Misplaced Pages

User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:36, 20 October 2024 view sourceSprucecopse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users862 edits →There is no need to be rude.: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:51, 23 January 2025 view source Drmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators407,819 edits →Quick A134 sockblock 
(630 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 150 |counter = 151
|minthreadsleft = 10 |minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 5 |minthreadstoarchive = 5
Line 14: Line 14:
{{ygm}} {{ygm}}


{{-}}
== Concerned about ]'s actions re:me, ] and ] ==
== A barnstar for you! ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
Hello DrMies.
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Happy New Year, Drmies! In 2024, other editors thanked you using the ] on the English Misplaced Pages. This made you the '''#11 most thanked Wikipedian in 2024'''. Congratulations and, well, ''thank you'' for all that you do for Misplaced Pages. Here's to 2025! ] (]) 19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
|}
*Haha thanks, {{U|Mz7}}--and I just hit you with a +2! ] (]) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{U|Bbb23}}, happy new year, and how is it that you are thanked more than me??? I thought I was the good cop! ] (]) 15:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
**It's a conspiratorial ploy by the perps to cozy up to the bad cop.--] (]) 16:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
***Shoot I just thanked ] for an edit, and she was already ahead of me. ] (]) 17:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox
| image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
:::* As explained on my talk, I hope I do more real thank-you than lazy click-thanks ;) - Happy new year 2025, opened with ] that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). --] (]) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* ], my ] 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. ] will be my story tomorrow. --] (]) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* My ] is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Did you watch Masilo talk and dance? --] (]) 09:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* ... and today, ], ], in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author ]. --] (]) 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* Today, between many who just died, ] on his 45th birthday who was good for ] 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. --] (]) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* Today I have ] (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with ] who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --] (]) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Advice needed ==
I'm concerned about ]'s actions.


How can I convince user:Sky258 that, per ], airport connections need independent sources? Nearly all his/her are unsourced and reverted. Warnings did not help but blocking seems over the top. Do you have any ideas? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* ] created a number of pages related to Whittier High School and added more information to the Whittier High School article
*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... ] (]) 22:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* Bbb23 removed a lot of content from the ] article
**Okay. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
** I sourced it and added it back.
***Unfortunately, the learning curve after the prior block is best described as flatliner... <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 02:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* Bbb23 indeffed Keleperkins
****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. ] (]) 16:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*
*****I disagree: and . <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*
* , which was very inappropriate as there was no vandalism
*
*


