Misplaced Pages

User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 21:45, 28 February 2017 view source184.145.42.19 (talk) →"This is where it started...": new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:43, 17 January 2025 view source Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers382,646 edits →A barnstar for you!: Verdi, vacation 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 106 |counter = 151
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 5
|algo = old(14d) |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}}


==Mail==
__NOINDEX__
{{ygm}}


{{-}}
]
== A barnstar for you! ==
]

==Holiday card==
{| style="background-color: #ccffcc; border: 6px solid red;"
| ]
|-
|style="font-size:medium; padding: 3 px 3px 0 3px; height: 1em;" | Wishing you a ] Christmas,</br>{{BASEPAGENAME}}!
|-
|''"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you</br>That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end</br>And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."</br><small>—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.</small> </br>]<sup>]</sup> 23 December 2016 (UTC)
|}

==Yo Ho Ho==
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] ]

] (]) is wishing you ]! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's ] or ], ], ], ], ], ] or even the ], this is a special time of year for almost everyone! <br />

<small>Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{]:]}} to your friends' talk pages</small>.
{{clear}}
</div>

== WP:ANI ==

Is there any particular reason you removed , but not the entire post? I don't see how that's neutral at all. Are you planning on closing the discussion? ''']]]''' 01:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
*Eh? 1. I removed your entire post. 2. Why? Because everyone has had enough of your constant haranguing. It is neutral to remove ongoing disruptive comments. Yours are; others are not, or less so. 3. The rest of the conversation is hatted. 4. I'm thinking about closing that discussion; I'm reading over it. It's not looking good for you. ] (]) 01:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
** How are '''my''' comments more disruptive than theirs? Did you '''not''' see the blatant evidence and thorough reasoning that I posted (which you reverted)? Help me see your point of view, because this looks ridiculous to me right now. ''']]]''' 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
*** And if you were just going to collapse the section, can't you see how reverting my defense (and only my defense) could be just a little bit unnecessary? ''']]]''' 01:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

