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 16:30, 28 February 2020 view sourceThucydides411 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,779 edits →BLP violation at Julian Assange talk← 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 
Line 3: Line 3:
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 126 |counter = 151
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 5
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(15d)
|archive = User talk:Drmies/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Drmies/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}


== Talking == ==Mail==
{{ygm}}
{{Talkback|Mutt Lunker}}


{{-}}
== Long time no chat (lol) ==
== A barnstar for you! ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
Hi ]! While patrolling recent changes, I ran into an editor ({{noping|Arrely11331}}) who kept changing the domain of sources on a bunch of articles to be 'gaylesbiantimes'. After looking at the history of one of the articles, I just happened to see that there was another account with a similar username that was blocked. And, as you can probably predict, this account is a sock puppet. The reason I'm messaging you about this is because you were the user who blocked the account that I happened to spot ({{noping|Ars3nal311}}). Looking at the block summary you added, it looks like this user was trying to pull wool over your eyes by saying that what he's doing is legitimate. I was wondering if you happen to have any more information about this user, or if there are other accounts that you've blocked. The edits being made, while small, stick out like a sore thumb. I'm just not sure of what he's trying to accomplish... Advertising? Trolling? What also has me concerned is the fact that some of the edits by the account I blocked were ''modifying'' the URL of the source, which was already set to be 'gaylesbiantimes', and on articles of subjects where it's quite unlikely that this domain is going to cover as a source. I'm wondering if there's ongoing disruption that goes deeper and further back... ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 11:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
*{{U|Oshwah}}, I don't think I have much to add. I was alerted to the edits by edit summaries/comments by {{U|John Broughton}} and {{U|Epicgenius}}, and followed up, with the conclusion that you have already seen. But I don't know if you clicked on the link (my subscription to '']'' lapsed, unfortunately, with the magazine's demise): it's . I don't know if anyone needs bigger loads of semen, it's certainly something the world doesn't need, and Misplaced Pages didn't need those edits, haha. No, I didn't find any others; I just ran CU, and the IPs are different but geolocate to the same country, whatever that's worth--but it does seem like a concerted effort, and if there were two, there might be more. I wonder if other editors have seen these edits. ] (]) 17:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
** {{U|Oshwah}} - Clearly the domain has been taken over by someone who uses it only for spam. Archived pages (at archive.org) are still valuable, but links to the site itself are not. I and there weren't any active links to the current site, so that's fine - the two identified user accounts that that made the edits apparently haven't been followed by any others. And hopefully they'll give this up as a waste of time. 21:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
|-
|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 ==
==] nomination of ]==
]


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)
A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
*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)
**Okay. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
***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)
****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)


== CS1 error on ] ==
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 01:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that ] performed by you, on the page ], may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
*What a strange discussion is. I have found that such category discussions all too easily evolve into antf*cking. {{U|Debresser}}, you frequently make some sense, maybe you can explain how religion/ethnicity is trivial ("Jewish engravers"), and nationality is not ("Dutch engravers"). That some engraver ''happens'' to work in NL, so what? That's sort of rhetorical, but not entirely. And you ''know'' that there were so many Jewish engravers in Amsterdam (and some cities in Germany) because they were Jewish and fled other places, so in fact it is ''not'' a coincidence that there are a lot of Jewish Dutch engravers. But seeing the trivializing jokes by people like SMcCandlish really take the fun out of it. I think next time I'm just not going to bother and thus write up categories that are red links. ] (]) 02:40, 20 January 2020 (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. ( | )
:: I agree it is no coincidence. I also agree that SMcCandlish can be rather unpleasant at times. As to your main question:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
:: Usually, fields of art or of craftsmanship are influenced by "schools", being centers of learning and tradition. These are often national. The Dutch masters of the Golden Age from the 17th century come to mind. These are usually not ethnic. They are called "Dutch" not because of the fact that they were ethnically Dutch, but because of the physical location. As that is an easy to identify reference. ] (]) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Debresser}}, that was most definitely an interesting read. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->] (]) 23:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== CS1 error on ] ==
:::: Please elaborate. ] (]) 07:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that ] performed by you, on the page ], may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
::Easy and frequently meaningless... I wish more people would read Patrick Geary's ''The Myth of Nations''. What applies to the 17th century in one way does not apply to the 20th in the same way. Anyway, I'm digressing--thanks. ] (]) 21:24, 20 January 2020 (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. ( | )
::: If you have a PDF version, I'd be happy to receive it. But at first glance I'd say nations often come with their specific culture etc., so not meaningless at all. ] (]) 07:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->] (]) 23:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ]/] ==
== Tympanus ==


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.
Hello Dr. Mies,


Attentively ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Tympanus, whom he just blocked, appears to be using an IP to comment now .--] (]) 23:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
: (with dramatic umpire gestures) "Bllllloooccckkkked" <b>] ]</b> 00:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
::Well watch Jamie run off with my $2 for a block evasion block. ] (]) 00:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


== Books & Bytes – Issue 66 ==
== Non-gilly weed ==

Ah ha! ] Now I understand. Of course I know that meaning of "weed", but the word has never been actively used in that meaning in any circle I have been a member of, so it does not automatically spring to mind when I see the word, as it evidently did to yours when you saw that user name. As for 420, that is totally new to me. Evidently I am seriously out of touch. All part of getting older, I suppose. ] ] (]) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
*Hmm you know, I wonder if kids these days say "weed". I'll ask my kids--but this is the vaping generation. "420", I think I learned that somewhat recently--maybe around the time I started editing Misplaced Pages, and I see it in usernames all the time, frequently in combination with "69". That wasn't in the username, of course, and again I thank you for your advocacy. BTW I'm still getting used to you not being JamesBWatson (or "user formerly known as"). I thought we also had a User:JBL, but not so, it seems. Take care, ] (]) 16:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
*{{U|JBL}}, here's one: ]. ;) ] (]) 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

== magic ==

I think might warrant some CU magic dust, I suspect there's been years of logged out editing and since they edited in the last month, data won't be too stale. ] (]) 16:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
*I also can't believe ] was ever kept at AFD, it's also part of the now blocked users attempts to spam (though it was created many years ago by someone else.) but you may want to take a hatchet to that too. ] (]) 16:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