== CS1 error on ] ==
What's going on here? Why did he do that? BOOMERANG for what? YOU at least are aware that I'm not a vandal or anything like that, but it feels like Bbb23 is assuming bad faith here. I know I should probably try to talk it out with him, but he seems to have his mind made up about Keleperkins and me. I get that he's an experienced editor, but I got well over 30K edits myself, and he shouldn't be treating me like a vandal. And I'm afraid if I discuss this with BBB any further, he'll impulsively block me...can you make sure he doesn't do that? <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">]</sub> 01:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that ] performed by you, on the page ], may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
:{{tps|w}} {{u|Purplebackpack89}}, ] says that {{tpq|Third party appeals of blocks are allowed, but generally discouraged}}. I am curious why you are going to bat for this particular editor? Most recently, they have tried to add an list of non-notable red-linked alumni to the high school article, based on the unreferenced claim that they had gone on to prestigious universities, an obvious violation of ] policy, and flat out bad editing. They also created three obviously inappropriate templates that had to be reviewed and deleted. They made a series of incompetent edits to ] that had to be reverted. In 2019, they tried to write an article about ] despite the fact that an article about her has existed since 2019. They misspelled her name and created a worthless draft that had to be deleted. So, we have an editor who appears to be a net negative, and we all know that ]. What is your substantive basis for challenging this block? As for your final request, what can one administrator do to prevent another administrator from blocking someone? ] (]) 02:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
* A ] 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. ( | )
::Even if third-party appeals are generally discouraged, they're not VANDALISM...
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
::I do not consider Keleperkins incompetent and I think he should be given more chances. When I look at him, I see somebody who has potential, but needs to be made more aware of Misplaced Pages's policies.
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->] (]) 23:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I will provide more info in an email <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">]</sub> 02:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
== CS1 error on ] ==
:::{{u|Purplebackpack89}}, as for ''your'' restoration of content in the history section, you have left ''eleven'' paragraphs unreferenced. Certainly you know that the onus is on you to comply with ] when you restore contested content. ] (]) 02:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that ] performed by you, on the page ], may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
::::Many of the paragraphs can be sourced from the citations I provided. I also believe that BBB acted in error deleting the entire section rather than tagging it. <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">]</sub> 02:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
* A ] 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. ( | )
:::::But you have not done so, {{u|Purplebackpack89}}, even though the ] on you to do that ''before or simultaneous with'' restoring the content. Why should readers be forced to rummage around in the references in unrelated paragraphs hoping to stumble on verification? You earlier reminded Drmies that you are very experienced. Act like it then, instead of pursuing grudges against administrators trying to protect the encyclopedia from incompetence. ] (]) 03:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
::::::Have you looked at the article lately?
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->] (]) 23:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Also, IDK why you've turned this into hammering me about sourcing. The problem here is a bad block by BBB, and erroneously referring to contesting that block as vandalism and issuing an inappropriate warning. Guy should lose his mop.
::::::Finally, I do NOT, and will NEVER, consider Keleperkins to be incompetent, so stop calling him that. <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">]</sub> 03:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Purplebackpack89}}, so the number of unreferenced paragraphs has declined from eleven to nine since this conversation started. You should have taken that content to your sandbox, trimmed the trivia, and referenced ''all of it'' before restoring it. Instead you want to defend an editor who has, as far as I can see, not made any good edits for many years. I pointed put six specific examples of bad editing by this largely inactive editor in the last five years, which took me only about ten minutes to find, and you have provided zero evidence of any good edits from that account. And you get all indignant about me hinting at their possible incompetence when evidence of that is is glaringly obvious and unrefuted. Your call for {{u|Bbb23}} to {{tpq|lose his mop}} is both bizarre and unsupported by any evidence. ] (]) 04:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{Ping|Cullen328}}, neither you nor {{ping|Drmies}} nor {{ping|Bbb23}} has answered the questions I posed...
::::::::# Why was it appropriate to tag a block contest as vandalism, and
::::::::# Why would I get hit with a BOOMERANG?
::::::::<sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">]</sub> 15:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think I can assume that "vandalism" here didn't mean "writing dumb stuff in an article" or lying about a date or something--it probably meant "disruption of a serious kind", and I think Cullen has outlined how a. the editor was seriously disruptive and b. your particular response was also disruptive. If you want to question a block, fine, but isn't really questioning a block. ] (]) 15:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{talk page stalker}} ], I'll answer these two questions for you:
:::::::::1. First and foremost, Cullen has addressed that the editor has not made any good edits for years. Even though I don't know much about the editor, I'll go along with what he said and agree that the editor did not make any good edits for years (I hope Cullen gives me the benefit of the doubt). I can probably agree that it's not vandalism, but as it says, it's generally discouraged to write a block appeal for someone else even if you are trying to act in good faith.
:::::::::2. Bbb23 is really experienced as an admin, and considering how long he's been on here for years (long before I even started editing), people would say that you are considering the block by Bbb23 to be a "bad block" when it really isn't. Because of that, they'd be calling you out for this and say that you should be blocked per ].
:::::::::I'd rather not interact anymore on here, so I better get back to writing my theatre paper due on Friday. ] (]) 16:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ec}} I'll keep this simple. Your unblock request for the user was absolutely wrong and deserved to be reverted. I should not have called it vandalism, and I apologize for that (I do agree with Drmies that your edit ''was'' "seriously disruptive"). I should have told you on your Talk page that you are not permitted to create unblock requests for other users. It is true that in very limited circumstances you can challenge an administrator's block of a user based on the change to ] in 2021, but that does ''not'' mean you can do so by posting a formal unblock request. In addition, those limited circumstances do not apply here. They are not intended for "bad blocks" but for egregiously out-of-process blocks, and, even then, you are supposed to first discuss your concerns with the blocking administrator before bringing it to the attention of the community, usually at a noticeboard like ]. I hope this makes some sense to you, and we can put this unpleasant matter to rest.--] (]) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Bbb23}} {{ping|Drmies}} almost there, but not quite...
::::::::::# It wasn't disruptive (or in bad faith) on my part, and it's inappropriate for either of you to claim it was
::::::::::# Nobody has explained this whole BOOMERANG claim
::::::::::# Are either of you contending that Keleperkins added inaccurate information to articles, or just that what he created didn't really meet our inclusion standards? Did you really try to explain what does and doesn't belong on the project before indeffing him? When I look at their edits, I see a guy who IS legitimately trying to improve the encyclopedia (therefore I question the NOTHERE rationale for an indef), but doesn't understand the inclusion policy, in part because I'm not seeing enough effort to train him in it.
::::::::::<sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">]</sub> 16:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You can be disruptive without editing in bad faith. I am not going to discuss the merits of the block of another user. If they wish to make an unblock request, they can do so. I blocked the user on September 3. On September 29, over 3 weeks later, you challenged the block on behalf of the user. Why? Were you in touch with the user through e-mail? I have nothing more to say on this issue with you. I strongly suggest you go find something else to do that is more constructive than this protracted conversation about an incompetent, disruptive user.--] (]) 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Oh, yeah, the boomerang thing. That's standard. It doesn't mean that I would block you for taking me to ANI. It means that your conduct would be scrutinized and that you might be sanctioned by another administrator. I'm surprised you think otherwise.--] (]) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::PBP--I'm sorry, but you are wrong in item 1: it ''was'' disruptive, for reasons outlined in various places above, and the rest follows from that. There are things you could have done that could have led to a block review in a non-disruptive way; I can imagine a "help" request or whatever from the user on their talk page, followed by some chatter back and forth with the experienced editor offering advice, etc etc. Or the experienced editor could have asked the blocking administrator, perhaps on that administrator's own talk page, about the block, and taken it from there. That's not what happened here, not at all, and as a result we're here--or, you're here, now in the company of three or four other administrators and editors, none of whom seem to really agree with you. You can accept this and we all move along, or you don't, and then I guess we don't. ] (]) 17:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== ]/] ==
== Pierre Sprey edits ==