And lastly, if I am THE problem, what would ''you'' have me do now? With all do respect, these aren't meant to be rhetorical arguments, but serious questions. ''']]]''' 01:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
*Right now I am deciding whether to issue just a topic ban for you for COMICS, or also block you for ongoing disruption and being an enormous timesink. The more edits you make outside of article space, the more likely such a block is. ] (]) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
** In that case, this will be the '''last''' edit I make outside an article space right now. Is there a way to issue an appeal to a topic ban? All of my arguments at that discussion were genuine and I don't think you're being fair. I'm not just trying to get out of jail free; I am being honest (and as an admin, I will take everything you say into serious consideration). I feel that a topic ban would simply be a gratuitous waste of time, as there is no purpose for it or a block. Six months seems especially excessive, given that I am a productive user with no prior history for disruptive editing that mainly edits comic-related articles and there is a content discussion that I am (or was) involved in that I strongely believed in. Did you consider both sides (again, with all due respect). ''']]]''' 01:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
::*As you likely already know, the topic ban appeal process is outlined at ]. -- ] (]) 02:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
:*I can't argue with closing the trainwreck subthread, but I do think that if, somehow, there were to be some way for ArbCom to '''really encourage''' development of a good fiction MOS, that might resolve a lot of the problems, and there do seem to be at least a few problems outside of the immediate "problem area' of the Joker. ] (]) 01:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
::*John, I'm going by what's talked about in the ANI thread. I cannot judge what precisely the underlying problem is, if there is such an underlying problem; there is a consensus that a topic ban from the COMICS area is a solution, and that's what I closed on. I know you know stuff and have insight into what can cause problems in some areas; I appreciate that, and I strongly encourage to do what you can in this respect. Thanks, ] (]) 01:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
::: Drmies, while I see where you are coming from with that logic, I believe that ''that'' might be the problem. You only looked at how things appear on the surface. I strongely disagree with the result of the discussion. ''']]]''' 02:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I've taken the liberty of wrapping the whole trainwreck up after your closures of the various proposals. ] (]) 02:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
::::], you seem to suffer from a few serious misunderstandings. First, ANI and talk pages and all that are not where one has fights; it's where one resolves issues. Second, the role of administrators in such venues as ANI is manifold, but one of them is to establish community consensus. That's what I did, regardless of issues of depth. Third, when admins enforce community decisions, it actually means something. I suggested to you how close you came to a block for ongoing disruption; I will not hesitate to act on it. Continued harping on my talk page (14 edits already) on what is by now a ''fait accompli'' is disruptive. ] (]) 02:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
:::: In that case, I won't waste anymore of your time. I'll just cap this off by saying that I hear what you are saying, I don't agree with it in the slightest, and that there '''will''' be an appeal to that ban. Have a good day, Drmies. Darkknight2149 out. ''']]]''' 02:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::OK. Good luck with it. ] (]) 02:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
:*: ]: The idea was to eventually open an RfC or something at some place like the Village Pump and get sitewide feedback on the issue of how to present ficitonal characters. I don't see anything in the WP:COMICS discussion (which is really just a pre-discussion) that would require intervention from ArbCom. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;] 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
:::*Hey, I have a suggestion on how to present fictional characters: in one sentence or less, unless bursting with secondary sources from academic articles and books. :) ] (]) 02:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
:::** Seconded. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;] 02:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::That would be frickin' sweet, but the community will never go for it. Misplaced Pages has independent articles on ] and ] -- that proposal would never fly. I wish the only fictional characters on whom we had articles were ], ], ] and their ilk, but this being the internet I think we can just be glad each individual lolcat doesn't get their own article. Why I intend not to touch any such MOS discussion without an ∞-foot pole like the one used by one of the characters above-mentioned.] (<small>]]</small>) 06:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Meh--those two are nothing! See ] and bloated monstrosities like ] (not even the worst I've seen). On the other hand, poor ] barely gets playing time; ] gets a bit more, but as a whole the Beowulf characters could do with only a fraction of the attention given to Marvel or soap operas. ], if there is such a discussion, cast a vote of "minimal coverage" for me plz. ] (]) 15:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: Problem sovled: ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;] 23:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::The ironic thing is that if we tried that with articles on characters from fictional works from before, say, the nineteenth-century, we'd be (rightly) accused of OR. <facepalm> ] (<small>]]</small>) 23:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::{{U|Masem}}, I thought you'd be all gung-ho about secondary sourcing. This reliance on primary sourcing isn't even a slippery slope--it's a chasm. Anything goes. ] (]) 01:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's not the intent. You absolutely still need secondary sourcing to establish a character's notability, period. The thing is that secondary source typically gets you concept and reception information and may get some characterization. To fill in plot-specific details, one might have to end up going to primary sourcing. But that has to come after the article has shown its notability with secondary, otherwise it's a no-go. --] (]) 02:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Secondary sources aren't just necessary for passing GNG. We need to have adequate secondary sources to be able write an encyclopedic article. I don't even like the current "plot summaries can be sourced to the film/book/TV show itself" standard, since ''summaries'' if written by Wikipedians based on primary sources present inherent WEIGHT/OR problems. ] (<small>]]</small>) 03:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I find that troubling too, and I have written more than one plot summary using secondary sourcing. Hate to keep bringing up ''A Brief History of Seven Killings'' (it's a long book and I haven't finished yet), but ''that'' plot summary really shouldn't be written up in a Misplaced Pages article by someone without access to secondary sources--the novel is fragmented, with multiple perspectives and multiple narrators whose reliability and knowledge of events may be in question. ] (]) 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: Makes me think of '']'', which is extremely fragmentary. I hated writing that shitty summary, and would rather sum it up in general terms, but I'm pretty sure I'd never get it through GA. None of my secondary sources really sum it up in a Misplaced Pages-ish play-by-play manner, so relying on secondary sources is out. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;] 04:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Tell me about it. I'm a fan of ]'s works, but trying to read our articles on some of those topics would probably give me nightmares, so I try to avoid it. I brought it up on CT's page last night, but apparently a random new account has been going around creating articles on characters from '']'' that as a rule conflate the TV adaptation with the original books and as a result contain some pretty gross misrepresentations of the books (characters' parentage being wrong, numbers of children being inaccurate, etc.). Attempts to tag the sourcing for improvement were met with ("nonsense" has been called a personal attack, so I should clarify -- if a section is ''completely unsourced'' except for three words at the end then one shouldn't claim the sources are "fine"). And that's a GA! People criticize me for ] ], but I can't really be blamed for frequently coming across GAs that really shouldn't have passed their initial GA review. ] (<small>]]</small>) 06:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::BTW, the reason I absolutely refuse to post that particular article for GAR is because I don't think the plot summary section ''couldn't'' be sourced as currently written, I just think it should have proper citations. I also am deathly afraid of the modern American pop culture cabal that monitors those articles; if you folks think WP:COMICS is a snake-pit, try questioning the sourcing or readability of articles on the film and TV adaptations of said COMICS. Actually, no. Don't do that. I'd never wish that on someone. ] (<small>]]</small>) 06:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: {{ec}} I've been uncomfortable with that. I used to source all my plot summaries until someone told me one of my summaries was too short, and pointed me to that guideline. For a while I accepted that, but recently I've gone back to fully sourcing my summaries. I'm not sure we even need summaries as long as they tend to be—borderline play-by-plays. Some works warrant it, but many would do fine with a line or two giving the gist of the plot. Nothing something I'm going to put my chainmail on over, though. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;] 04:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{tq|someone told me one of my summaries was too short}} I'd actually have the opposite problem. Really short, generic plot synopses ] "This movie is about a group of Korean warriors in the desert and their attempt to save a Chinese princess from Mongols." can in theory be written well by anyone based on watching/reading the primary source (they are also, though, usually very easy to find secondary and tertiary sources for, so there is no ''need'' to use the primary source). Trying to expand beyond that leads to WEIGHT problems as the editors ] which elements of the plot they should include and/or give more weight to over others, which characters they should name, etc. This doesn't really apply to character articles, though, since with those anything cited to a primary source is by definition cherry-picked as something in the source that a Wikipedian thinks is relevant information about the character. Now, ''naming'' (and linking) the primary source inline is great, but actually getting the information primarily from such sources is not. ] (<small>]]</small>) 06:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::] is also a mess... --] (]) 01:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