:{{tpw|safe=yes}} what exactly do you want to run checkuser on? There is one account in the retention window between both of those pages, plus some IPs we won't connect. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
::I know you won't connect them publicly but there's clearly been some long term paid editing by that user and at least 2 others with semi recent edits. I'll just e-mail the paid queue so as not to give them more tips on how to evade scrutiny. ] (]) 17:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{U|Ivanvector}} I looked through the history, real quick, but that now-blocked account--well, there's an edit from last December, so I suppose we could get something from that, but {{U|Praxidicae}}, I think use of CU has only limited benefits here, esp. since there's no recent IP edits either. I don't know. It's possible that some IP will provide the link to some sock farm, but we're dealing only with two articles, so far. ] (]) 17:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Ivanvector, I see User:Arr4, a sock of Orangemoody, in the history of ]. That can be a coincidence, of course--and do I remember correctly that Orangemoody socks sometimes made decent edits unrelated to what they were getting paid for, in hopes of being deemed legitimate? ] (]) 17:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
::::Rutan & Tucker was also a repeat draft creation by the Pizza guy before it was successfully created in mainspace by Rockencsh. ] (])
:::::(]) Orangemoody is just a little bit before my time but I do think you're correct, and Arr4's edits look at least passable, but at the same time from what I understand about Orangemoody checkuser was of little use. Still, that's all six years ago, there's nothing checkuser would reveal here in any case. Unless you have some evidence that the editor behind Bilder4u is socking ''recently'', I really can't help you. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::I was simply discussing an option with Drmies, not demanding anything. There’s a lot of history behind this but I’m aware of the limits of CU. ] (]) 21:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::], it's all good--thanks. Without your edits I wouldn't have seen this spammer. ] (]) 21:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::], you're a proud Canadian: I want you to know I've been playing Rush in the car all week. With the kids I went over the lyrics of "Witch Hunt", a remarkably timely song. ] (]) 21:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{U|Ivanvector}}, {{U|Kelapstick}}, calling all Canadians: if you can make ] look a little better, plz help out! ] (]) 02:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::There has been a lot of enthusiastic air drumming this week, yes. Mostly in the house, though, the car stereo is not powerful enough. Funny you should mention Witch Hunt, I just happened to have given away my extra LP of ] not much more than a week ago. I've mostly been listening to '']'', though, since I was at the second Toronto show where most of it was recorded. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 01:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Is it good? And how is that ''Feedback'' album? Rush live--I'm still wondering what to buy, which one to buy, whether it's worth it or whether I'm just getting a Greatest Hits album. ] (]) 03:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::They are all good! R30 is also wonderful and if you have the DVD, you get a bunch of unreleased videos from their past included. Rush in Rio has too much noise from the crowd bleeding in and Neil Peart apologizes in the liner notes that it couldn't be edited out. You need 2112 if you don't have it and Vapor Trails is excellent for a later album. Feedback is good but a little shorter as it is an EP and has all covers. If you went over the lyrics for Witch Hunt with your kids then you might try the same for . Counterparts is really good as well. Get them all. :)<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 03:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::Haha BH--you must think I'm a rookie. I can't listen to 2112 anymore--too baroque and libertarian, and same with "Trees". No, I'm not getting them all, but I was interested in ''Feedback''. I left off after ''Moving Pictures'', so at some point I gotta get ''something'' more recent, haha. ''Vapor Trails''? OK--thanks! ] (]) 13:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::Since you are limiting yourself ;), Vapor Trails and Counterparts are the two studio albums that I would recommend at the top of all those studio albums since Moving Pictures. You can't go wrong with either.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 14:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Thanks. And I am going to get ''Feedback''--I'm interested. ] (]) 15:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I have '']'' and '']'' on vinyl and both are solid live albums from the band's early career. On the first they enthusiastically preview a track from their "upcoming album" ''2112'', and the second was recorded after the ''Moving Pictures'' tour. ''R40'' is lovely: they play a reverse timeline of their music, starting with "The Alchemist" from '']'' (also an excellent album) and working backwards to their debut album, and not just the hits like some older bands do on tour. Really the recording is worth the trip just for Neil Peart's interpretation of "Working Man", ] was no hack but Peart blows him away. But take BH's advice: get them all, you won't hate any of them :) ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

== I guess this won't surprise you ==

] ] 19:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
*Maybe not. "Socialistic"--ha. Yeah, Hitler says it was for all people so it's not right-wing... Thanks Doug. ] (]) 21:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

== ] ==

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

== ] vandal ==

*{{pagelinks|The Doors}}
Hi Doctor. Regarding . The most complete list of what was done (IP blocks and article semiprotections) is now at ]. No objection if you want to relocate the information from that thread and put it in a subpage of ].

For a while, I was using underlines to show which articles were semied. When I get some time, I might try to update that section with your recent admin actions so we know where the remaining gaps are. Some Doors articles can be left open as honeypots. No point in opening an SPI except it would be a central place to stash the information. Or we could open up an WP:LTA report but I have heard that is a serious step. I don't know if a long-term case of nuisance vandalism would be enough of a reason for an LTA. Thanks, ] (]) 23:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
*Gotcha--thank you Ed. I think you're right on all counts. I mean, I do think that an LTA case is warranted but my threshold is fairly low, and the real question is what purpose it would serve. As far as I'm concerned the LTA section is like a clearinghouse, but a note on the Doors talk page with a link will probably suffice. Thank you, ] (]) 01:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

== Regarding Crunchyroll and Fandompost Cites ==

Hello, Drmies. I'm sorry for adding those Crynchyroll and Fandompost citations. I don't want to add the citations from fansites and commercial websites anymore.
] (]) 10:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
*Thank you. I think I noticed that you no longer included some of those, and that is why you haven't been blocked yet--in other words, I had high hopes that you would see that those things just aren't reliable sources. But keep in mind also what one of those other editors said--for relatively simple, factual things we just don't need three or four or more links. Thanks for the note, and happy editing. ] (]) 18:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

== Hi ==

Hi Drmies,

I would appreciate your input in a dispute. Would you have some time and energy for that?--] (]) 21:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
*Energy yes, but time, not so much right now. How big is this thing? ] (]) 22:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
** No big deal. Never mind. All the best.--] (]) 21:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

== Citations ==

Hellom Drmies ! Which is reliable or unreliable ? The most reliable is Anime News Network. Crunchyroll and Fandompost are not reliable because they were fansites. ] (]) 00:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
*There are those who think that ANN is reliable. I personally don't doubt its reliability so much, I just think it's not a very good secondary source because really it's just an industry site--meaning it doesn't provide coverage as much as it offers press releases dressed up as news. So its editorial philosophy would be something like "whatever the companies tell us, we publish." So, for example, ANN hits should never count towards notability, in an AfD discussion for instance. ] (]) 01:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
**Hello, Drmies! Excuse me, can I add the references from Anime News Network ? Only one reference to be added. Not more. ] (]) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
***], you don't need my permission to do anything--I ''think'' it's generally used, so it can't be all bad. ] (]) 23:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
****This permission may have been misconstrued, as {{u|Yoga Widya 1994}} has been copying/pasting text from Anime News Network into articles, and may need a timeout until they can demonstrate that they understand how copyright works. See ] for the templates I left before I noticed that you'd had some discussions with them before. ] (]) 19:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
*****Drmies, I know you've got other things going on, but this user's recent edits are disruptive. ] with an odd copy-paste of part of the warning message, so I thought it was simply a CIR issue. Today I see that they have {{diff|diff=940586069|oldid=940034136|label=changed the date format in only one reference}} in ] (my ], which I have been trying to slooowly change from typically shitty JPop article to acceptable encyclopedia article), {{diff|diff=prev|oldid=940596958|label=similarly changed the date format only in one reference in another article}}, {{diff|diff=prev|oldid=940549829|label=replaced a reference that supported a claim with an Anime News Network reference that does not}}, and {{diff|diff=prev|oldid=940544454|label=removed an archive link}}. This is on top of the previous copyvio and pointless adding of references from ANN's 2014 PR summaries to articles. The Nogizaka46 edit is particularly difficult to dismiss as a coincidence or accident. Language issue? Obsession with ANN articles from 2014? Who knows. But why spend any more productive editor time dealing with it? ] (]) 21:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
******You had me at Moby-Dick. I don't know what to do here, really. I do think that competence is an issue, which is why I asked them that one question. The copyright issues--I saw that a few of them had been handled by {{U|Hut 8.5}}, and maybe they have something to say about the matter. It's a half a dozen, which isn't much, but I think you're wondering the same thing I am: are they getting it? Is our children learning? ] (]) 22:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
*******I don't have any particular opinion on it, I must have handled them as part of clearing out ]. But yes those edits do look strange and I think there may be a competency issue. ''''']''''' 23:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
*******Their answer does not impress me, and neither does going through the daily ANN PR from 2014 and adding announcements (of future events) as evidence of those events happening. But I don't have to be impressed, and unimpressive edits are still an improvement over copyvio/disruptive edits. Thanks for asking the questions. ] (]) 20:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