Returned to ] 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.
You're not wrong that the Sprey article is a mess. However I think it may be overkill to simply blank an entire section of the article. The whole reason Sprey is a notable figure is because of his involvement (however significant or insignificant it may be) as an analyst aiding the conceptualization the what would become the F-16 and A-10, and his subsequent criticism of the F-15 and F-35. There is extraneous information in that section and I'm not sure of the right way to structure the article but his connections to the A-10 are necessary for a proper article about him.


Attentively ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As to the reason I made my edit, I think it's fair you reverted it; my wording was bad. To explain better, the section is about Sprey's favor of the F-16 over the F-15 as a fighter and states the the F-16 is "highly successful". It then mentions that Sprey has continued to criticize the F-15. This wording therefor lightly implies the F-16 as more successful than the F-15 and that his criticisms are therefore valid. However Sprey's criticisms are commonly deflected by pointing out that the F-15 is the most successful active fighter jet with 105 kills to 0 losses. I should have worded the section in that manner, wording it as something like


== Books & Bytes – Issue 66 ==
"Sprey continued to be critical of the F-15 fighter, though proponents of the F-15 have argued it is also a highly successful design, commonly referencing it's aerial combat record of one hundred victories to zero losses."


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Though I think that wording could still be improved. ] (]) 08:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;">
*The whole article is written in a fairly convoluted way, and "entire section" is incorrect: the part that was properly sourced is moved up. What's deleted is two passages: one sourced to what appears to be a chat at a conference, and the other unverified. Also, we can't really deal with implications or suggestions, only with what is positively stated in a reliable secondary source. Thank you, ] (]) 13:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
]</div>
*:Honestly you're right not much was lost from that section.
<div style="line-height: 1.2;">
*:I did some more reworking of the defense analyst section a bit more to pare down extraneous details, particularly overly wordy descriptions focused on the fighter mafia and their concepts instead of Sprey, and improve the flow of it including grouping the parts discussing his work on the concepts that would become the F-16 and A-10 together in one paragraph, and then his later public comments about the jets that were created. ] (]) 20:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br />
Issue 66, November – December 2024
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;">
* Les Jours and East View Press join the library
* Tech tip: Newspapers.com
<big>''']'''</big>
</div>
</div>
<small>Sent by ] on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9 (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=28051347 -->


== Banned cease-and-desist photographer ==
== Apology ==


I am really frazzled now. Someone is . I can not find any trace of that. You should expect some traces of that on ENWP, Meta or Commons, but no.
Yo Drmies I'm sorry for all my draft pages bro. I didn't even know it was vandalism so I hope you can forgive me. If you want you leave me a message on my talk page bro. Again, my bad for all the draft pages it was irresponsible. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*OK--now you know. Good luck, ] (]) 13:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
** I believe it's worth mentioning that ] has now went straight to making an ]. I've nominated this article for PROD because we shouldn't be creating new articles every time PSN goes down (which happens somewhat frequently). The only other article about a PSN outage is that of the ], which lasted 23 days, and PSN has gone down numerous times in the years since. For that reason, I don't believe this article meets GNG. <b>]</b> <small>(] • ])</small> 13:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
***What's everyone's deal bruh I swear I will always be Misplaced Pages's enemy thats it im quitting[REDACTED] will never see me again goodbye ] (]) 13:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
***Also why u stalking my comments bro I will never find peace ] (]) 13:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
****], I saw that, and I think this user has not yet fully understood what we do and what we don't do, but that article, IMO, was better than the previous contributions so I wasn't going to say anything. ], this is a collaborative project and edits and comments are public; GSK is a longtime editor in good standing, who was merely informing me of something related to this thread. Also, lots of people read my talk page. So, if it gets deleted, treat it as a learning experience please. ] (]) 14:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


