User talk:Drmies

That's right y'all.

Fangusu edit

Are you sure you want to let a Fangusu edit stand like you did on Bulsara? You know you are inviting more of her bullshit to continue if you do.

Have some sources btw: http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Adi%20Bulsara&nojs=1 https://books.google.com/books/about/Adi_Bulsara.html?id=2VSmuAAACAAJ http://america.pink/bulsara_787432.html --Tarage (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And if you are going to protect articles, protect this one too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_Loving_You --Tarage (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't really care what you're dropping here ("revolvy"? wtf is that? go read WP:RS). The edit you keep restoring is completely tripe. Sock or not, you are making the article worse--ffs, what's someone's cousin doing on a dab page? I'm going to step away from the keyboard, because I am thinking too much of your completely unacceptable edit summaries. If you can't make your case without telling someone to fuck off and die or to go and kill themselves, you should really, really step away too. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to report a vandal

Hello. Someone is damaging the wikipage of the 2012 US presidential election. What can I do to stop them??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• It seems the user stopped. I sent a notification about vandalism. Sorry for bothering you. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No bother. I'm surprised someone still cares for 2012. That's almost ancient history, making it an encyclopedic topic. Anyway, that user is perilously close to being a vandalism-only editor, unless they can't tell the difference between a 2 and a 6--and even then. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Haha. You know, I think that user is bothered about Obama reelection and sees that fact as what led to this black comedy we call 2016 US presidential election. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Well: thank **** for Nixon eh; or it could've been three terms... _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for getting to that ANI so fast, some people just never learn. BTW love the geolocate =) Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well, if it works--but in this case it was abundantly clear that it was the same person. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ham

Hello

I am new to this so I hope that I am doing this right..yiikes. In response to my Canaan edit, I am greatly baffled. All I did was add the correct information to a flawed and very misleading page and even cited the Scripture Genesis 10:6 the second time around. It isn't shocking that I used Scripture for the page is RIFE with references to Scripture. Genesis 10:6 very plainly says that Ham was the father of 4 sons and those sons were Mizraim, Put, Cush and Canaan. There is a plethora of information about who Ham was and what his name means. Why is this new knowledge to Wikipedia? For a site that claims to inform and educate this is downright embarrassing.

HolyJustus (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Start a new section on Talk:Canaan. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yep. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

108.199.223.23

You should consider blocking 108.199.223.23 for longer than 31 hours. He was blocked the other day using - JT Country Pop and 108.199.223.221

2601:983:8102:24A0:FD12:4581:127A:AF1B (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I should? Makes no difference, since they switched IPs before and will probably do so again. If you want to help, start an SPI, if there isn't one already, or add to it. Drmies (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking more like a range block to block his future available addresses. I don't know how you do it, I just know that I get caught in them all the time on my mobile devices. Every time I boot or drive down the road to a new tower, I risk not being able to post because of a range block. The difference being, my ips vary quite drastically, while those two have the first 3 groupings the same. 68.33.90.182 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

And here's a good reason to log in: I don't know who I'm talking to. Range block for future addresses is not doable, and I don't do rangeblocks in the first place (not smart enough). Drmies (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have an account for when I am on a blocked ip or am on a protected page. But all of my browsers are set for privacy mode - all cookies and history get cleared every time I close a window. I would need to log in every time I am here - too much hassle. If I wanted involved with policy making or regularly policing users, maybe I would consider logging in. But I am just a minor page editor. 166.216.159.217 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. Well, I couldn't tell if the first message here was from the same person as the second message. You'll note there's a comment below from an equally numerical IP editor who identifies himself as "99", from an old IP he used to use, and so I always know who I'm talking to (besides that, I recognize his editing style and language). So that's something you can consider whenever you roam outside of article space. Anyway, yeah, I can't do rangeblocks and don't see how someone who can would do it here; whenever I propose one the answer is always "too much collateral damage", haha. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Danratedrko's sockpuppet DS-616