== Ban parameters ==

What are the precise parameters of this ban? You weren't very specific other than "Comics". Obviously, all ] articles are out of the question. But what about comic adaptations (television shows like ] and ], character articles like ], ], ETC)? What about linking comic-related articles to non-comic articles (such as ])? Am I allowed to casually talk about the subject matter on my Talk Page, if it has nothing to do with the articles or Wiki-content? Am I allowed to even mention them? Can I talk to ] members if it has nothing to do with comics and isn't at the WikiProject? This is all new to me. ''']]]''' 03:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
*No, none of those things. (I am following the lead of the participants at ANI--all I added was "broadly construed", a formulaic phrase.) All of them involve comics--that is, anything that falls under the purview of the WikiProject. Sorry. Can't link them, discuss them, edit them; can't nominate them for deletion, participate in deletion discussions, move request, etc. You can talk to COMICS members, of course--but you can't talk about comics articles. I suppose you could in principle ask someone if they've seen the latest Batman or Antman or Dragonman or Bicyclerepairman movie or whatever, but you can't talk about the Misplaced Pages article on any of those things. Testing the boundaries of a topic ban is typically not held in high regard. I hope you see now that the stakes in that ANI thread were indeed high. ] (]) 03:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
** Yes (and gratuitously so, but I'm not getting into that here). Thank you for the clarification. Again, Darkknight2149 out. ''']]]''' 03:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

== Happy Valentine's Day ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|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;" | '''Happy Valentine's Day!''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Dear Drmies, I wish you a happy valentine's day.-- ] (]) 06:21, 14 February 2017 (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)
|} |}
*Oh Mona how sweet! Thank you--kiss kiss--, ] (]) 15:49, 14 February 2017 (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 = 1.2
| 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)


== Mail ==
== Need eyes at ] ==


{{You've got mail}} ] (]) 07:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Need content-editor and admin eyes at ]. This is a top-importance article, and it has a multitude of problems, including ''just for starters'':


== Edits to Columbia High School (New Jersey) ==
*Excess irrelevant historical detail that has nothing to do with Rasputin
*285 (no lie) hidden comments
*Image captions which are unattributed quotations
*An editor who has coopted it and refuses to engage, but instead avoids questions, attacks others, and stonewalls. Moreover, he seems to be unable (or unwilling) to answer simple straightforward English questions. I am also quite concerned about his competence level, given the preceding.