== Response to your feedback on editing ==

Hello Drmies, thank you for your message about my edits to the Draft page on Susan Magsamen. I wonder if you might be more specific about which parts of the draft are promotional? I recently attended a talk by Magsamen and I thought she would be a good person about whom to create my first page. That said, I am new to editing Misplaced Pages (this is the first page I've ever tried to create), and like any beginner I'm sure I will make mistakes. If you could be more specific that would be enormously helpful. Thank you! ] (] 10:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
*{{U|ECDonaldson}}, I'm looking at a couple of things in particular. For instance, starting a section on her books with "a beautiful celebration of family life,’ empowering parents and children to connect", etc.--it's sourced from a review, but it's pretty much blurb writing and one shouldn't pick one quote to embellish what should be a list, or if not a list, a selection with a wide array of reviews (plus, books, yes, but we shouldn't list articles unless secondary sources prove them notable). The "Public Engagement" section is essentially a kind of meta-coverage, reminiscent of a folder with press clippings. We don't list interviews that people have given--imagine if we did that for every person. "Honors and awards" is likewise overdone, and the sourcing there is not OK: I see links to publishers, to organizations handing out awards, and one to something she seems to have written herself. Plus, a bunch of the award-giving entities there to not appear to be notable, and so this is very much like resume writing, or putting together a tenure and promotion application. The External links section falls foul of ] and just emphasizes the promotional flavor of that draft. I hope this helps. Thank you, ] (]) 15:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
{{U|Drmies}}, thank you so much for this feedback! It is extremely helpful and opens my eyes in terms of what is actually appropriate to include. I will set about editing it down immediately; I seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "notable," on the one hand, and overestimated the credibility of some of my sources (think a review, and articles, would be okay to include). Would it be okay to trouble you to take another look once I'm done paring it down? Thank you again, ] (] 08:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Drmies}} Honestly, given that {{u|ECDonaldson}} is trying to edit in good faith I believe that you shouldn't give a level 3 warning right away. I don't really like to give really severe warnings right away, but given that the user is writing a draft I believe I'd settle with a level 2 warning at best. Seeing a red warning ''really'' scares someone off. ] (]; ]) (]) 04:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
::Well, good faith, sure, scared off, probably not, given edits such as . But what do I know. ] (]) 04:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi {{u|Drmies}} and {{u|The Lord of Math}}, thank you both for your messages. As someone who is just learning, I try not to be scared off by things...but it also helps that I didn't actually realize that a permanent "warning" had been added to my draft. Nor did I realize, in fact, that anyone could see my draft as I was creating it. I'd say this was mostly a pleasant surprise, since I'm sure my draft would have run into even bigger issues (or just been flatly rejected) if I had submitted it without any feedback. That said, where is the room for learning? If my new draft page has been branded with a "severe warning" and it's not even off the ground, how can I recover? I have certainly made some massive edits...but are they moving in the right direction? Thanks again for your guidance, ] (] 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

== Thanks for teaching me ==

Thanks for telling me what to do. I guess I just saw one of them, and it legitimately looked like "one of the other vandals down the street" - I guess I'll have to increment my scales. Thanks a lot. ] (]; ]) (]) 04:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
*Thanks. I had to revdelete all of their contributions. I see now that an IP editor, {{IP|80.230.61.184}}, had an opportunity ten minutes earlier to warn--if they had, you'd have stepped up higher too, and they'd have been blocked earlier. I'm glad they reverted but if they had left a warning... Anyway, there is no mandate that you start with 1. If it's bad, they should just get one single warning. I am having to look at all these articles: it wasn't just this a-hole who made such edits... ] (]) 04:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

== Robot Girls Z ==

Hello, Can I edit the ] article ? I want to add only one reference from Anime News Network only. Crunchyroll and Fandompost are not allowed then.
] (]) 06:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
*Yoga Widya, you don't need my permission. Have fun, go wild--but keep it encyclopedic. ] (]) 16:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

== Confused about a discussion ==

I'm having a discussion at ] that's taken some disturbing turns. ''If and only if you have some extra time'' could you take a look at this? I ''hoping'' it will soon sort itself out regardless, but I'm far from any familiar ground here. Plus I'd like to know what I may have done to trigger the... distrubation. I understand if you have more pressing issues. Thanks in either case. --]<sup>(])</sup> 23:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

==DYK for Abraham Goos==
{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that engraver ''']''' and merchant ''']''' were responsible for the first ] printed in Hebrew ''(pictured)''?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and it may be added to ] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ].
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

==DYK for Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq==
{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that engraver ''']''' and merchant ''']''' were responsible for the first ] printed in Hebrew ''(pictured)''?'' You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and it may be added to ] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ].
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

== ] ==

Thanks for cleaning it up. I have thousands of school articles on my watch list and sometimes I lose track of threads I should be following up on. ] (]) 22:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
*Ha, I certainly didn't mean to point you to either your duties or your watchlist. I kind of enjoy responding to notes from editors from years ago. Yeah, that one was pretty bad, but I must have cleaned up hundreds of em. Thanks, and take it easy, ] (]) 17:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
== Books & Bytes – Issue 37 ==


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"> <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> <div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;">
] '''The Misplaced Pages Library'''
</div>
<div style = "font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px">
]</div> ]</div>
<div style = "line-height: 1.2"> <div style="line-height: 1.2;">
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''''Books & Bytes'''''</span><br /> <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br />
Issue 37, November – December 2019 Issue 66, November – December 2024
</div> </div>
<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em"> <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
* Wikimedia and Libraries User Group
<big>''']'''</big>

<big>''']'''</big>
</div> </div>
</div> </div>
<small>On behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --] (]) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <small>Sent by ] on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:UY Scuti@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=19690504 --> <!-- 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 ==
== Administrators' newsletter – February 2020 ==


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.
] from the past month (January 2020).
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ] • ] • ] • ]
:] ]
:] ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ]
{{Col-2}}
]


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)
] '''CheckUser changes'''
*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)
] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:], 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)
{{Col-end}}
::], 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 ==
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
:* Following a ], ] are now enabled on the English Misplaced Pages. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at ].
:* The ] seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with {{tq|wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input}}. No proposed process received consensus.