In connection with this message, you may or may not find it interesting to know that, by coincidence, when I saw it I had just logged into Wikipedia with the intention of consulting a CheckUser about the possibility of looking for Danratedrko's self-declared sockpuppet. As for whether I "want to do something about this user's block", I'm not sure what there is to do, but thanks for letting me know anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• JamesBWatson, great minds think alike. I think I pinged you because I misread your block notice, thinking that the block was not yet indefinite. Drmies (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that was my fault, for saying "you won't be surprised or disappointed", rather than the more direct "you are blocked indefinitely". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that: because I thought they weren't blocked indefinitely I didn't see that they in fact were; I must have seen that they were blocked or I wouldn't have pinged you. Perception steered by presumption. I liked your handwritten notice. BTW, my misreading was not unlike Cavalcante de' Cavalcanti's, though this is not something our article explains. I'll get on it. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Perception is often steered by presumption in that way, and yet in other situations the contrast between presumption and what actually occurs can hit one's perception very forcefully. As for Cavalcante de' Cavalcanti, that is a bit of the Inferno that I had never read. From what I have now seen, it looks as though the incident is probably notable enough to be mentioned in the article: probably far more notable than many of the trivia that appear in "In popular culture" sections and the like. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

A removed prod and hello

Hi Dr, I removed this prod [1], noticing after the fact that you'd placed it there. I think that particular issue has been resolved. Anyway, it gave me the chance to drop by and say hello. Hope you're staying cool this summer, enjoying both the pool and the ale. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well, that was certainly an improvement. The pool looks great, by the way--crystal clear, not like when Writ Keeper used to visit. But I'm on the office pretending to work. Hope you and yours are well too, and thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to identify IPs

Hello again. Some IP users wrote very strange commentaries about a cleanup I made in an article in my talk page. I did the cleanup as parts of the article violated WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR and the political content was WP:UNDUE but these users mistook me for some kind of conservative activist. The users are violating the policy WP:NPA so I'm wondering whether and whom I need to report this. Thanks for your help. Leo Bonilla (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think they think you're a communist. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• Well, they're trying to hit people up all over the place. It's not really disruptive, it's just a waste of time. Not much for an admin to do. You can ask them to zip it and stay away from your talk page? Drmies (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Actually they claimed User:Chronus is a communist and they are asking me to be some kind of Wikipedia police and they asked the same to others users. Do you think I can stop them to be WP:JAGUAR showing them the list of policies on Wikipedia and asking them to continue the conversation in the respective talk page? Leo Bonilla (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well, sure--"take it to the article talk page" and just stop responding. They're trying with a number of other editors too. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla and Drmies: About the IP, please see this! Chronus (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Chronus: I took action. Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla: Me too. Chronus (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)And I see they are blocked as socks of Bazaira.[2] Doug Weller talk 10:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello. I noticed you had posted an additional warning on the talk page of Vwvu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so would you mind taking a look at their recent edits? It's an editor with an obvious COI repeatedly (as in three times today, so far...) adding/re-adding unsourced and/or improperly sourced trivia on Jain International Residential School, in spite of tonnes of warnings on their talk page, treating the article as if it's their property, and an extension of the school website. Thomas.W ^talk 13:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Please disregard, they were blocked after a report at WP:AIV. I wouldn't mind if you would semiprotect the article for a couple of weeks or more, though, to prevent socking during their two-week block, since they have a history of using multiple parallell accounts (including a previous block for it). Thomas.W ^talk 13:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Let's see what happens. The next block is indefinite. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WO

Hi. Did you recently make a post on Wikipediocracy? There is an account claiming to be you and I am not sure if it is a joe job. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's old Jared, who's got nothing better to do. I don't know how to post on Wikipediocracy and I never look at it; I hope someone there blocks them--is that the kind of thing they do? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User editing in violation of ARBPIA 30/500 GASP

Hi Drmies, I don't want to open up a full AE action, but this user Dreamsarenotreal has been making edits that he's not allowed to. I've reverted, posted on his talk page, Bolter has also informed him, but he just doesn't listen. Is there anything you can do short of me initiating an AE since I thought admins can take action without an AE action. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I hate to clock out, but I'm about to serve dinner (been working on it for a while now)--I have no doubt, though, that TParis is entirely at your disposal, and if not him, well, I hear that Kelapstick's eagle has landed. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Two edits don't rise to AE action for a new editor. This is an appropriate first step. Let's see how it goes.--v/r - TP 08:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you TParis. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Shenanigans at Andrij Dobriansky again