The article for ] definitely needs additional sources and has to some issues of tone addressed. There are sources about the school available to update many of the issues you highlighted. ] (]) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Any help would be appreciated. I merely stumbled upon the article by accident a few days ago, from a notice on someone's usertalk page. ] (]) 03:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
*Happy New Year, {{U|Alansohn}}. I hope there are, and I hope they're grrrreat. That article was a bit excessive. ] (]) 00:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Sockpuppet ==
UPDATE: OK now I have serious, ''serious'' questions about this editor's competence, to the point where I think it may be best to roll the article back to before he started editing it. I do not think he can be relied upon, and almost every edit I've seen him make since I started watching the article has been incorrect. ] (]) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
*Strange how a search for the word "penis" delivers nothing, though he got an entire section in some book about rock star penises that I read many years ago. ] (]) 15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
*I sure hope that "Perception" section is not yours. ] (]) 15:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
**Regarding his penis, see ] - there used to be a whole separate article on it. I think that this article might benefit from someone contacting ] for any recent reference work (encyclopedia, biographical dictionary) articles on Rasputin which could be used as a basis for comparison.


Got someone editing as an IP to escape a block and complain at the Teahouse. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*Seconding Softlavender's request - yes please. This article's present bloat of non-biographical details coupled with an apparent ]/] editor who 1)is having issues understanding WP policies/guidelines & 2) has extreme difficulty communicating with other editors to gain consensus.<br />
:Nevermind, they got globally blocked literally ''the'' minute I sent this lol. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Re that Perception section - it was started by the editor in question . <br />
:Also, nothing necessarily untoward in their usage of sandboxes but I have noticed they are saving various complete copies of the article in their sandbox2, sandbox/2, sandbox9, and sandbox10. ] (]) 00:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ::Oh, it's that one again. So boring. I wonder what their New Year's resolutions include. Haha, "this year I'm going to look for North Korean proxies". Good luck! ] (]) 00:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"Resolution 1: Complain about being banned on a website for almost 7 hours" ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I actually forgot how long it's been. Has it been a year? Ah--I blocked User:MidAtlanticBaby indefinitely on June 18. I see they're now actually banned by the Foundation: I don't know if you know this, but you have to go REALLY crazy to get banned by the Foundation. ] (]) 00:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Oh yeah, definitely didn't know that...{{pb}}Also, this has been going on for MONTHS? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes. When I say "childish" I mean it. This is likely a somewhat grown person with a driver license and the right to vote, who could be watching Georgia play football and make soup for their family and walk the dog. Instead, they're harassing a bunch of people including one who had nothing to do with them getting their dumb ass blocked. But they know some shit about proxies and whatnot and now they're just being cute, hoping to get caught and get attention. ] (]) 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Well, now whenever I feel down I'll just remember I'm way happier with my life than MidAtlanticBaby! Thanks for this Misplaced Pages lore Drmies. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== 120.21.0.0/16 ==
*And not wanting to further confuse the discussion at the article talk page, and yet needing to unburden myself, here's an incredible edit in which he uses a piece of fiction as a source for "facts" he inserts in an article . Later, he defends doing that, saying "I am not interested in WP rules, they are too complicated, there are too many to remember... I add what seems interesting. We don't need an encyclopaedia based on written sources, that is past, 20th century stuff" . It's impossible to trust ''anything'' this guy has done. Incredible he's been allowed to keep doing this stuff, on multiple articles, for all these years. ''']]''' 09:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:*]--oh dear. That's not good. ] (]) 16:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::I would be enormously relieved if the editor received a CIR article-ban from ], because even babysitting his talk-page posts there is exhausting and overwhelmingly time-consuming. Now that EEng has raised the point that his CIR issues are not confined to Rasputin, perhaps it's time to consider a CIR ban or block, period. I hate to do that to an editor, but the encyclopedia, not to mention the community's time and energy, are at stake. I was thinking that perhaps after the Rasputin article got suitably cleaned up, perhaps the article-ban could be probationally lifted, but if he is a hopeless CIR case that cannot credibly edit on other articles, we may need a site-wide 6-month CIR block, or ban with S.O. ] (]) 09:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi, would you consider unblocking this IP range? I don't want to, both because I'm unsure of the situation, and because I'm a little bit involved — it includes the address I'm using for the wireless network at my local public library. I don't understand the reason for the block, since you blocked it almost a month after the latest edit appearing at ], and there are no deleted contributions. ] (]) 05:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
===About that penis of yours===
Thanks {{U|Shearonink}}--it took me a while to find the merge discussion. It's here, ], and it's the lousiest merge discussion I've seen. ] waxed quite poetic the year before about this 12-inch organ, but apparently they didn't see that discussion. I wonder how such die-hard Rasputin editors like {{U|EEng}} and {{U|Softlavender}} feel like about all this. ] (]) 03:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC) *Hey {{U|Nyttend}}--I blocked the range because of one particular sock, who by now has created 215 accounts that we blocked and tagged, in a little over a year. There were two from that range that, looking at the block, were my immediate reason for the block, and since then it's been much quieter. Let me email you, lest I drop BEANS all over the place. ] (]) 14:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thanks for the response. This response makes sense, and the email was great; thank you. ] (]) 19:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:At the risk of somewhat confused imagery, I must say that, compared to ], a faux{{ndash}}big-penis merge discussion is ]. ''']]''' 03:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


