Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:59, 27 May 2020

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

Archives

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

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

Geolocation

Mrs Edith Morrell

• Sscoulsdon, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this wall of text, but it sure sounds like original research. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the above impromptu post. A glance at the article on Research, particularly on Original Research, would indicate a fault in your hearing if the post sounds to you like that. I guess from a quick scan of your interests that English Criminal jurisprudence is not one of them, so the uncertainty you express is unsurprising. Perhaps we could agree that it wasn't written to appeal to you. Sscoulsdon (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Who taught you to write like that? Drmies (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the above second post above. I take it that you now accept the section mentioned is not original research, as the 26 reference from seven published sources would confirm. Sscoulsdon (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    • You can take it as such, but you'd be wrong. And please see Misplaced Pages:Indentation. BTW, what you are doing here is completely shitty of course, since you left out all the context--which is found here, Talk:Death_of_Edith_Alice_Morrell#"Murder,_can_you_prove_it?", and that's where I asked that question. You posted 10k of some sort of investigative prose narrative called "Murder, can you prove it?", that starts "These were the words that John Bodkin Adams was said to have uttered..." (was it a dark and stormy night?). Anyone who wants to know what original research looks like need only look at your second paragraph, "There is no basis for saying Mrs Morrell was murdered as there was no Inquest verdict to that effect and the only person accused of her murder, Dr. Adams, was found not guilty". Now, if you think that having references somewhere in there means it's not original research, you are wrong. That narrative reads like original research at first glance, but hey who knows, it might just be mostly WP:SYNTHESIS. Good day. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I can do no better that quote Misplaced Pages on Original Research: "Original research, also called primary research, is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review, or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary-source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge..." (emphasis added). Your saying that that having references doesn't means it's not original research is wrong does rather fly in the face of that, and I would add that it is based on summary, review, or synthesis of earlier publications, as in the definition of what isn't original research and also on secondary or tertiary source. You can say that day is night or up is down, but your opinion doesn't trump the clear words of the Misplaced Pages guidance.

In addition, using words like "shitty" hardly meets the Misplaced Pages criteria that users should treat each other with respect and civility and that you should respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree (see also your second post). Remember that Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks decries abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases, and "Who taught you to write like that" and "what you are doing here is completely shitty of course" would fall under this head and/or an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views.

You original post was misconceived, and I told you politely why; your second probably abusive and in no way responded to what I have said, so I politely asked you to retract your misconception; your third definitely abusive and states a biased opinion not supported by reference to the relevant sections of Misplaced Pages. Your ego may feel bruised, but I strongly suggest that you don't reply to this with anything other than an apology. Just think whether you are prepared to see your comments above reviewed by a neutral third party. Sscoulsdon (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oh you can do a lot better than that. I considered your suggestion but decided my time and mental energy is better spent petting the dog. Thank you. Now kindly don't return unless it's with a notification for some drama board. And what you were doing here, copying and pasting without context or permission, yeah that's what we call "shitty". Drmies (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We are told in successive verses of the Book of Proverbs:

Prov 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Prov 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I believe the correct exegesis is to not descend to your faecal level (although someone that says faeces talks faeces, and may think faces) but to point out your failings.

On 11th May your initial post of 1609 was made two minutes after closing the previous one at 1607: unless you have the reading ability of the Brutal in Zardoz,you could't possibly have read the section that you commented on, let alone read it with any understanding. Your second post of 1508 was after closing the previous one at 1503, so the attempt at justification in your third and attempt Parthian shot in your fourth ring very hollow. I can see from your log that you visits to many sites are equally brief and in many cases equally unhelpful.

I would be delighted not to visit you again, so stop posting untruthful and/or irrelevant comments and I won't need to follow the precept of Proverbs 26:5.Sscoulsdon (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sscoulsdon: You said that you can do no better than quote Misplaced Pages on Original Research, by which (it turns out) you meant the Misplaced Pages article entitled Original research. But, see, you can (and must) do better, because what you need to be quoting (after understanding it, of course) is the project's policy on WP:Original research. Drmies is a retired member of the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee and certainly knows what constitutes WP:OR, as do I.The Adams and Morrell articles are, without question, two of the most egregiously inappropriate articles the project has, and that's saying a lot. Their awfulness defies description. They are mind-numbingly unreadable and indeed larded with obvious OR -- and if I had the sources I'm pretty sure I'd find plenty more that's not obvious. There's also more than a touch of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:ESSAY. You seem to have no concept at all of what an article should be like. The Morrell article even ends with a section headed Summary -- really, it's unbelievable. EEng 07:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