Hi Drmies. You and Jpgordon blocked User:Nosay990 and User:LGR02g as socks. Just a heads-up that a new editor has appeared, ALU0819, who is carrying on the shenanigans at Andrij Dobriansky where the first two left off. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Barinder Rasode for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Canuckle (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

An Apology y

I am sorry for my disruptive and uncivil behavior on the Wikipedia Teahouse a year and a quarter ago. I am sorry for all the rude things that I said to the Wikipedia community and about falsely accusing you of having an agenda against hate groups, pseudoscience promoters, and pedophiles. I wasn't thinking clearly then. To be clear, I do not support or advocate these group's ideologies especially those of pedophiles who view adult-child sexual relationships as healthy and safe, on-or-off Wikipedia. Editors who use Wikipedia to promote the ideologies of hate groupes, theories that are thought to be pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community, and pedophiles who promote pedophilia on Wikipedia, or edit articles to support their views must not be allowed on Wikipedia. Please forgive me. Frogger48 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Relevant links:

• permalink at user's talk
• permalink at WT:Child_protection

Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know how I missed it, but this seems to be a positive message. Johnuniq, thank you for annotating this; Cullen328, you have an interest in this as well, maybe. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks for the ping. I will try to keep an eye on things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

see in real life

I looked up in his archives what I exchanged with Kevin and found your "Hope to see you again in real life somewhere." Hope it happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• It did not, Gerda, I'm sad to say. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I found us talking about health, and me pointing at an image for the deceased, - kind of chilling in retrospect. We disagreed a lot, but always in a friendly way. I created Ethics of Dissensus when we met, for the DYK of Kevin Gorman and Eric Corbett, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

ICARE Foundation

Sometimes I tag an article and throw up my hands--perhaps the good Dr or one of his talk page stalkers can have a look at this. To my eye pretty much the whole thing is an advert. Thanks from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not often wrong and right again, '99. I'll probably get bollocked for stubbing it, but between the advertorial and the near-50%copyright violations, there wasn't much to be picked out. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I thought a lot of it was probably copyright violation, but was having trouble separating out distinct examples. Much appreciated, 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much the same issues at Agribusiness Teaching Center, a related article. If you don't get to it, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I will return to the article later. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks 99, dealt similarly with that. But I wish the Dr waz ere: there's some major WP:MEAT going on on both of them, and we could use some temporary protection. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

All in good time; he can't pretend to be on vacation forever. Plus, there are other good-natured admins who check in here. Thank you. The Agribusiness article has a helpful listing of 'see also' pages, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find similar issues with some of those. The IP you warned is operating out of the University. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I just saw you add the 'Who Is' bit- Great thinking! Talk about COI. But now it's open for all to see. And also- isn't reverting opyvios a 3RR exemption...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I should think so--I've never hesitated to revert copyright violations, though doing so as an IP has several times earned warnings from undiscerning passersby. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• You all have NO idea how much time it takes to sign up for coupons at Betty Crocker. And why isn't the Publix app pulling up in the Apple Appstore? 99, you're a good housewife--how are you scoring with your digital coupons? Drmies (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably pretty well, since he gets everyone else to do his yardwork! :p  ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, hey, easy does it. The balance of my day was spent packaging a large artwork to ship to a buyer overseas, then driving Mrs. 99 across the state to see the surgeon who operated on her last winter for an update on her condition. Tonight I'm starting on an article for the magazine I write for, and if I have time will get to a pile of rank laundry. And there's a barnstar in this for you, Fortuna, so no kvetching. I will have a look at the Cristo article when I can, Dr. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• IT'S AUGUST ALREADY??? Drmies (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The cry of academics across the United States... realizing that all those wonderful things you were going to get done over the summer are receding beyond your grasp. The choice is now between a frenzied last-minute attempt at redemption (you know, the thing the criticize undergrads for) and "screw it, here we go again." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