Do you (or your stalkers) know anything about this? It sounds a bit fishy to me right now. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== Administrators' newsletter – October 2024 ==
*No clue. I'll add to your note. Thanks, ] (]) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thanks, seeing the edits of this account, the editor did this wiki-wide. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 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 Misplaced Pages, 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). ] (]) 17:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
] from the past month (September 2024).
:], 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. ] (]) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tl|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.{{pb}}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. ] (]) 18:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::], 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 ] is supposed to have broken. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:], I have reverted those edits. Thanks for bringing it up. ] (]) 18:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Your welcome. I hope the editor just made a mistake. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 02:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:For every one who's interested, please see ]. ] (]) 21:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Just to clarify posts on Miijumaaru talk page ==
]


The conversation I pinged you in at was a continuation of the post right above at . 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 <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> 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. ] (]) 20:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


== On a side note to above template talk ==
] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}

] '''Guideline and policy news'''
*] are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to ] (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with ] from October 8 to 14, a ] from October 22 to 24, and ] from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at ].
* Following ], the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion ] to ]. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
* A ] is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an ] process.

] '''Arbitration'''
* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.
* An arbitration case regarding ] has been opened.
* Editors are invited to ''']''' to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until ''23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC)''.

] '''Miscellaneous'''
* If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put ] and ] on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1248355798 -->

== October music ==
{{User QAIbox
| image = Dahlias, Elisengarten, Aachen.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
You may remember ], my ] as ]. ] was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with ] mentioned in story and music. --] (]) 12:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my ] story today. -] (]) 09:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

== An editor ==


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. ] (]) 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Was wondering if you could take a look at this:
*That's a good question, and I don't have an answer for that--but I think ] 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. ] (]) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I posted at Manual of Style/Layout first to see if anyone knows the answer. Thanks. ] (]) 22:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== AfD sock ==
{{Userlinks|Guardiansmells}} ] (]) 09:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)


There's something seriously wrong with {{noping|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?--] (]) 01:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tps}} I've reported and reverted {{ping|GuardianH}}. They have been blocked.
*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. ] (]) 13:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:If they turn up again, I would suggest reporting straight away to ]. ] (]) 10:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
**Thanks. Later, after logging out, it occurred to me that the new user's name is similar to {{U|Ohnoitsjamie}}, not similar enough to block for impersonation, but I wondered if the user's conduct rings any bells, Jamie?--] (]) 15:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:The edits have been rev/del by {{u|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}}. ] (]) 10:50, 4 October 2024 (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. <b>] ]</b> 15:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Haha thanks to everyone for handling this. I'll forgo my usual ANI2.0 fee. ] (]) 15:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::Ah that LTA. ], this is not the first time they're picking on you, right? I have seen those edits before but I don't remember who they attacked. ] (]) 15:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC) ****Sorry to disappoint you. ;) ] (]) 16:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
****See analysis on ] - she did nominate multiple vanity bio/company pages, and I think those will actually get deleted. --] (]) 16:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] Unfortunately, the person behind this particular user has been at this for quite a long time — about a year, I would guess, and always with the same request that I cannot oblige. I have no idea of who it might be but they've been able to evade several, several blocks only to come back again (perhaps they are using a VPN?). I never thought I would get so determined a ]. ] (]) 17:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
*****If many of the nominations have merit, it makes her less disruptive, but not less suspicious.--] (]) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Well is there a name, an SPI, an LTA report? That might be helpful in blocking though it might do little to prevent it. I'm really sorry you have to deal with this. People are sometimes awful, and people on the internet are more easily more awful. Have you emailed Trust and Safety, or ArbCom? ] (]) 19:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
**** CU would probably be stale, but ] 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. <b>] ]</b> 17:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::My assumption has always been that this particular user has been banned on a parent account via an SPI reported some time ago for similar serious attacks, but has been determined such that they have found some way to circumnavigate the IP ban by way of a VPN or some other program. This "user" has varying degrees of interest, as they pop up every other month or so reverting my edits and leaving those messages. From which particular SPI I have no idea. If they've been able to circumnavigate the original SPI I don't know how fruitful another one can be.
*****HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU REMEMBER STUFF LIKE THAT ] (]) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't know what Trust & Safety or ArbCom can do if there is no way to pinpoint this user's actual location and/or the person can just bypass it, and even then I don't know if it is just one person. Doug Weller semi-protected my talk page for these attacks and others. ] (]) 22:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
****** That's a great question; there's plenty of more useful stuff I wish that I remembered. <b>] ]</b> 17:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] and ]. These are really important in matters like this. ] (]) 00:18, 6 October 2024 (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)?--] (]) 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
********Yep--by ] and, to stay on the topic of memory, by you. ;) ] (]) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
********It's documented here, ], and Jpgordon checked after an unblock request in 2018. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 18:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
**********Hmm no I don't remember that. ;) ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! == == A barnstar for you! ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" {| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | 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). ] (]) 12:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For hard work cleaning up the site and being very active. Thank you! ] &nbsp; ] 20:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
|} |}
*Sure thing, ]--it was your edit that led me to it. ] (]) 20:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC) *I appreciate that--but I'm even stricter than you are: I think it's almost always a euphemism for "work"... ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
***], 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. ] (]) 16:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Block suggestion == == ] ==