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


== On a side note to above template talk ==
] '''Arbitration'''
:* Following a ], the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators {{tq|that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.}}


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)
] '''Miscellaneous'''
*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)
:* Voting in the ] will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The ] of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically to vote.
*:I posted at Manual of Style/Layout first to see if anyone knows the answer. Thanks. ] (]) 22:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:* The English Misplaced Pages has reached ]. Thank you everyone for your contributions!


== AfD sock ==


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)
----
*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)
{{center|{{flatlist|
**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)
* ]
***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)
* ]
****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)
}}}}
*****If many of the nominations have merit, it makes her less disruptive, but not less suspicious.--] (]) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (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)
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)</small>}}
*****HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU REMEMBER STUFF LIKE THAT ] (]) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Amorymeltzer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=937629575 -->
****** 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)

*******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)
== Nsmutte ==
********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)
Hey, I noticed you blocked ]. Now that we have partial blocks, I was thinking that this could actually be a useful test of the feature. If we convert this range block to be a partial block on just Misplaced Pages: namespace, my understanding is that this would prevent any IP user on that range from editing ], ], ], etc. But they could still edit regular articles, like, say, ]. What do you think? ] (]) 10:29, 2 February 2020 (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)
*], sorry, I meant to get back to you earlier--I think that's a great idea. I have played around with the function, or considered playing around with it, and I see your point--for this one that might work very well. Go ahead and change: I'll watch from the sidelines. Thanks, ] (]) 01:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
**********Hmm no I don't remember that. ;) ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've been skeptical of the partial block feature, but I think it might turn out to be ideal for the kind of trolling seen from Nsmutte, VXfC, Soft Skin, and a lot of other WP-space trolls. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 02:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
*I keep forgetting that ] exist, especially as pertaining to ] reports. ] 02:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
**Just imagine if all those years ago {{U|Acroterion}} would have blocked me from ]... I'd be much less popular on Reddit, but of course I also wouldn't have all this money Intel paid to me haha ] (]) 02:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
*** Well, that was trickier than I thought it would be. I wasn't really sure what options to set. Obviously, "Misplaced Pages" space needs to be blocked. But what about "Misplaced Pages talk"? I left that open in case someone has a legitimate complaint that needs to be posted to a noticeboard. Also, should account creation be disabled? It seems silly to disable account creation if you're going to let IP editors mostly run free? It ''forces'' them to edit without an account, which is a bit weird. So, I allowed account creation. Finally, should it be a hard block? I figured probably not. But now that means that anyone can create an account and use that account to immediate post trollish nonsense to ]. So, does the block even accomplish anything? I guess we'll see. I think it might need to be converted into a hard block eventually. ] (]) 02:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
*It seems you are under the belief that Nsmutte does not use articles, article talk pages, and userspace for his harassment, trolling, and disruptive campaigns. He does. A lot. As recently as December 2019. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
:*I know, I've seen it, but if we can place sizable rangeblocks on specific namespaces it will make life harder for them while allowing other users of the range to edit. It's one way to put a stick in their spokes. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 02:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello, Drmies ! Can you remove these tons of spamlinks such as Crunchyroll, Fandompost and Amazon.com on ] and ] as you did on ]? Because it considered as the spamlinks then.

:{{re|Yoga Widya 1994}} You may wanna take this to ]. ]] 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
::{{U|Miraclepine}}, I removed 34 of them. I don't think anyone needs to go to RSN to have it confirmed that if more than half of the references are to Amazon, there is something wrong. Next up, Microsoft Store. ] (]) 22:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
:::Thanks. FWIW ] states that {{tq|it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs)}}. ]] 22:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
::::Excellent. I know editors, even FA editors, sometimes use Amazon for basic information such as catalog numbers, but it should also be a question of balance and here the balance was clearly off. ] (]) 22:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

== ] ==

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

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

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

User seems to be from the Faroe Islands, so chances are they know jack shit of what happened in Portugal (but my money is on COI, like i said previously). Kind regards, from Portugal (they reverted me/us again, i'm close to breaking the 3RR so i better stop) --] (]) 00:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
*{{done}} Take care! ] (]) 01:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not telling you how to do your work of course, but does not seem to be the case. Utter nuisance switched to the IP and reverted again! --] (]) 15:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
*{{U|Widr}} took care of it. ] (]) 18:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
**Requested assistance at WP:FOOTY, nothing was done. Meanwhile, utter nuisance has created another account and continued vandalising. I give up, article stays like that! --] (]) 23:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
**Maybe with the note you left them (i left another, very polite; doubt it will "reach their ears in full", as English does not seem to be something they master, per edit summaries), this will stop. I doubt it veeeeeeeeeeeeeeery much, but one can only hope! Cheers, thanks again. --] (]) 00:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
***I want to go to the Faroe Islands... ] (]) 00:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

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

==DYK for Witch Hunt (Rush song)==
{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the difference between live versions of ] "''']'''" were seen as an instance of "translation" à la ]?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and it may be added to ] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ].
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

== ] ==

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

== Extended family ==

I looked and haven't a clue. It doesn't help that the user has been mostly making edits that say little about their interests. I ''have'' let the rest of my family know about our long-lost cousin. They are thrilled! --] (]) 19:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
*I am sure they are. Thanks! ] (]) 20:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

== Stupid pop-up ==
If ] for you, would you mind doing the same thing with my username? Thanks, <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 02:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

== Help? ==

I have to deal with Recent deaths (], ]), I don't want to deal also with edit-warring over an article title, '']''. It was the writers wish - obviously - to have a harmless-sounding title, and not ''Fall-Out''. Can we follow? --] (]) 18:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
*But it was published as "Fall-Out"--whether that is harmless or not, I don't know, nor do I know what her intentions were. I think our guidelines are to go with the translated title, but this is really something to hammer out on the talk page. ] (]) 20:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox
| title = ]
| image = Winterling, Kesselbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.9
| bold = Happy Valentine's Day!
| normal = ]<br />]
}}
::: I explained on my talk, - it would have been nice to have a discussion on the article talk after the first revert, instead of two more moves, and then telling me that I'm disruptive, because I interpret the guideline differently from {{diff|Talk:The Dispute Between Phoebus and Pan, BWV 201|940302809|940297370|him who wrote them}}. - Even the English cited book sources say "Die Wolke (The Cloud)" when referring to the novel, on top of the German sources. The present article ''Fall-Out'' is only good for talking about the translation, and I don't see it as the holy "common name" anywhere. + Never move an article on the Main page. --] (]) 20:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

also ], please --] (]) 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Today's '']'' became after yesterday's funeral. --] (]) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

== Does this mean... ==

Does mean the R-word is more offensive than the F-word on Misplaced Pages? :l ''']]]''' 02:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
*Absolutely. ] (]) 04:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
:: Correction - Abso-''fucking''-lutely :) ''']]]''' 05:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