User:EEng, thank you--I appreciate your words. Yes, I've seen a lot of bad articles--some worse than these ones! Sitush and LadyofShalott will remember some of them. Anyway, I doubt that the editor will take you more seriously than they take me, which is a shame. Thanks again, and take care, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, neither of these posts produced an Alert on my user page. However, I have read them with all the interest they deserve.Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sscoulsdon--Last time: indent properly. Sscoulsdon, Sscoulsdon, Sscoulsdon. Drmies (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh how clever and cutting! Why, you're just like Oscar Wilde, if Oscar Wilde had been hackneyed and trite and an incompetent wordsmith! EEng 17:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Charming

That seemed like a nice person. I think I caught everything, let me know if I should have done anything differently. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Girth Summit, thanks--yeah, it doesn't get much lower than that. I appreciate it. Berean Hunter probably knows more; I'm forwarding it to Trust and Safety. What's funny is that Misplaced Pages:Trust and Safety is a redirect to a Meta page that explains "workflows", whatever those are. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, yeah, I've stumbled across that before when looking for contact details - not very helpful! I think WP:EMERGENCIES is the way they expect you to contact them. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Dammit, that's a redlink? WP:EMERGENCY. Think I'm gonna set up a redirect... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha, thanks--but does this ongoing (and stupid, of course) harassment count as an emergency? This is so obviously some *** ******* who will never get off the couch or get * ****--but others can use it to produce harm. I emailed ca; they have a file on it already, I'm sure. BTW a bunch of these jerks have started imitating each other; they were all the same already anyway in important ways, and now they've become interchangeable. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I assumed it would get to the right team though. I assumed that functionaries got issued with big red bakelite telephones that go straight through to T&S? Seriously, if there's anything I can do in terms of keeping an eye on certain filters, let me know - that was deeply unpleasant. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not over: Ponyo just blocked another, posting on a talk page of a blocked range. It's all proxies of course. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, might you help me with another admin.?

Hi, I’ve gotten your name from the top of the Recently Active Admin list. A fellow admin has at least twice talked about possibly blocking me.

Most recently, they’ve said “repetitive provocations” and “breaches of our sourcing policies and guidelines.”

Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 —> Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ”

Say they’re not involved, but certainly seem involved to me.

And then going backward in time order:

User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter —> MEDRS

Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 —> Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints

And this is all for Talk pages. Yes, I’ve made the case for several minority positions, so be it. On the main page for:

Coronavirus disease 2019

I’ve made a number of solid edits ever since at least April 8, and edits which I’m proud of. And I wish to keep making solid edits, including on other pages pertaining to COVID-19 which I’ve also done.

If could take a look and possibly help my situation, I’d certainly appreciate it. Thank you for your consideration. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well, what I see is RexxS warning you on a serious matter (few things are more serious than MEDRS). Given the seriousness of the subject matter, and given the real-life problems that can result from not adhering to the policies and guidelines, there are both general and discretionary sanctions possible there. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that RexxS is somehow INVOLVED in a way that would cloud his judgment or his objectivity. If I were you I would not belabor the point. I'm sure you have done lots of good work, but this is not something I would pursue. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Catherine Czerkawska

Between you and me, we gave it a good trim. I know her BBC stuff is notable, but so much of her writing is self published it's hard to tell if she's a notable author. Part of why I stripped the lengthy bibliography. THoughts? StarM 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah those lists are crazy long, aren't they. And I hate it when they are so poorly written up--no bibliographic information, and no secondary sources. I try to write up articles where every book title has a review as a note. So I looked, sort of randomly, at "The Devil and Mary Lamont" (god, even that entry was incorrectly formatted--let me clean that up real quick--ha, if you click on "Edit" you'll see why it's so fucked up), and it turns out that there is stuff worth saying about it. So what we have is just another awful article on a notable person where now that I looked at that book, Edinburgh History of Scottish Literature: Modern Transformations, I can't discard any of the titles. See, I'm not sure what you looked at that was self-published, but if it's a play, that's fine--as long as it is performed, and the performances are notable, for instance. Someone just needs to love on that article. I might do some of that, and maybe you can do some too, haha.