Thanks for your edits at ]. I had prepared this for a COI report, but was waiting for that editor's response:
Greetings, I saw you just blocked these IPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/77.29.179.155, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/77.29.151.66, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/77.29.164.227 and https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/77.29.162.92). I just discovered that probably this user ] is related to them because both of them are from Tetovo, Macedonia and the edits made by this user are identical to the ones made from those IPs. Here you can see that he sometimes edit with two of the banned IPs (77.29.162.92 and 77.29.164.227) and with his own user indistinctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/? ] (]) 20:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
*On November 30, 2023, that editor stated : "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".
*I saw your report but I have nothing to see on the connection. The user was warned for logged-out editing; let's see if that works. Also, IPs aren't "banned"--this may seem like semantics, but it does matter. Thanks, ] (]) 21:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
*That editor then made a number of edits at ] 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 , 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. ] (]) 12:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== What's wikitweet ? ==
*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. ] (]) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
You mentioned it to me a few days ago on an article talk. What is wikitweet?? ] (]) 22:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
*Just something I made up. It really should exist. ] (]) 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC) ::I'll try to add some well-sourced content back to the article. Cheers. ] (]) 17:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sure. You think, ], the subject is notable, that organization? Cause all I see in a quick search is some promotional BS. It may be better to consider . ] (]) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
**On Kennedy and Schlossberg matter, there's been a pattern of potential COI editing. Two user names, and several Philippines IP to circumvent natural consensus building process. I see there's one more user name with a history of adding unsourced/poorly sourced contents that's also involved on this subject area as you might've picked up in the discussion on Jack Schlossberg talk page. Did you see any ] signs of socking or other unusual attributes, such as also editing from Philippines? ] (]) 17:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
***{{U|Graywalls}}, I don't remember the exact results of my check on Unfriend, but they must have been clean or I would have acted on it. There is no SPI on the three socks; you could start one and add those names and the IPs. I'm not sure which names you mean, but SPI is really the best way to go. ] (]) 20:31, 9 October 2024 (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 ; hope that's okay with you. Then we can take it from there. ] (]) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::: is where it got messed up. ] (]) 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
**Didn't Jimbo do something of the sort? It was called WT Tribune, if I remember correctly. ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 17:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
{{quote frame|quote=Utah's tech community has been nicknamed Silicon Slopes, a reference to California's world famous Silicon Valley high tech commnity.|source={{cite book|title=Utah: Third Edition|series=It's My State!|edition=3rd|author1-first=Doug|author1-last=Sanders|author2-first=Lisa M.|author2-last=Herrington|author3-first=Kerry Jones|author3-last=Waring|publisher=Cavendish Square Publishing|year=2015|isbn=9781627131780|chapter=Making a Living|page=73}}|width=100%}}
***Seems to be still around: ]. ] &#124; <sup> ]</sup> 17:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
{{quote frame|quote=Increasingly a growing technology sector&mdash;the so-called Silicon Slopes&mdash;has developed around the Salt Lake&ndash;Utah County line.|source={{cite book|title=Utah Politics and Government: American Democracy Among a Unique Electorate|series=Politics and Governments of the American States|author1-first=Adam R.|author1-last=Brown|publisher=University of Nebraska Press|year=2018|isbn=9781496207852|page=48}}|width=100%}}
****Interesting. I wonder how "British" it is. {{U|HJ Mitchell}}, I assume you're on this, right? ] (]) 20:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
{{quote frame|quote=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 |source={{cite journal|journal=Utah Historical Quarterly|volume=82|issue=3|editor1-first=J. Cecil|editor1-last=Alter|publisher=Utah State Historical Society|year=2014|page=188|title=THIS WAS THE PLACE: The Making and Unmaking of Utah|author1-first=Jared|author1-last=Farmer|doi=10.2307/45063063|url=https://jaredfarmer.net/s/Farmer-This-Was-the-Place-Making-Unmaking-Utah.pdf}}|width=100%}}
*****Nope. But then I don't really "do" social media besides Facebook and even that's hit and miss. ] &#124; ] 22:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
The non-advertorial independent sources strongly disagree with that first paragraph, Doktoro.
******Hmm Harry that's not entirely true; you're always spouting liberal stuff there. ] (]) 22:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I am inclined to take the word of the {{plainlink|1=https://www.history.upenn.edu/people/faculty/jared-farmer|2=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.