==]/]?==
] On one hand, it's a reliable source, but on the other hand, it feels like using Misplaced Pages as soapbox. Your thoughts? <b>] ]</b> 18:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
*Ha. I think it's both. If it's valid, if it is suitable for an article on a business (and honestly, I don't see why it wouldn't be), does it matter what (we guess) the editor's intentions were? It's like...who is that editor that's always brought up on charges of editing at the speed of light when they were prohibited from using a bot...if you do the same thing so frequently, there's a threshold you cross. I don't know that the user is doing that. Ha, next thing you know someone is going to say there's a thin line between NOTHERE and Editor of the Month. I'm curious to see if the editor's work will gain traction on that project page that {{U|Floquenbeam}} directed them too--and Floq, while I'm here, thank you for unblocking that editor, who seems to take everything in stride. Thanks Jamie, and yeah, I'm curious. BTW THEY PAID ZERO TAXES...??? ] (]) 03:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
:: Err...I think ] makes some pretty good points at that same CNBC article:
To be fair to these companies, these are the “effective” rates and were calculated using publicly available filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The tax expenses reflected in those documents do not necessarily match those in the private tax filings, and the analysis does not include state and local taxes.
If companies aren't paying enough taxes, isn't it the government's fault for enabling and encouraging it? <b>] ]</b> 04:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

*I don't think the wider public understands how profoundly Trump changed the US corporate tax system with the ] (TCJA), and particularly for the US multinational firms that used ]. Google, Apple, and Facebook etc., will have effective US federal tax rates in the high single digits going forward on their ''aggregate'' global business (previously it was 35%, which is why they all went to tax havens for their non-US business, and the US tax code was deliberately fractured by both Dems and Reps to allow this concession). Many US firms have achieved 0% effective federal tax rates in 2018 because there are additional tax breaks given by the TCJA to relocate intellectual property (the "raw materials" of corporate taxation) back to the US. This will dissipate by 2020/22.
:Google moving all their entire global intellectual property back to the US in December was a historic moment in US corporate taxation (which I need to update several WP articles for, but it takes about 12-24 months for the general RS to catch up with actual events in this field in a way that works for Misplaced Pages). Trump has turned the US into the same corporate tax platform as Ireland or the Netherlands. Everybody is waiting to see what Facebook does, who are still deciding about moving all IP back to the US (Apple is locked in Ireland until 2025 due to their ] action). This was why US productivity spiked in 2019 (Ireland and the Netherlands enjoyed such productivity growth for years, but it was just tax-driven flows). ] (]) 10:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
**This is all going over my head very quickly. What I do know is that the IP, who was momentarily blocked for reverting the OldandGood user (one wonders if that user has been here before), said something about "well it's not a crime if blah blah"--sure, but didn't the OldandGood edits say "Tax avoidance"? That is pretty neutral, and I didn't see much tendentious ''language'' in their edits. If the objection is that the very inclusion of that information is not neutral, well, that's not very strong. Britishfinance, I hear you but I don't see how that is very relevant to us including or excluding the information, and changing tax platform or not, those companies did not pay much in the way of taxes, right? So to be "fair" to these companies shouldn't mean we exclude it: the question is, how is including it not fair to them. ] (]) 16:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
***Drmies, my reply above is not regarding the incident but to your question about THEY PAID ZERO TAXES. In regard to the editor in question, as I said at ANI, their actual edit was incorrect (it was 91, and not 378 firms who paid 0% effective federal taxes), and it was not "Tax Avoidance". Tax Avoidance is the legal use of tax rules to reduce your taxes, most usually in ways that the rules did not intend (e.g. the ]). What has happened here is that the TCJA now gives certain US firms a 0% effective tax rate for 2018, without the firms having to make any effort to avoid those taxes. It won't last for all of them (at least not beyond 2020), so it is a temporary effect for many. Per the ANI, I think this point is more appropriate to go under the ] article as the impact of the TCJA. Per my comments at the ANI, it could go on the article of each of the 91 firms in question, but not under a section titled "Tax Avoidance", but something like "Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" (or some have a "Taxation" section). However, better RS will cover this effect than the RS used (which was more of a news alert) – E.g. in the next few weeks, the WSJ will go a big piece on this going into the detail and getting feedback from the main US experts (e.g. ], etc.), that would be more encyclopedic. ] (]) 16:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
***I think I agree with Britishfinance. When I think tax avoidance I think of companies getting consultants to find loopholes, etc. That doesn't seem to be what's going on here. If you aren't being asked to pay tax, not paying any tax is not trying to avoid paying tax. ] ] 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
****I appreciate that note--but for these purposes I'm interested also in how we are going to handle this on Misplaced Pages--meaning, how this information should be presented, what the proper wording is, etc. I'm sure you have ideas about that and I hope to see what comes out of that conversation--and I hope it's a practical one, so to speak. But I should stay back a bit: I'm so busy and I haven't even read the ANI thread. Thanks again, ] (]) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
****<small> I had a once. But alas I came back to find it was ] ] (]) 17:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC) </small>
*****I have a Pinewood Derby t-shirt--does that add up to anything? ] (]) 17:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
******Let's hope it's ], or else you might was well just ]. ] (]) 17:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Yeah, you definitely caught at least one LTA in there. Somebody from Southeastern Michigan has been adding fictitious material to animation-related pages for a ''long'' time. &ndash;] (]) 02:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
*I suspect there's two or three, including one of these cartoon vandals, yes. Thanks, ] (]) 14:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
::Just a heads-up that . &ndash;] (]) 02:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

The other day you or someone else edited Alan Warrens page for having to many photos and said that I shouldn't do that. However Carl Van Rechtens page is almost packed full of his photos but not Alan Warrens. What the hell? Either keep my edits or change Carl Van Rechtens.
] (]) 19:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
*Let me get this straight, ]. You were reverted for doing something another editor found excessive ), and your complaint is that the editor didn't immediately look for the same mistake in five million other articles. Sorry, six million other articles. Am I getting this right? ] (]) 22:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No not at all, but it is that one page is packed to the rafters of photographs and another isn't. I got told off for something which I thought was unfair and that I was doing something reasonable, but then I found this other page of Carl Van Rechtens that was packed to the rafters so I thought that shouldn't that also be like only 6-7 photographs as well because of the (in my opinion silly but I am now prepared to go by) rules? ] (]) 22:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
:Correct. See ]. ] (]) 23:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Can I not quickly change it back just to get a copy of this so called crazy gallery and have it as pdf and afterwards put it back to its current format? ] (]) 18:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
*Click "History" and then select the version you want to look at. There's a permanent URL that you can save. How you can convert ''that'' to a PDF I don't know. Sure, you can revert, click "Download as PDF"--but you'll need to change it back immediately. Put something like "momentary revert" in your edit summary, so others can see what you're doing, that's not too disruptive. ] (]) 19:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
**Thank you very much, I have done so but I forgot to put momentary because I was trying to read your message. Do I edit the page to say momentary revert? As for download as PDF on the left hand side for me it says download PDF. I am not sure if that applies to anywhere else ] (]) 20:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
***It's fine, although {{U|Dr.K.}} was probably wondering what you were doing. Those galleries are fine things, of course, and look great...but that's not what we do. ] (]) 21:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah Dr.K sent me a thank you message for reverting it to its current format. All is fine now many thanks ] (]) 14:17, 20 February 2020 (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 Original Barnstar''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for the constructive feed back - Got it! I'll clean up the content and I will switch the URL's as soon as I learn to do it! Yikes! I'm determined to get it right! Thanks for your help! ] (]) 02:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |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)
|} |}
*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)