== Advice needed ==
:What part of "I merely stumbled upon the article by accident a few days ago, from a notice on someone's usertalk page" did you not understand? I have made only these few (and very recent) cleanup edits to the article, have not added anything, and claim no expertise beyond having read '']'' and seen '']''. -- ] (]) 03:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::So you're not a die-hard editor, but rather a soft sea cucumber? ] (]) 03:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::<small>Speaking of ] editors... ''']]''' 17:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)</small>
:::I was setting you up for something like that. Your opinion over there would be appreciated. ''']]''' 03:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::: What is this, comedy night? Don't quit your day job; leave the comedy to SNL. ] (]) 03:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:::: I'm a recent traveler to Rasputin-land myself, fell down a WP rabbit-hole from somewhere around here and here I am - certainly think the article could do with some improvement. ] (]) 04:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::EEng, I am in agreement with all y'all's comments over there (well, all the ones I read--there's a lot), but please see the note I just left on Taksen's talk page. Softlavender, please be more respectful of my humor: laugh or get topic banned--it's that simple, really. I wish you'd run for admin just so I can block you; I don't have an admin block on my record, and I hear you get paid double for those. Seriously, I feel for Taksen, even while I agree with you all. I have seen many such articles, and {{U|Sitush}} and {{U|LadyofShalott}} are familiar with some of them as well, and it never gives me pleasure to do drastic cutting even when it's perfectly in agreement with guideline and policy and readability requirements. Thanks y'all, ] (]) 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::and can i just say i'm sad cause the title of the subsection didn't show up as an edit summary in recent changes... ] (]) 16:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::I feel bad for Taksen as well, but it's hard to hold onto that when he's being so thick-skulled. He's been openly flouting basic content policies for years. ''']]''' 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


{{outdent}} Am I to read this as we actually had a separate article about a person's penis? Good freaking grief. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 23:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) 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)
*Well, yeah, but (the penis, not the article). No monologues from the penis are recorded, however. ] (]) 01:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC) *Hmm I disagree: they were warned by multiple editors, and the content is unsourced. I was going to ask about talk page consensus, but there is project-wide consensus... ] (]) 22:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
**Okay. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:*I had absolutely no expectation that California would pop up in that article, but let's face it, my home state elbows itself in everywhere. ] ]
***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)
]
::*I don't know who stuck that smoked thing there but it's disgusting. Very sad! ] (]) 02:08, 19 February 2017 (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)