] (]) 07:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== Helloooooo ==
*], 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. ] (]) 17:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

**Take out your mask and pass {{harvnb|Gustin|2013}} along to ], Doktoro. That, in addition to the history professor, will get you the ] connection. ] (]) 09:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Can I ask for a rev/del (if you think it's needed) on please. It doesn't look like they're going to come up with a reference. ] (]) 22:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
***{{cite magazine|title=‘Silicon Slopes’: Google Fiber Planned For Provo, Utah|author1-first=Sam|author1-last=Gustin|date=2013-04-18|url=https://business.time.com/2013/04/18/silicon-slopes-google-fiber-planned-for-provo-utah/|magazine=]}}
*Sure thing--thanks for reporting it. ] (]) 14:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

== Template ==

I am reverting the users edits, they have been adding numerous unrelated characters to the templates. ] (]) 01:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*This is irrelevant here: the warnings are on ''your'' talk page. ] (]) 01:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
**The user has been the one making the edits and I’ve been reverting them. ] (]) 01:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
***I'm sorry, was I unclear? This is irrelevant here. ] (]) 01:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

== Unregistered user suspicions ==

Hello, I'm just contacting you as you're the first on the suggested list of Recently Active Users. My question is, is there some easy way to vet an unregistered user who only has a handful of edits in their entire edit history? I feel like this issue comes up from time to time, where I'm getting in an argument with someone who could well just be a troll or a one-issue-only editor or some personal vendetta warrior who often disappears from existence after something like a month or so. (In other words, are there any quick signs to know if I'm wasting my time talking to someone?) You can see my disgreement with this user (or users?) ]. I really don't mean to be hastily accusatory or cynical, but I've been burned more than once. It's a serious inquiry to avoid this or future frustrations. Thanks for any support you can give. ] (]) 01:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*Hmm interesting, ]. I'm sure some of the talk page watchers can add to these quick comments. In this case (I haven't looked at the actual edits) it seems like a drive-by user who's riding a hobby horse from a few different IPs (geolocate may shed some light on that). The longer answer is no, that's not an easy way, and the best thing to have is the thing I'm missing: a longterm memory that recalls details about article content, usernames, geolocation, etc. So earlier today I reverted a new user who was adding presidential election data to small communities in Massachusetts, and I ''know'' I saw that the other day--but I can't recall article or editor names. But very often returning trolls have their hobby horses, and some editors keep records of returning trolls; I know ] does, with IP addresses etc., and I think ] does as well, in sandboxes/user space--but they're dealing with people who've been screwing around for years.{{pb}}Wasting your time--in this case it's weird. You got two IPs that geolocate to South America, but it all started with . I checked for proxies but found nothing; still, I think you are dealing with one single editor who's riding a hobby horse. My advice? Well you did the right thing by opening a talk page discussion, but I'd add that you can make sure, every time, to welcome and/or warn such editors, to create a paper trail of warnings that can, eventually, result in a block or semi-protection, if necessary. But these are all practical things and, I'm afraid, don't really answer your real question, which is a really interesting and difficult one. ] (]) 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::Responding to ping. Yes, I keep a list of long-term disruption cases relevant to me, which I compile as I identify them by style and behavior. (Drmies, one of the cases in my list is ], which I listed because they were adding presidential vote tables to lots of city articles in a partisan manner. They are likely a different person than your recent encounter.) The key to catching them is to keep engaged in a general interest area for an extended time, after which you'll be better equipped to identify repeated efforts of disruptive behavior as coming from the same person. Geolocation of the IP is a critically important factor. Named accounts don't give away location as easily, so it's more about behavior and style similarities. ] (]) 03:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks, both. Seems like the best course of action is to wait it out a bit. ] (]) 15:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

== Empanadas ==

are delicious. Spam is disgusting. ] (]) 01:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This may or may not be a stupid idea, but please check out ]. ] (]) 02:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

== Sock ==
{{vandal|ERFWillNeverRip}} is an obvious sock of {{noping|CrazyLoverFutbolLoko}} who you blocked. Thought you might be interested. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*Wait. Is that the idiots with their, what was it--action group? radical front? ] (]) 01:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
**I indeffed the sock. ] (]) 01:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*"Faction". I see that {{U|Cullen328}} took care of that--thanks Jim. Anyway, this is really sad. ] (]) 01:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)