== Feedback appreciated == == ] ==

Hey ] , I noticed your edit to my draft ] and I'd like reach out to get further recommendations. I've made some edits to sources, which seemed to be the primary issue. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Precious anniversary ==
{{User QAIbox
| title = Precious
| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
| image_upright = 0.55
| bold = ]
}}
and - which is better - still actively precious, or is it preciously active? --] (]) 10:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
*Tenuously old, my dear Gerda. Thank you. ] (]) 01:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
**“It's paradoxical that the idea of living a long life appeals to everyone, but the idea of getting old doesn't appeal to anyone.” ― Andy Rooney ] (]) 01:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
***True dat. ] (]) 01:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

== Addressing my detail additions to movie plots ==

You wanted my attention, you got it. I'll make this simple. I feel that film plots should be as detailed as possible, in regards to what goes on. I have seen plenty of other film pages that have plot far beyond the 400-700 limit and no one has had any problems with them. ] (]) 20:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
*You may feel that. Others don't. I saw some of the stuff that {{U|Millahnna}} reverted: they had an excellent case. ] (]) 20:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
*Some plot summaries '''can''' go over the length guidelines for various reasons, as stated at ]. Others, folks just haven't caught yet, which is probably a large reason why ], well, exists. BUt length just to have length, particularly when the text is not in keeping with ] and various standards of writing...there's no reason for that. It goes completely counter to the entire point of a plot summary in a[REDACTED] article. If you want to make a case for changing guidelines about that section within film articles, we'd love to have an insightful discussion about it at ] or ]. ] (]) 21:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

== THanks for your help earlier ==

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


Thanks for your edits at ]. I had prepared this for a COI report, but was waiting for that editor's response:
Wish me luck; I'm about to go try and deal with a basically non existent reception and box office section and I almost never play with ref tags. It'll be fun! ] (]) 03:51, 22 February 2020 (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".
*Good luck. I'd support you with Girl Scout cookies if you lived nearby. ] (]) 17:37, 22 February 2020 (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.
**One last question about all of this. I was going to drop a note on the TV project's talk page about this. I don't like editing within tables (I find them hard to work around, particularly when they have large blocks of text) but wanted to give them a heads up that the problem edits I was tracking definitely hit their articles. FOr obvious reasons, I find I'm rather hesitant now, especially since my instinct is to link straight to the problem editor's contribs. Started to type it up three times but kept second guessing; Am I canvassing? Am I being snotty? Basically this nonsense has me completely turned around now. AM I better off just letting the people more active there spot it for themselves? The conversation yesterday and others like it are why I stopped editing to begin with. ] (]) 23:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
*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."
***I hate editing in tables too--it is especially bothersome for new editors. Like I said, I don't mind you checking on a troublesome editor's edits, and I think most editors wouldn't. And notifying the project is a good thing to do. The best thing--make one set of edits and then publicize that, saying "hey, this is what I found and this is what I'm doing." Good luck. I'll be happy to help. ] (]) 16:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
*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)
== Congrats on your new hat! ==
*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)
::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)
:::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)
{{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%}}
{{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%}}
{{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%}}
The non-advertorial independent sources strongly disagree with that first paragraph, Doktoro.
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)
*], 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)
***{{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=]}}


== Email ==
]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|pending changes reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to ] on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at ], while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at ].


{{ygm}} ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
*{{U|Yamla}}, yes--go for it. Thank you. ] (]) 17:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Just got back from a weekend trip ==
''See also:''
*], the guideline on reviewing
*], the summary of the use of pending changes
*], the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.<!-- Template:Pending changes reviewer granted --> <br>
] (]) 17:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:Though, in all seriousness, if there was one bit of the admin toolkit I wish I could turn off it would be the pending changes reviewer bit. I never use it and I find the interface changes fairly frustrating (though, I have a custom .css that removes the pink watchlist banner of doom.) ] (]) 17:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:Now just pull a bunny out of it! ] 17:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:Wait, Tony, did YOU do that? I just checked a box because I got irritated with this YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO BLAH BLAH BLAH, which I didn't understand to begin with--I could "approve" people's changes already anyway. But yeah man, awesome! ] (]) 17:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
::I am the last person to ask about MediaWiki configuration, but you have {{code|+sysop}} so you should be able to do anything PCR would do. Maybe {{u|xaosflux}} could lend some insight into the technical issues you are having. ] (]) 17:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Drmies, yeah, my understanding is that the sysop flag already has all those permissions bundled. ] 17:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:::And yet I was told in some little screen that was not accepted. ] (]) 17:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
::::In those instances you need to accept your own submission. ] 18:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
::::It got stuck in the line somewhere. needed approval and probably hadn't been approved yet. You came along and edited while no one had reviewed, and thus your edits got stuck by the IP. This is one of the many reasons I don't use pending changes protection ever... {{u|JzG}}, I switched it to 10 days semi-protection since it's become active enough to start causing technical issues. Didn't think you'd mind, but if you do, feel free to revert. ] (]) 18:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, pc is generally a drag. But I still accept requests for it whenever it's fitting. ] 18:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::Yeah. Not criticizing anyone who uses it. I just find it pretty clunky and you get weird results like an admin/CU/OS not being able to edit a page correctly. ] (]) 18:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed, it is totally clunky. As mentioned, I, generally, am not a fan. ] 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:Speaking of protection--{{U|El C}}, last year you protected ] because ] was edit warring. They're at it again, over a range of articles. ] (]) 19:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:Haha, {{U|Deepfriedokra}}, I see you did the same thing for the same reason. {{U|C.Fred}}, you blocked this user at that time. ] (]) 19:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
::Oh no. I am choosing to take your warning to them as a ''final warning'' — we can proceed from that starting point. ] 19:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
::I made the final warning ]. ] 19:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:::The amplifying factor on PhilLiberty's edit warring when I blocked them was that they were removing "far right" from a political article. So, I got them for edit warring plus agenda/non-NPOV. —''']''' (]) 21:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
::::Iz someone need partial block(s).] (]) 18:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