  Oh, now that I look over the entirety of your edit--yeah, that had to go, and I see what you mean. Good edit. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

oh the formatting. I think it was copy/pasted from somewhere hence the format mess. Not copyvio, but that she supplies the same bio info to festival sites and other literary resumes and kablooey. I actually contemplated keeping the list and knocking out the paragraphs, but found prose easier to source. Her BBC work is notable and some of her later books have some good coverage, there's just a lot there and some isn't clear. I was hoping to be able to source Dundee shortlist, but no luck. I'll keep at it. StarM 01:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right about the formatting. I added a few words and that one source. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, with some TLC and some plowing through the news archives this can be a nice little article, on an author of some note. There's a few things on JSTOR which I'll get to in a moment. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah that was a nice tag team. Glad I found it in one of the backlogs. I think it was the too many ELs one as I've been working through that lately. Love when you find an unloved article that is really a nice "add" to the encyclopedia these days. You had some scholarly sources that I didn't turn up, so glad it showed in your watchlist too - or however you found it. StarM 15:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

One question

Hello, I would like to ask you is there a point here (per Wiki guidlines) or is it just one man's perspective? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking. OK, I see now what edit y'all are fighting over; this one. NPOV is not established by having "pros and cons"--in this case that wouldn't even make sense. The criticism is that Handke (I can't believe he's 77; I remember him young and handsome) was all too friendly to a violent and murderous regime, and the "pro" is that he's a great writer. Those aren't on the same level. If anyone needs a pro, it's right there: he got a Nobel prize for literature, that's pro enough. Now, Santasa99 was not very careful with writing this stuff up; phrases like "confirmed general public and media mood surrounding both Handke's award and opinions and attitude toward Bosnian genocide denial" are essentially OR and really editorial POV commentary, but Khirurg's and your revert are too categorical. I have to say that Jingiby's edit is quite adroit, and I think that was well done. If I may, two other things: a. it is maybe not so evident to outsiders just how controversial this Nobel Prize was, and I'm still putting that mildly--it was a fucking shock, and the Nobel committee harmed itself in very serious ways; and b. this is not a very good article: it should be better. Good luck with it! Drmies (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

He was young once, alright, but handsome - you don't mean like this :-) ? Joke aside, that line/paragraph of mine looks awkward and bulky from here (even as OR and/or editorializing, when taken out of context), or it could just be a bad paraphrasing on my part - I don't know if you followed the ref link on that line, but something of that sort is said in sourced text by German novelist Martin Walser - he said: "Handke is just being completely dismissed, in every respect morally, politically and professionally. It's all part of the war mood which I find a bit frightening."

Now, I have this same (or very similar) paragraph included into another article, which is just recently promoted to GA, while being thoroughly probed, examined left and right, and extensively discussed among several good-to-native English speaking experienced senior editors. It passed, but I wouldn’t want it to remain if it’s possible to have a better (para)phrase, so, I would appreciate if you could check that line once more, in context of what is said in the source article, and I would (this time) really appreciate if you could give some suggestions - ultimately, I would like to push that article further up on the quality scale, hopefully to A and FA class. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪ 02:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not clear what line/ref you are addressing specifically. The article is a whole is in such bad shape anyway, it's hard to figure out what needs to go where. We have this awkward "Views" section, which already makes little sense, and of course his actual career is totally underdeveloped. What really matters in regard to views is his position re:Serbia, for which he was roundly denounced at various times--that needs to be thematized in the structure of the article. I mean, I can see a couple of things to tweak in that section, but there are much bigger fish to fry in that article. As for his looks--I grew up in the 80s, and he sure didn't look like that then, haha. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I tried to edit the Handke article a bit, separating the sections in more conventional way, but development of a section concerning his views and activities vis-à-vis support for wartime Serbia and Milosevic, and the international response to the Nobel Prize, is almost impossible. I also thought that Jingiby did good, relatively, but I tend to agree with OyMosby, who thinks that some short quotes/paraphrasing of these reactions should be included nevertheless, as they are significant, and as you concluded above, and I would go on to say that they are most important issue surrounding Handke as a character and as an author at this point.