== Email == == Email ==


{{You've got mail}} ~ ] (]) 16:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC) {{ygm}} ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*Oh that's exciting. ] (]) 16:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC) *{{U|Yamla}}, yes--go for it. Thank you. ] (]) 17:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*OK you did the right thing, and I'm not sure what I can add to it (those folks are better equipped to handle it); I don't necessarily want to revert that edit and I wouldn't know what to say. I looked over some of the discussion and edits and I agree with you and the other editors on the substance. Let's hope it's not that serious? Thanks, ] (]) 16:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
**Thanks for looking into it. Sorry to throw something like that at you but glad you could take a peak. I'm hoping for the best. ~ ] (]) 17:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
***Oh, it's no problem. Thanks: we all do what we can. ] (]) 18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

== “It doesn’t say anything about representing Fayetteville or whatever” ==

The article provided as a source, word for word, says “ The interwoven “O-Z” monogram is symbolic of the interconnectedness and individuality of the communities in our region, anchored by its four largest cities: Bentonville, Rogers, Springdale, and Fayetteville.”

Please review your decision to block me from editing a page when I was trying to add useful information about a sports team that represents Fayetteville. You and the other users haven’t bothered deleting the bit about the Naturals who also don’t play in Fayetteville. It’s unbelievable I can’t add useful information to Misplaced Pages without it being reverted and me being blocked from doing so. ] (]) 23:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:I've indeffed the user (sitewide).--] (]) 23:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks {{U|Bbb23}}. It gets worse, though--, for instance. ] (]) 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::That's what's so great about Misplaced Pages: there's no bottom. I'm practicing not being cynical, but it's not working.--] (]) 00:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


== Just got back from a weekend trip ==
== Suspected sockpuppet ==


Is there something pressing I should be looking at this eve? ] (]) 01:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Could you check if ] is a sockpuppet of ]? That new account has the same interests and writing style.
*Haha I don't know. Can you make OSU ''and'' ND lose? I saw MidAtlanticBaby was at it again, yawn. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Ye Guofu ==
And don't worry @] if you are not a sockpuppet, we are just making sure that a blocked user isn't breaking the rules. ] (]) 11:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*Well done. Thanks. ] (]) 17:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*:@] He's keeping it up. @] is his new one ] (]) 09:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*:And I think that this is also him https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Franco-Spanish_War_(1635%E2%80%931659)&diff=prev&oldid=1242689829 ] (]) 10:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)


Thanks for catching that. It was a misclick. Things happen. ] (]) 20:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Greetings ==
*I caught something? Yeah, some awful bug--been coughing and wheezing and sweating for days now. {{U|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. ] (]) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== Article assistance ==
I got introduced to ] by stalking your page about 5 years ago and thought I would return the favor by mentioning ] to you since I think you would like them a lot based on the style of The Hu. Enjoy! <span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue">]<sup>'''537'''<sub>]</sub> (]|])</sup></span> 04:51, 20 October 2024 (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 ]. 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.--] (]) 18:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
P.S. Another new one I really dig a whole heck of a lot which I recently discovered, but isn't really related to those styles is . <span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue">]<sup>'''537'''<sub>]</sub> (]|])</sup></span> 05:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
*Oh, thanks--that's really interesting. I think the Hu have sort of taken off, and I'm always a huge fan of preserving local cultures and languages. Thanks! ] (]) 16:42, 20 October 2024 (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. ] (]) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
**They were amazing at ] in 2021.--] (]) 17:05, 20 October 2024 (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.--] (]) 21:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
***Oh wow--you enjoyed? Besides Godspeed I've only seen desert blues bands the last couple of years--Mdou Moctar, Bombino, Tinariwen--and I love them. ] (]) 17:13, 20 October 2024 (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 Hard''s left. ] (]) 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
****Even when you're sick, you're funny.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