Is there something pressing I should be looking at this eve? ] (]) 01:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Personal concerns ==
*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)
Hi there,
**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)
You recently deleted tables from a page I was updating on the basis that I had no citations. The page was for Woodgrove High School, under the band program page. I am a band student at Woodgrove, and all of that information was from personal experience. I would like to have the tables back, so I would like to know how you believe I should cite that information.
Thanks in advance. ] (]) 17:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
*Not sure what's personal about this. You included an enormous amount of unencyclopedic information, which I removed because it was unencyclopedic. The Misplaced Pages article is not a repository for remembering what song was played at what occasion. The stuff that I marked as unverified is already tenuous, and contains information (about living people) that ''should'' be properly verified. See ] and ]. I'm a bit surprised that this is news--why would anyone include information that is not verified? But the most likely outcome is that you will ''not'' easily find secondary sourcing for this information, and that ] suggests this information is not actually of encyclopedic value. It is probably valuable to your school, but that is not the same thing. ] (]) 18:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
*OK, you indicated that this is from "personal observation"--sorry, but that's a no-no here. ] (]) 18:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
**So do I have no way of getting that information back? It means a lot to us if we could get it back, even if it's just to keep in personal records. ] (]) 18:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
***Sure there is a way: click on "History" and select the version you want; you can copy that information. Sorry, but you've been here for almost two years and you never learned how to edit or that information needs sourcing? See ]. ] (]) 18:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
****That wasn't anything even resembling an encyclopedia article. I stubbed it. ] (]) 18:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


== "Vita" - the Life of Josephus == == Ye Guofu ==


Thanks for catching that. It was a misclick. Things happen. ] (]) 20:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
], ''shalom''. I noticed in your recent edit on the "Vita" Disambiguation page that you deleted the entry for ]' work entitled "Vita," a term often used to describe the book '']''. In my humble opinion, many scholars and academics know Josephus' fourth published work purely by that title, as you can see , and , and , and , and in the summary written in this article , and if you scroll down in this Encyclopædia Britannica article , under the heading "Josephus as Historian," you'll find the paragraph that reads: "Appended to the Antiquities was a Vita (Life), which is less an autobiography than an apology for Josephus’ conduct in Galilee during the revolt" (End Quote). Often, citations taken from the book are simply listed under the title "Vita," as you can see in the first paragraph of the next web-page . The title is also used in the abstract , among other places. In consideration of which things I say that, perhaps, it may have been premature to delete this important entry from the Disambiguation page. Perhaps we can get more feedback on this issue from other contributing editors.] (]) 02:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
*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)
*But my dear Davidbena, that goes for just about everyone who has had a ''vita'' written about them. Here's of Gregory the Great, here's , here's and it's Boniface... One of your links specifies "Josephi vita" at the top, and that's how all these work: you define which ''vita'' you're talking about, and from then on you use ''vita'' to refer to the text, specifying more only if necessary--like ''Vita altera'' or ''vita tertia'' or whatever. I do not believe that anyone has a claim to the word more than anyone else.<p>What we really ''do'' need is a more clear signpost to indicate that it is a common word for such a document, and what we really need is a list of ''vitae''. I mean, we have f*ing lists of everything--here's something that is actually important. Thanks, ] (]) 03:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::Still, the entries in the Disambiguation page are not that long, and this is precisely why Disambiguation pages were created in the first place. Besides, Josephus and his works are notable enough that I would think should warrant an entry in that Disambiguation page. Perhaps we can get feedback from other editors.] (])
:::OK, sure--but this business of saints and hagiographies, I have a bit of professional knowledge here, and I can assure you that there is nothing special about the one ''vita'' that warrants a special mention. ] (]) 03:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::::Perhaps not "special," but if it helps someone understand what is being cited in peer-review journals, it's worth restoring it IMHO.] (])
:::::There are no peer-reviewed journals or books that will single out "vita" as being somehow special to this one. I really don't understand what you think peer-reviewed articles will show here. Go search "vita" in JSTOR and work in Josephus, or Boniface, or Martin--there is nothing you will find that marks Josephus's life and the usage of ''vita'' as being in any way different from the others. ] (]) 03:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::This is true. ] (]) 03:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::Actually, I have personally seen many books and journals that speak on Josephus, and whenever they cite the "Life of Josephus," the usual citation is ''Vita''. By the context, it is readily known what author and what book is implied. I will make an effort to show these to you.] (]) 04:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::*You may wish to see '''page 635''' in this ] article , entitled "Roman Greek: Latinisms in the Greek of Flavius Josephus." ] (]) 04:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::*You may also wish to see '''page 94''' in this JSTOR article , entitled "Is the Greek Version of Josephus' 'Jewish War' a Translation or a Rewriting of the First Version?," and where ''Vita'' is used exclusively to refer to the book, ''The Life of Josephus''.] (])
::::::*:As one would expect in an article on Josephus. This is getting silly. I pulled an article from JSTOR.<ref>{{cite journal |title=La figure de Guillaume de Gellone d'après la ''Vita sancti Willelmi'' (v. 1125): quelques remarques sur ses modèles hagiographiques |first=Jean |last=Meyers |journal=] |volume=24 |year=2014 |pages=131-52 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/45019846}}</ref> It has 27 occurrences of the word ''vita'' by itself, and all but one refer to the ''Vita Willemi'', the biography of ] (whom I also had never heard of). The one "bare" mention not to the ''Vita Willemi'' isn't actually bare at all: "Ainsi vers 930, dans la ''Vita sancti Geraldi'', Odon de Cluny, met en avant le premier modèle de miles christianus. Comme l'a écrit Dominique Iogna-Prat, Odon, dans cette ''Vita''...", "cette" clearly pointing to this life of ]. Comparisons are drawn between the ''Vita Willemi'' and a life of St. Martin of Tours, which in all cases is referred to as ''Vie de Martin'' or ''Vie de Martin''.<p>This is simply how the word ''vita'' is used. There is nothing specific about its usage in relation to Josephus. Nothing. ] (]) 16:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{Re|Drmies}}I kindly ask of you to take a second look at the Disambiguation page . You will see there many entries, each having a different connotation for the same word. Since ] is a well-known personage and his works are used and named by a myriad of scholars, shouldn't we at least make reference to this important work, ''Vita'' (Josephus), which was composed by him? I, personally, see nothing wrong nor amiss about having it added to the Disambiguation page, but, then again, my own personal judgment may be wrong. We may wish to ask ourselves what wrong will it do by adding it to the list? Since I do not rely upon my own judgment (which is often in error), would you agree that we get a larger consensus on this issue, such as by posting a ]? ''Shalom''. ] (]) 18:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
*Go for it. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. {{U|Ealdgyth}}, do you see any reason for undoing ? ] (]) 18:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
** I can't see why one particular ''vita'' should be listed there when there are literally hundreds of others. I think that the problem here is that there aren't a lot of ancient texts titled "Life of X"... unlike the late antique and medieval periods where that is pretty much the default title for any hagiography. Hell, it's listed right there in the page "Vita (Latin for 'life'), a hagiography" - so there's no reason to single out one particular one. --] (]) 18:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
** See . --] (]) 19:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:::I can agree with both of you that we need not to specifically mention ''Vita'', by itself, for Josephus. However, since we cannot deny that scholars often cite Josephus' work by that one name, as we see in the book, ] (s.v. ''Kh. Benit''), perhaps we can make the <ins>distinction</ins> by adding his name after "Vita," like this: ''Vita'' (Josephus). Perhaps ] can give us an opinion about this.] (]) 20:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::::It may be reasonable to have a section of the dab page list notable vitae for which we have Misplaced Pages articles. I wouldn't pretend to know how many such examples we currently have on Misplaced Pages...if the list is overly long, we may want to have an SIA for ]. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{Re|Rosguill}} Would the Misplaced Pages article, ], comply when the title "Vita" is only mentioned within the article?] (]) 23:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Davidbena}}, I think so. A rule of thumb would be that if the redirect ] is a valid redirect to a given work, then it could be included. I'm not an expert in this field, however, so I may be missing something. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 23:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::], the thing is that there really ''are'' no things simply called ''vita''. It is always given meaning contextually. It's like placing a link to ] on ]. ] (]) 01:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::::You may be right, Drmies, but I'm still having a hard time understanding you. The best thing to do, in this case, is to submit an RfC and receive a broader input from other editors. ''Vita'' of Josephus is still a book by that title, although it is also used differently by others. It is not similar to adding a link to ] on ]. When I add the RfC, I'll put there a link to this page and discussion.] (]) 03:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::You might want to check out the (very incomplete) ] - unlike ], these were actually written in Latin. "Vita" for that is a misnomer really, perhaps only used, ''because it is such a common term for biographies'', when the context is known. ] (]) 03:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::Whether the term is used widely in other Latin biographies or not, the name is ''still'' referred to as such in English works treating on Josephus' fourth book (i.e. under its Latin title). Most people who see a reference to this work in an English book or journal will not think to translate the title from Latin back into English. Most people will accept the name as its ''bona fide'' title. Anyway, enough has been said about this topic. A ] has been added . Feel free to voice your opinion there.] (]) 03:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
*Drmies - nb, you've commented but not!voted there, in case you forgot. ] (]) 18:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