At least I got my grades in less than six hours late. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hey, ho, off to AfD we go. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• OK, you two, if you have a moment, please try to improve Cristo Redentore--also an article with a history full of copyvio and promotional editing. In my experience, the better an article is the easier it is to maintain. I would surely appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  Hey Drmies. You missed this revision when revdeling that promo copyvio. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Got it, thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• "The statue's outstretched arms, clad in the sleeves of a tunic, are aerodynamically shaped so that when the wind blows from Jerusalem the statue rises several metres from the ground." (A Visitor's Guide to The Pearl of the Tyrrhenian ed. R. Dawkins) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• See? Whenever I ask people to help me with something, it's on some fascinating topic. Awesome! Drmies (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Can that actually be true?!?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• At a quick glance, most sources I found were travel guides, not one's favorite reference points. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yep. And they all repeat the same stuff, which in the end probably came from the local tourist agency. As a work of art it hasn't attracted much attention. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

73.53.121.199

73.53.121.199 has edited 4 articles and all are vandalism. You warned him about a block.—Anomalocaris (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this with a 72-hour block.—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• I aim to please. Thanks for the note; the block was well-deserved. But don't forget that the folks at WP:AIV also need to meet their block quota, or their families will go breadless. Drmies (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee?

Hello Drmies,

You probably remember that more than two years ago you banned me because a small group of involved editors reached consensus to ban me. I would like to have my ban lifted but:

• You refused my appeals to lift my ban more than once with an explanation that it was not you who banned me but the community.
• the same small group of involved editors easily reach the same kind of consensus to keep me banned every time I appeal for ban lifting.

Can I appeal to Arbitration Committee to have my ban lifted?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• You know, AD, I stopped beating my wife a long time ago. That's number one. See WP:UNBAN, and I will be more than happy to recuse myself, even if only so that I don't have to read the same stuff over and over again. You will recall that a. yes it was not me calling for a ban and b. twice I posted that I had no objection to your ban being lifted. Or, you're welcome. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to WP:UNBAN, but I am uncertain if your answer is yes or no. WP:UNBAN says:

• Editors who are banned from a topic area or certain pages but can otherwise edit, may appeal (and comment in an appeal discussion) on-wiki, either at the administrators' noticeboard, or at requests for arbitration.

I explained in my above comment what is the fate of my appeals at WP:AN, so I guess the only way is WP:RFAR which says:

• such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.

I think that my appeal to ARBCOM would meet above criteria because:

1. it was procedurally unfair:
   1. to ban me based on the limited consensus reached mostly by the small group of editors heavily involved in disputes with me, after report of one of them who was blocked after I pointed to the issues with his edits (he reported me immediately after his block expired). I was banned based on what this small group of editors said I had said during my discussions with them at article's talkpages. The same article talkpages that contain huge walls of text with their accusations of my misbehavior (there are several ARBCOM principles on the subject of casting aspersions which probably cover this kind of activity).
   2. to keep me banned because after more than two years after my ban, the same group of editors easily reach the same kind of consensus to keep me banned in every discussion about my ban appeal. Even after I proposed lengthy probation period with very restrictive conditions. The discussions about my ban appeal included violations of WP:NPA against me (remember you warned some of them because of this) and serious accusations without any or without serious evidence. Probably the only diff presented to prove accusations against me during my last ban appeal (diff) was refuted (diff).
2. the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad. After more than two years since my ban I did not violate it and had no serious issue with my edits.

Taking above mentioned in consideration can I consider that your answer to my above question, if I can appeal to Arbitration Committee, is yes?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• It said you can appeal to ArbCom, no? So you can appeal to ArbCom. That you keep calling my decision unfair is not helpful. I'm sorry that the community did not agree with your request, but that's the way it is. With an unban, as with an unblock, arguing it's everyone else's fault is also not helpful. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"a person who is quite incapable of ..."

Hi Drmies,

Remember when I asked you (diff) if a statement about another wikipedia editor being "a person who is quite incapable of..." is violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and if admins are allowed to make such statements. You asked for the context because while the policy seems straightforward enough, much depends on context and "Context matters greatly".