The line - it's the line you used in your comment to point to my overly editorialized (which I admit is true, especially looking out of context through your comment) input in Handke article - I wrote: "confirmed general public and media mood surrounding both Handke's award and opinions and attitude toward Bosnian genocide denial", and looking like this, striped bare of context, it is editorializing. But, in sourced text German novelist Martin Walser says: "Handke is just being completely dismissed, in every respect morally, politically and professionally. It's all part of the war mood which I find a bit frightening." So, I tried to paraphrase that into one-liner, I think without using direct quote. In another article, Bosnian genocide denial, which I mentioned as GA above, this line is also used but with direct quote in addition. So, I worry that maybe, regardless of direct quote, my paraphrase isn't that good (although, few editors who vetted and extensively discussed GA promotion were all good-to-native English speaking experienced senior editors), so, while we are at it, I wouldn't mind your suggestion.--౪ Santa ౪ 15:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem with "Walser confirmed the general mood" is that it asserts, in Misplaced Pages's voice, that there is a general mood and it's negative, and you cannot state that so objectively. What you can say to open such a paragraph/section is something like "There was widespread dissent/controversy/consternation/condemnation/whatever when Handke was awarded the Nobel prize, because of his stance on Serbia. For instance, German novelist Walser argued that Handke had lost all respect among fellow writers, and was 'being completely dismissed, in every respect morally, politically and professionally'". Now I agree that some quotes are fine--you just need to pick them carefully, from the most important people. Quoting (and certainly listing) Sontag and Finkielkraut might be more powerful. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, your idea is better. I need to change this on "Bosnian genocide denial" piece, using exactly this method - shortening quote, and inserting (para)phrasing intro at the sentence beginning and discarding independent clause. Take care.--౪ Santa ౪ 19:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Incident on WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MiasmaEternal 00:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. I saw your comment there. Funny thing was, I was trying to be nice, tweaking and rewriting the article, when a quicker solution would be to slap A7/G11 on the article. The obvious solution, really, is to possibly AfD the Youngblood article but certainly make that non-notable biography into a redirect to the band--but here is yet another person trying to milk it for all it's worth. What's also funny is that that is really the exact same thing that's happening in K-pop right now, with lists of "songwriting credits" being inserted into articles on every bit singer, as in Talk:Chaeyoung#Drmies'_edits. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My reverts

Thanks for pointing out my incorrect revert of OrganicAgSuzJToryB's edit to Mariannette Miller-Meeks. I think part of the reason I reverted it was because it appeared to be well-sourced and had been reverted before, but now I realize that I did not look close enough. I should have assumed good faith. Thanks again! --GalaxyDog 20:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:GalaxyDog, I saw the last of the reverts, and was pretty close to indef-blocking the editor, so this was also a reminder to myself. Thanks; I appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Jacy Reese Anthis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bodole (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Aw boohoo. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodole (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm thinking I should get a discount there as a frequent visitor. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I hate to belabor the discussion but I think that should encourage you to reflect on your behavior. You seem to have good intentions but the way you go about making changes can be disruptive and harmful to the community, especially "inexperienced" editors like myself. Bodole (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    • That's funny, my wife often tells me the same thing. Anyway, for an "inexperienced" editor you're awfully adept at telling me what's acceptable and what's not in this project. And I don't want you here on my talk page: you are being a bit of a bore, you insult my intelligence and experience, and now you're dragging me off to the court of popular opinion again. What I want to tell you is something that actually won't get me blocked (I've been around long enough to know that), but my wife would tsk tsk me for it, and we can't have that. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hamamat Montia

Thanks for looking at this. It was outside my usual interests and wasn't sure where to raise it. The original diff is still visible where the contentious material was added Lyndaship (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• You're right--thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

sigh...