OK "badass" is not enough credit. He worked with ] during the ] which killed maybe 15 million people. Have a look at --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 , and there's . 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! ] (]) 22:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*It sparks joy to find the Hu mentioned here. I managed to get my zoomer friend hooked on vinyl by showing him a Hu special edition on sale in Toronto. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 18:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
**I dropped an Otyken link to my friend, and he replied with ] () and ] (). For your listening pleasure. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 18:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
**:I've known about Heilung for a while, but never heard of Wardruna. I did recently come across some medieval "witchy" type of music from a group called that is in a similar nordic style though. <span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue">]<sup>'''537'''<sub>]</sub> (]|])</sup></span> 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
**::I think we gave Faun a listen while we were all waiting for ], ], and ] (it was a busy week!)... "Blot" does sound familiar. On that subject, Drmies, I find myself returning to Babymetal's (acoustic version) a lot. I love acoustic covers of metal songs. If you like glam metal, Beast in Black is definitely worth a listen as well... they're newer, but they are strongly glam flavoured. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 20:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
**:::Thanks. I'll check out Beast in Black. It's funny you mentioned Babymetal because that was another new one I recently discovered also. Anywho, hope you all have a great week. <span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue">]<sup>'''537'''<sub>]</sub> (]|])</sup></span> 20:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
**::::That same friend and I had gotten discussing Asian metal, including ], and I found myself hooked. I've seen both Baby Metal and ]. Meanwhile, he prefers death growls, so ] was more his cup of tea... the fact that ] is an MP who has performed at campaign rallies in full death metal garb () helped. Have a good one! &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 20:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
**:::::Very cool. Thanks for sharing that. <span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue">]<sup>'''537'''<sub>]</sub> (]|])</sup></span> 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


== A kitten for you! == == Your AN request ==


{{U|Voorts}} and I , ], and fell to the floor.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
]
*So who got the ten bucks? It's $10 for legal threats, right? ] (]) 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm guessing, by my watchlist activity, that you kinda went through a lot last night. I figured you wanted some Cute and Wholesome on your talk page.
**My standard retainer is $50K and your first born child. ] (]/]) 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
***Her retainer was only $5000. Are we talking about the same thing? ] (]) 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
****You get what you pay for. ] (]/]) 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*****{{smalldiv|1=I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. ] (]/]) 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. ] (]) 01:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*I just want to see what kind of letter these guys wrote and who they sent it to. ] (]/]) 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
**As a member of Drmies' legal team, I'll try to remember to send you a copy.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
***Shoot I got it all wrong: it's ]'s team who should be getting the letter. Seriously, I don't get it. I'm dealing with something similar at ]--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. ] (]) 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
****As I understand the threats, it is clearly a case of ] ] &#124; <sup> ]</sup> 00:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Hayden Miller Productions/ActuallyHayden ==
] ] ] 18:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>


Hello - when I noticed , I opened an ] 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! ] (]) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
]
*I too feel as though there must be more cuteness. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 18:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC) *Yeah, it's all too obvious, isn't it. Let me have a look and see what's best. Thanks, ] (]) 01:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Quick A134 sockblock ==
*], ], I appreciate that. It was rough. It's a rebuilding year? Thank you for your concern, and next time I'm wearing a different shirt. ] (]) 22:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
**Wait. You're not talking about football. Haha all the rest is just water off a duck's back--I assume that this is about User:MidAtlanticBaby? What can I say. So much online work and it's all for nothing. ] (]) 22:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
**Truth be told, I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure ''what'' happened, I just know ''something'' happened. Glad this cheered you up, though. {{smiley}} ] ] ] 22:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
***Always. Gotta keep trekkin... something I tell myself every day. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 22:19, 20 October 2024 (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 <em>quite</em> 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?
== There is no need to be rude. ==
* {{checkuser|Tubend}}
If it's not obvious on username and behavior alone, see .<small>Courtesy ping ], since I mentioned this to them elsewhere.</small> <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 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 ] was him. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 07:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
If you don't like someone's contribution in articles such as ], edit it and move on. Snarky remarks and belittling alienate new users looking to make a meaningful difference on this site. As an administrator you should not only know this, but also project humility and understanding toward others. ] (]) 22:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, they removed content, which we established in a ] was against content norms; would have AGF until Tamzin mentioned the LTA matter. ] <small>(]) &#124; :) &#124; he/him &#124; </small> 07:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. I'd almost forgotten about the outing and the smearing. ] (]) 14:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::The right-wing trolls are out again, {{U|Tamzin}}. ] (]) 14:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:51, 23 January 2025

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151


This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Mail

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Advice needed

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)

CS1 error on B. J. Hollars

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. (Fix | Ask for help)

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

CS1 error on B. J. Hollars

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. (Fix | Ask for help)

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

User:Pinzunski/User:SukunaZenin

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)

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

The Misplaced Pages Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

  • Les Jours and East View Press join the library
  • Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

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

Banned cease-and-desist photographer

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)

(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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Just to clarify posts on Miijumaaru talk page

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)

On a side note to above template talk

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)

AfD sock

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)

A barnstar for you!

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)

Silicon Slopes

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)

Email

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

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

Just got back from a weekend trip

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

Ye Guofu

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)

Article assistance

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)

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)

Your AN request

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

Hayden Miller Productions/ActuallyHayden

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)

Quick A134 sockblock

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?

If it's not obvious on username and behavior alone, see .Courtesy ping User:JuxtaposedJacob, since I mentioned this to them elsewhere. -- Tamzin (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 (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)
User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions Add topic