With part of my above comment I replied to your question and pointed to the context of the comment about me as "a person who is quite incapable of constructively engaging...". The context of this statement was:

• it contained serious accusation proven to be unjustified (as explained above)
• written by an editor involved in numerous disputes against me, during my last ban appeal discussion with purpose to keep me banned
• made by a very experienced admin who sure knows that this kind of statements are not allowed

Having this context in mind, would you say that above statement about me as a person is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered another similar comment posted during my last ban appeal. Here is a comment of another editor (diff) who also presented very serious accusations (including POV-pushing) without presenting any evidence. Please hold on with your response while I check the rest of discussions about my ban. I am afraid there might be more of similar comments. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Dear Drmies, A couple of days ago there was an issue in which I was involved, and in the absence of admin Pony I thought maybe you could help, but unfortunately you weren't available. Anyway, I apologize for any inconveniences I (pinging) may have caused you, and thank you just the same. Regards Mona778 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I think I saw a ping yesterday, but I have not been here in a very concentrated manner. I hope the matter was resolved. Thanks for the dessert, Drmies (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• The issue was resolved, but not before being ... Do you know what? I think I was singled out by a bunch of users who were just trying to hit a nerve. Mona778 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Mona778:, just to add my thoughts in here, because dear Drmies may be less concentrated due to being a little diluted as has also been mentioned as a possibility by the unregistered editor recently posting here on this page. (I am sure you understand my viewpoint on such aids to merriment.)

On one occasion recently I made an edit that I thought was Better Wording on a quite high-profile page on Wikipedia, and I had made a mistake in my edit that I had not noticed and one of the people involved with the page changed my edit with an edit summary that I thought was quite insulting to my English Language skills -- and they fixed the small mistake I had made but they also retained the better wording fix that I had made. So the page was improved, by both of us, but I was very annoyed about what I thought was an insult so I thought about having an argument with them and telling them what I thought of them and expressing my very great anger, as you can imagine.

Then I went for a walk and then I came back and soon after that I needed to phone some people back home, and during almost all of this time I had forgotten about this very great rage of mine and the need for an argument. And then I came back to Wikipedia and remembered this edit summary that had angered me, but somehow it no longer seemed necessary or useful to have an argument with the person, and after thinking about it a little more I also realized that they were perhaps not deliberately insulting my language skills at all, but they had just written something quickly without thinking about how it might hurt my feelings. And actually it wasn't an insult anyway. So I finally understood that it really was not important at all, and no-one had actually been insulted, and I continued to make Wording Better in many different places.

I think in both of these instances there are some edits made, or things said, that might have been said better, or said with more sympathy for how the other person might feel about what was said. And I think this is a common problem in English Wikipedia -- maybe other Wikipedias too -- that is really important because it affects how people feel about editing on Wikipedia and how many people are willing to continue to do so. Do you agree?

On the receiving end, other than recommending going for walks and phoning home -- people at home never understand that Wikipedia can be a hobby that is also important, so they are a great distraction! -- I can only recommend trying to WP:AGF as much as possible. Always assume that people are not actually trying to hit a nerve, they are just typing things in reaction to what they see on their computer screen and maybe they do not intend to cause offence at all. MPS1992 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello MPS1992. Thank you for taking the time to tell me about your not so pleasant experience you had with an editor. I see where you're coming from. You know how much I respect you, I'm sorry, but I beg to disagree. Mona778 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable content removal on Time-Series Database page