You and I have spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up the garbage at Sam Heydt and it doesn't appear to be much better from 2018 wrt actual notability. Artists are definitely not my forte in terms of notability but searching doesn't reveal the coverage I'd expect (and personally require) for someone with all the claims being made in her article. Thoughts on AFDing? Praxidicae (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your Coupon Book

	AN/I Coupons
	I don't speak Russian, but I'm pretty these say "buy one BOOMERANG, get one 50% off." creffett (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, boomerang throw you. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Kosner close

I may only agree to about 50%, but thanks anyway. I wonder if we should make some sort of shortcut, like WP:JEWTAGGING, to it for easy future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I thank you too, very much. I was beginning to think that would never go away, and I can't see any reason to go around the circle one more time. Should have been closed a long time ago. Maybe this will prompt a much needed RFC. Thanks again Drmies. Zaereth (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You say "Maybe this will prompt a much needed RFC." Do you mean an RfC to consider removing the "Jewish" designation from articles such as Boesky, Madoff, Berkowitz, and Epstein? The subject of the article obviously did not primarily want "Jewish" removed from their biography. The subject of the article wanted Misplaced Pages to adopt the "commonsensical standard" they find at the New York Times (concerning a wide variety of identities). The subject of the article obviously does not care that they are known to be Jewish at Misplaced Pages or anywhere else. If that were not the case they would not be writing in Commentary (magazine) that they are proud to be Jewish. The title of their article is "Jew-Tagging @Misplaced Pages". They are talking about Misplaced Pages. They aren't talking primarily about their own article. Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about an RFC to sort out all that tornado of comments spiraling out of control. I really don't know much about Jew tagging, and have no clue who these people are or why they are relevant to this discussion. I grew up in a world far removed from anything like that, where racism was some strange concept they taught us about in history class and religion is something you just don't discuss with other people, but I can tell you are very passionate about the subject in general. That's ok, but isn't it possible that passion can cloud objectivity? Maybe just a little? Just a wee bit? At any rate, you all need to have this discussion in a format where a consensus can more easily be determined, because that's all but impossible to do with what we have at BLPN.

That's all I'm saying. Make your best case, let everyone else make theirs, and let the ball roll where it may. There is no point in arguing with people whose minds you'll never change. (It's not a case of last one to get a word in wins. You get one good shot, maybe two, to convince the rest of us whose minds can be changed, or all those who haven't made up their minds yet, and the rest is mostly wasted breath.) All I'm saying is the RFC format is a much better way to determine an actual consensus. I'm not going to restart this discussion on poor Drmies' page. Start an RFC on whatever's got you so worked up, but then accept whatever result comes from it, and whatever it is, pat yourself on the back for trying your best. I won't be there, because those are things that just don't interest me beyond their psychological/neuropsychological implications. Zaereth (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You can start whatever RfC you like, Bus stop, where you can extrapolate all you like; the RfC was on a much more narrow question. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies—you write "Jewishness" is a category that is difficult to identify. Not even remotely correct and certainly not the case in this instance. They are Jewish. Nobody is questioning that they are Jewish. They are a nonobservant Jew. Reliable sources support that they are Jewish and they are saying they are proudly Jewish. They could have said they don't consider themselves Jewish and the designation would have been immediately and uncontestedly removed. Bus stop (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

But of course they did not say they don't consider themselves Jewish. They said the opposite. They said they considered themselves proudly Jewish. Are you addressing that in this close? Bus stop (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I really have no interest in pursuing this with you here, in case you hadn't noticed. If you want to challenge my close, that's fine, but take it elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be grateful for an RfC that could generate some simple, comprehensible paragraph of policy. The lack of a clear standard creates unnecessary bitterness and bad feeling, e.g. at Katie Bouman. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that all of these matters can easily be captured in a simple paragraph. Imagine, and let's pretend we're all Americans here, in the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, only people who claim to be colorblind will disregard the color of the victims and the (alleged) killers. And back in the old days every single newspaper article, and every novelist and short story writer, would mark a colored person or character as colored, white being a default. Now when should we mark, in Misplaced Pages articles or elsewhere, whether someone was colored or not? I think reasonable people would agree that it depends on the circumstances--but what those circumstances might be and how they dictate things is not easy. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

PediaPress new AfD

Hi, I see that you voted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PediaPress. This is to advise you that the article is up for AfD once again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, that was ELEVEN YEARS AGO!!! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Kosner

Hey @Drmies: thanks for your close on Kosner. Not an easy call but I think you summarized the whole issue very well, and I agree with your reasoning. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'll thank you for the first comment, and I appreciate the note. I am not sure how else this could have been closed. The BLP is sacrosanct for me. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

IP Block

Hi @Drmies, I checked the block log and saw that you blocked this IP from editing for 3 months in 2015. They seem to be back at it now. xRENEGADEx 21:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks--not likely the same person, but I blocked them. Ha, that block was in 2015; I didn't realize I was an admin already then, just dropping three-month long IP blocks and being "abusive". Drmies (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. xRENEGADEx 22:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XRENEGADEx (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maria Fearing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anniston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Current Event

Hi, Drmies. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303&action=history, as some entries here could be used to bypass filters. Thanks, Randompointofview (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC).