== ] == == 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 ]. 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)
Nice work. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 21:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
*Thanks, {{U|Cassianto}}. It turned out to be more interesting than the article suggested, but the paucity of sources isn't helpful. ] (]) 01:17, 27 February 2020 (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)
**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)
:That is, unfortunately, very common. I've lost count of the number of times I've come across an interesting subject, only to find that there are absolutely no sources whatsoever, and therefore unable to write about it. And when a book does eventually appear, you think "well how on earth did they find the sources to do that?" '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 07:41, 27 February 2020 (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)
== Is this user someone you're familiar with? ==


== Your AN request ==
See the caption for the picture that was added to ]. Figured I'd let you know about it... :-) Cheers - ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:I've blocked a few of these throw-aways today (e.g. {{noping|Dipperty Dawg}}). Just delete the page and sock block any that pop up.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:Oh, it's that idiot again. They started out as a merely irritating IP and look at them now--a full-fledged socking troll! BTW I hate Disneyland, and I get my country kicks from ''CabaRay''. I'm probably the only one in the world under 65 who watches that show. ] (]) 01:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


{{U|Voorts}} and I , ], and fell to the floor.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== BLP violation at Julian Assange talk ==
*So who got the ten bucks? It's $10 for legal threats, right? ] (]) 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
**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 ==
Hi Drmies, I'd like to bring to your attention a BLP violation at ]. {{u|SPECIFICO}} has referred to GRU agents as Assange's "accomplices": . The fact that SPECIFICO is referring to GRU agents is clear from the context of this discussion: . The word "accomplice" implies both that Assange is a criminal, and that he conspired with GRU agents. This is a very serious BLP violation. I have asked SPECIFICO to strike these comments (), but SPECIFICO has not done so. Please take the necessary actions to make sure than this serious BLP issue is addressed. Also pinging {{u|Bishonen}}, who might be able to help. Thanks, -] (]) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
*I don't know what to say about that: that article with its 239,798 bytes is too dense for me to determine right off the bat whether that term is a BLP violation or not. Maybe {{U|JzG}}, who I think knows more about it than I do, has an opinion, and for the legal aspects I'd call either on ] or {{U|Newyorkbrad}}. NYB, do you have any thoughts? Sorry, ] (]) 15:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
*:{{u|Drmies}}, the statement itself does not seem to violate BLP. It's informal usage and there's no realistic dissent from the accepted fact that Assange worked with GRU agents to undermine the Clinton presidential campaign by publishing stolen emails. Thucydides411 seems to be moving from one angry dispute to another in the AP2 arena, with the same aggressive approach at each article, and pretty much the same results. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 15:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
*::Although court rulings can never be predicted with certainty, that wording would probably not be actionable in a legal sense, at least in New York, because in context it could considered an assertion of opinion rather than fact. Whether it is best practice to use that terminology on Misplaced Pages is a different question. It certainly wouldn't belong in an article; as you know, we allow a bit more leeway on talkpages. ] (]) 15:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
*:::Thank you both. Guy, I don't want to delve any further into that matter right now but I appreciate the note. Brad, I appreciate your expertise and it corresponds with my rough and semi-uninformed assessment. Thanks again. ] (]) 15:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


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)
{{od|::::}} I respectfully suggest that {{u|JzG|Guy}} should not be the person summarizing the discussion at ]. At ], Guy has been quite uncharacteristically complaining about {{tq|"Assange cultists"}} and {{tq|"an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more"}} (referring to publicity surrounding a letter in support of Assange by 130 prominent figures from German politics and media, including one of Germany's most famous journalists and a recent Vice Chancellor / head of one of Germany's two major parties). In response to questions by a number of editors, Guy has not offered any substantiation for these wild claims about cultists, MRAs, etc. I have serious concerns about Guy's impartiality here, and if such comments themselves do no violate ] or ], it is only because they are so diffuse that one could plausibly deny that they're directed at any one person (e.g., the former Vice Chancellor of Germany, the journalists for Germany's largest papers who wrote articles about the appeal by 130 prominent Germans, or the many editors at ] arguing for inclusion of the appeal).
*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 ==
{{re|Newyorkbrad}} Is it acceptable for editors to be opine on talk pages that living people are part of a criminal conspiracy? This is what you seem to be arguing - that unless an action is clearly legally actionable, it is no violation of ]. I thought that ] was supposed to be applied very cautiously. Asserting that a living person criminally conspired with intelligence agents (which is not an established fact in Assange's case, and I'm very surprised that Guy is making that unfounded assertion here) is surely a very serious attack on a living person. Without very good sourcing, it cannot be made.


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?
As for whether the statement is admissible because it is an opinion: any comment left by an editor could be construed as being an opinion. If editors' opinions cannot, by definition, violate ], then BLP is a hollow document on talk pages. But to the contrary, ] states, {{tq|"The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages."}} If editors can make unsubstantiated, defamatory claims about living persons under the guise of opinion, why even apply BLP to talk pages? -] (]) 16:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
* {{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)
{{re|Newyorkbrad}} I'd also like to point out that ] is not limited to legally actionable statements. ] mentions the laws of the United States, but it talks about much more than just what the law requires: material about living persons, including on talk pages, {{tq|"requires a high degree of sensitivity"}} and must adhere to ], ], ] and other core policies. I think it's obvious that calling a living person a criminal conspirator working together with intelligence services is a violation of these tenets, whether or not they would legally be considered opinion. -] (]) 16:30, 28 February 2020 (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