Hello, I noticed you reverted my changes on Time series database. I removed a section on TS transformations that I originally authored for several reasons: a) I disagree with one of administrators of this article who effectively enforces write-protection on parts of this article (see version history) despite community contributions and, perhaps more relevant, b) since the section no longer applies to TSDB implementations that remain after mass-deletion of non-notable content. The original list of TSDB implementations, prior to mass-deletion, included systems that have been developed relatively recently and as such do not have stand-along entries on wikipedia. These implementations were removed (and continue to be removed) based on non-notable guidelines. See version history for this article. The result is that remaining systems (notable ones, with wikipedia pages) do not support these TS transformations. As a result, the content is misleading. For the record, I am an SME in this field and I'm affiliated with one of the removed implementations. My logic is as follows: the content should be consistent. The list of TS transformations which is implementation-specific since there are no ISO standards, should match the referenced implementations. I'm not expert on wikipedia guidelines though. What do you think? Rodionos (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Rodionos, thank you for your note. I think you were arguing that as the writer of the section you had the right to remove it. I also think you should discuss this on the talk page, not here--you might scare people off with your talk of technology; folks usually discuss feelings and poetry here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by your comment, I really am. When I removed a section from Time series database page that I authored, I received policy warnings on MY personal talk page, not on the article page. I'm just going with conventions that appear to be in place. Can we make an exception and discuss it here, I would prefer not to cross-post. If you don't mind, could you please tell why an author is not allowed to remove the section of the page that he/she contributed in the first place, because the author considers the content of this section to be inconsistent with the rest of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodionos (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Disregard the last comment. The discussion will be open on the article's talk page. Please feel free to remove this thread. Rodionos (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Rodionos, you received a warning because an editor felt your edits were not productive. The user's talk page is the proper place for that. The article talk page is where the edits are to be discussed. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Drmies, this is poetry indeed, wide open to artistic interpretation and confusing to uninitiated. I removed a section I authored, it's an article edit as far as I can see. Then someone reverts my edit and calls it unproductive. Do you see the irony?Rodionos (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no irony; it doesn't matter who added the information, if removal of it is contested then you need to discuss on the article's talk page and achieve WP:CONSENSUS among the participating editors. Detail your points of reasoning there, where everyone interested in the article can see -- not here on Drmies' talk page or another user's talk page. Warnings belong on user talkpages, but discussions of (or questions about) content always belongs on the article talk page. Softlavender (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Softlavender, that's exactly my point. I want to discuss this on the article's talk page. I was confused, why the other editor who reverted my change went straight to my user talk page instead of the article page. I created sections on the article's talk page Time series database to discuss open issues instead of user pages. It feels the right thing to do. Thank you. Rodionos (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Help requested from Drmies talk page stalkers

Please see Sukhnidhey Films and Rituraj Devaang. I've begun to clean the former, but am encountering resistance from likely COI accounts. Two awful press releases. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've nominated the film company article for speedy deletion, which may be too severe a step, but in looking for an early version to revert to, I could find no incarnation that wasn't blatantly promotional. Short of that, the cleaning process would be an eye-roller. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Coffee to the rescue. You may ignore this and return to what I imagine is a weekend poolside ale-drinking extravaganza. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm drinking coffee, getting to work on reviewing an exciting article. If you're done with your movie stars, perhaps you can polish up Barbara Yorke a little? Drmies (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hey, any chance you could revdel this edit. It uses my real name which I do not want to be used. Plus I don't want to get into a long discussion with doc rushing anyway because I really just think he's trying to push his personal website onto the page even though it's terrible and spam. oknazevad (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Have you ever posted your personal information on Wikipedia?--v/r - TP 23:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I used to have my first name on my user page but removed it years ago. I have never posted my last name as far as I know. Plus I had previously reverted Doc Rushing and asked him (in the edit summary) to not post again regarding it. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Email me that edit summary so I can revdel that edit too--v/r - TP 00:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You already got it. Maybe I should have been a little more explicit than "I have nothing more to say" while reverting his longwinded mess. I really find Doc's posting style exceedingly grating; he writes these obnoxious one-sentence paragraphs that read like the script of a court TV series where a lawyer is badgering the witness. Frankly, I'm amazed that he claims to be a professional writer; the quality is so poor. Especially considering that I was removing his own amateurish website looks that like it hasn't been updated in 20 years. Which he himself added, making it just spam. Soak he adds to the wrong section, too. Can't even follow simple guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks TParis. I appreciate you helping out here--as you can guess, I was out plastering the neighborhood with Green Party flyers. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Gary Johnson is counting on your vote.--v/r - TP 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Guess what I did last night that made me think of him. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
      • You enjoyed liberty?--v/r - TP 01:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
        • In a manner of speaking, sure! Drmies (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Haha, okay, what were you doing last night? And no giggity business.--v/r - TP 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
            • No, I just realized the lack of legality of certain things in my state. Land of the free, you know, but not everywhere in the same manner. :) Drmies (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
              • Heh, well, it's tough when you realize that some laws are other people's values being forced upon you. But then when you consider that other values, such as freedom, equality, and justice, need to be codified in law and forced on people who would not otherwise be civilized, then you start to run into a conundrum. How do you determine which laws, like don't rape people, are just and right while others, like don't enter the park after 10pm, are not? *shrug* I'm happy to see you getting a taste, though.--v/r - TP 02:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
                • I have been struggling to find a basis for morality and law for the last thirty years. Drmies (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)