• Randompointofview, I'm not quite sure what you mean, what edits or filters you're talking about, or what I am supposed to do about it. I really don't know the first thing about filters, except that 1050 means instant block. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• I meant to ask you to redact (using RevDel or similar) some of the entries from a LTA that is known for bypassing filters such as 1050 by reusing URLs of previous edits that later get reverted. Due to this, many edits from this LTA have already been redacted from the public records. This is the LTA related to that filter. You might need to see the second page of the history. I chose not to directly mention RevDel on my first request due to concerns about the LTA searching for this. Thank you, Randompointofview (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC).
  • Gotcha. But if you're going to speak in code, might as well email me and speak clearly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Akbar

I'm about to put it under ECP (for IPA). For very good reasons. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Done. I haven't reverted though. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Connie Glynn

Dear Drmies, i agree with you on the info "was diagnosed with Addison's" - but on the next info on her ptsd, the link is a report and interview with her, so i don't understand why you also deleted this info. I'm - by the way - the person, who translated the article for the German[REDACTED] and i saw all the vandalism on the english page and asked for protecting it, which worked fine. To me it feels as if we might be erasing too much info - especially if she herself delivered it. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• If info is delivered by the person themselves, all the more reason to not include it: if we simply copied what some notable person said about themselves, imagine how much we would be typing here. (Obviously Ahecht disagrees, merrily sourcing things to the subject's own YouTube channel: Ahecht, if these things are important, surely reliable sources would have reported on them.) And I do not think that this link amounts to much; I do not think that TenEighty, "a celebration of internet culture", is so great at investigative journalism. If they publish this interview with her, it does not mean that the information is verified--it only means that we can probably trust that she said it, not that it's correct or that it's that important. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The sentence I restored was supported by citations to teneightymagazine and unitedbypop. The original sentence included a reference to her YouTube channel, which I kept in conjunction with the secondary source per WP:BLPPRIMARY, but I specifically chose to restore that sentence because of the availability of third-party citations. While I agree that neither of those sources would hold up in a notability discussion, they're fine from a verifiability standpoint. I have no problem with you removing the Addison's and PTSD parts, but I felt that a mention of her changing her online name and persona were crucial to understanding the article -- as the article stood before I edited it, a reader would see no mention of "Noodlerella" in the article but most of the references being about "Noodlerella", and would read about this person's "pink" persona while finding that none of the videos that exist match that description. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 15:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Ahecht, thank you; I appreciate the note. If you find stronger sources than those two websites that would be great: TenEighty has no information on any editorial board or policy, and United By Pop is an online community kind of site which, and I say this after reading it over, is really worse than I thought. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I still find to erase her PTSD a kind of cencorship - especially as i get the impression that it is an issue of the bookselling company that they don't want this info to be on the internet and i also get the impression that Connie Glynn herself is trying to get this info off the internet as she seems to focus on her career as a serious writer. I don't think that we should support this, for me it really looks very much like a PR-manipulation! Of course I accecpt your decision, but i don't think it's the right thing to do to erase her PTSD, sorry. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but I'm not "erasing her PTSD"--let's not confuse reality with what's being said about someone on a website. I have no idea what this has to do with a bookselling company, and I assure you that I am not paid by a bookselling company, or by the subject, whom I don't know from Eve. WP:V is the first thing that matters here, and WP:RS the second. Again, imagine repeating everything that the subject said about themselves. Or, not everything! so which things should we mention and which things should we leave out? That's well beyond editorial judgment--that's original research and POV judgment. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Mail call

---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Now you have two emails from me. The second is much shorter - very much shorter :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sent you another one. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Had to mention you there, in passing, but nothing to worry about. ——Serial 13:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

NFINIT

Hi Drmies, pls have again a closer look at NFINIT as soon as you find some time... almost the same edits as the COI User by a totally new one... seems to be COI/Advert again. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• CommanderWaterford, I'm wondering if you shouldn't just take this to AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 ——Serial 09:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)