't RTFM, I usually jump in and learn by failing.

Wikipedia has all these rules that people are unaware of, and we should be a bit flexible in how we deal with that.

In my experience newbies can't reliably locate their talkpage. And they don't see everything that happens on there.

Blocking their second account, despite the fact that they've stated they're acting in good faith, may be frustrating for them.

That is why I was asking Yamla to not block them.

Instead, we can just leave a friendly message explaining why they should make a new account (requesting a username change is also a possibility, but I wouldn't recommend that route). Then we can guide them through the process of declaring their COI again.

I think this feels more welcoming than another "You've been blocked. Goodbye"-style message. If someone is willing to follow the rules, we can just ask them to make an account instead of forcing them to (by blocking them).

Hope that this is more clear, Polygnotus (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I find this all a bit hard to follow. I'll be as brief and clear as I can. I believe Assistantbvdk's account should be fully blocked, but allowing account creation. I can do so, but I'm not sure that's helpful. Assistantbvdk is welcome to create a new account. That new account must declare their conflict of interest, must refrain from directly editing the exact page, Bessel van der Kolk, and must note they used to edit as Assistantbvdk (as per WP:SOCK). I'm happy to help them format their declaration (most new users do this incorrectly). Lots more to say, but I think briefer is better right now. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If you want me to I can make a timeline but it is rather boring, and I don't think I can tell you anything that you can't figure out without my help. Polygnotus (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla: briefer is better The shortest version I can give you: Wikipedia contained a serious BLPVIO, people showed up to remove it, vandalfighters editwarred and put it back which was an honest mistake. I removed the BLPVIO which ended the editwar. Now we have a good-faith user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia but willing to learn and follow the rules. Their previous account got blocked from the article for undisclosed COI editing, but I think that block can be lifted because they learned from their mistakes. I will keep an eye on the article. I am clearly not paid by the BLP subject, and I can help the user and revert when necessary. If it turns out that I am too optimistic, and a block is necessary, then I will be the first to request a block. Polygnotus (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, if you'd like to relay that message to the user or if you'd like me to do so, let us know. --Yamla (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave them a message. Polygnotus (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I apologise if anything bad has happened with that user which caused him to have that meltdown. The reason why is because Zaki legitimately dislikes me is for reasons that don't resolve around Wikipedia. It namely resolves around that "The LazyTown Movie" project he tried to make a page on. I'd be honest, when I was removing the false information he added in about an anime series he likes; I had a feeling he would have gotten angry about it. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ha, not your fault. I look at this as any administrator would: they make a series of unexplained reverts and start insulting editors, they are warned, they continue, they are blocked. I don't exactly understand what it was that they posted, but it wasn't good, and they owe all this to nobody but themselves. I long ago stopped trying to explain the behavior who do such coarse things; maybe it was a fit of anger, maybe they're always like that--it's not up to me to guess and then maybe risk the safety of other editors on the project. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Listen, I just saw you posted something on their talk page, User:LTPHarry--please don't do that. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'd be honest, I shouldn't have said what I wrote on his talk page anyway because it had nothing to do with his edits. It was out of shock that he used slurs to insult an admin (you, I think).

  So, the edits that SuperMarioZaki1 did resolved around a fan-dub he made of an anime he likes and claims it to be real, linking it as such. He believes himself to be much more famous than he is (his YouTube account even has an online store, even though he doesn't have many subscribers), because all he's really known for doing is making videos using the site Vyond and little else. And when it comes to a majority of people who have used that site, you know what I mean. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Help desk. I don't want to break 3RR on a proxy. Departure– (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Now blocked. At the risk of sounding too obvious, why would you even revert if you know it's an LTA? Drmies (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Because this type of thing is usually revdelled. Leaving it up isn't doing anyone any favors either. Also, typically, an administrator sees it early, but it's a relatively lower visibility page and it didn't get noticed at all for a solid 10 minutes. Departure– (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    • I guess they are, but every time someone hits "revert" there are more edits to revdelete, the history gets clogged up with this stupid "Oh it's so racist", and MidAtlanticBaby gets another hard on. Might as well just leave, call an admin, and be done with it. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
      • Alright then. Thanks for clearing that up. Departure– (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    • I mean, look at the last 50 edits. That's one whole page of crap, and it took only 5 IPs to do that. User:Arjayay, you too--I love you like a brother, but there is no benefit to rolling back their childish little tales. Just leave it, report it, move on. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    • They moved on to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. And now to the next one. So it goes--so stupid. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Paul Erik, I see you're doing cleanup--is it worth cleaning up? I don't even look at what they actually post anymore. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
      • It's a fair question. What they're posting is fairly awful. I feel as if rev-deleting maybe gives them less of a trophy to point at. I do this with other frequent LTAs too. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
        • Oh it is? Well, I'll follow your lead then. Like I said, I don't read it anymore. I used to be in some of those rants, maybe I still am, but really, who cares. Thanks for cleaning up, User:Paul Erik--I appreciate you. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
          • Appreciate you too, Drmies. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
            • We're the best, Paul Erik! Hey, Departure–, I forgot to mention that you will not violate 3R for reverting such obvious vandalism, so don't worry about that. I mean, I still don't think this should be reverted, but you will not get in trouble for it. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for acting as closer in this discussion. I note that the close is incomplete. Please see WP:RMCI, specifically WP:THREEOUTCOMES, and the step-by-step closing procedure. 162 etc. (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Well, if I missed something (I noticed that there was something weird about the template), please feel free to correct me, which is probably faster and better than me trying to learn a new skill. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • It seems that User:Paine Ellsworth made an edit to fix the formatting. My primary concern, however, is WP:THREEOUTCOMES. A closing statement needs to begin with "Moved", "Not moved", or "No consensus". I encourage you to carefully read the definitions and update your closing statement accordingly. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. 162 etc. (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Well thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
    • I note that this still hasn't been done. It is unclear whether this is a "No consensus" or "Not moved" outcome. Also consider adding Template:Oldmove to the appropriate talkpages. 162 etc. (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
      • Unclear to you, maybe, but The suggested moves are opposed by experienced editors with cogent arguments is clear as day. The moves are opposed; the things are not moved. Goodbye. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

        In fact, No consensus, Not moved, and Moved are as clear as day. Your closing statement was not.

        I urge you to follow our widely-accepted procedures, including WP:THREEOUTCOMES, if you choose to close RM discussions. 162 etc. (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  • In terms of the RM/end template, I just assumed that you didn't substitute it. If you did substitute it, then something in the template needs to be fixed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Where did The Onion Belt go/come from? Is there also a talk page? Is this revision anything to do with it? Lithopsian (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• It came from here, User talk:Drmies/Archive 151#Onions!. Yes there is a talk page--there is the potential for a talk page anyway. Yes, I would imagine that edit has everything to do with the article going live, but Uncle G made that edit--xe knows. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks. All clear now. Lithopsian (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. My uncle has a habit of dropping esoteric things on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
      • Someone has not turned the heel properly on that one, Doktoro. I should send it back for a refund if I were you. Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking this needs protection. Also see [13]. Meat or sock puppetry I think. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yeah, we probably need a range block there. I semi-ed it for now. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 18:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• I guess we could have figured it was going to see action again. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)