== Football sock ==
This discussion O_o ... I think it's time for me to remove this from my watchlist, lol. ''']]]''' 02:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Not college football, but still... See ]. I agree with GS and don't know why others are defending the user (casting aspersions indeed). Creating an RfA...doing so many moves it makes me dizzy...leaving trolling messages for other users... I'm on the edge of blocking myself for disruption, but a check would be helpful. Thanks.--] (]) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
]]'''</small>]]
:The ANI discussion has derailed into a discussion about whether Footballnerd2007 is using LLM, which they clearly are, but the user is choosing, unwisely, to wikilawyer, and GS, also unwisely, is trying to "nail" them. I thought about hatting it, but it's so rapid and I'm not sure where exactly I'd hat it. Oh, btw, another on my list above - read the user's Talk page - it's a cornucopia of warnings.--] (]) 22:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Why is it that every kid who discovers Misplaced Pages thinks the site ''absolutely must have'' a picture of his trepang? ] (]) 02:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
::What a mess. That got out of hand quickly--I'm also not happy with the alien's response. A check was run on the user, and I guess it showed nothing... ] (]) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks. They are now being "mentored".--] (]) 18:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Drmies, alien was obviously not trying to defend the user (you can tell through certain, subtle signs, such as the use of a face palm emoji and the phrase "You're not helping your case right now"), they were trying to de-escalate things. Is this really how you want to treat them? ] (]) 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Sorry, but I don't know what prompted this, and I certainly don't understand that last, loaded question. Did I say that they were trying to "defend" the user? Where? What you could to is ask what I meant, if you're really interested in me and what I think. ] (]) 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


==Mail call==
== Re: ==
{{ygm}} I stopped e-mailing you long ago, since it always bounced, but perhaps it may be worth trying again? ] &#124; ] 09:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
*YES. I've been so lonely! ] (]) 15:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
I am totally in the pro-seafood camp but shark fin soup seems counterintuitive. A dash of ] does wonders. ''Bon appétit''. ]] 12:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
*Ha, that's just LA speaking. You think Avery will get to keep his job? ] (]) 15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
== Valgetova ==


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Can you (or can you recommend somebody else to) take a good look at user:Valgetova? I get the nasty feeling that we are dealing with a PR-employee from Hilton and/or Astoria. See here: . <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
*Good call, Banner. I left them a note. I didn't see any obvious promotional editing in my quick run-through, but if you see it, tag it or report it. Thanks, ] (]) 18:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
**I got across her (?) on NLWP where she was messing up, suddenly moving a restaurant in Zwolle to Amsterdam and more misery. When checking, I found that she had a remarkable interest in Hilton and Astoria hotels, not only on the Dutch Misplaced Pages but also on the Danish and Afrikaner Misplaced Pages and many others. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:Hmmm, is this enough disclosure? ]?? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 21:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:: No. The user must disclose his/her client and employer. —&thinsp;]&thinsp;<small>(]'''·'''])</small> 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Correct. Who's going to be the bearer of bad news? ] (]) 02:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I have sacrificed myself... <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 16:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::God zal het je lonen, mijn zoon--want van ons hoef je niks te verwachten. ] (]) 23:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Not sure why so angry, as the only reason to update things around here is to make them true and informative enough, I would like to do it according to all the rules, and still keep everything nice and clear. Since started disputing some of my edits, a lot of people included to update information and make the projects more complete. Anyway, I would like to continue to help updating information appropriately, can make it with the help of moderators I suppose, will be happy to do it, keeping in mind ]. ] (]) 08:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
==DYK for Teun van de Keuken==
:] ]
{{ivmbox
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|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 Dutch television maker and author ''']''' started ], which sells what is called "slave-free chocolate"?'' 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 --> ] (]) 22:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
Thank you for chocolate and literature! - Once I'm here: I'd like to write {{ill|Liza Ferschtman|nl}} one of these days, because nl has mo more than de, - could you imagine to help? - To any admin watching: ] should not be in WP space, but in the user's who is the also subject and the mover, and the earlier version to which I reverted should be back in article space. See also talk on ] with ]. --] (]) 23:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
Now I found a helper for the violinist, - lacking sources, though. --] (]) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
== Just FYI... ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline

|]
This ] may interest you. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 01:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
|]
*Thanks. Surprisingly that discussion was started by an old-timer. ] (]) 03:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
|]

|]
== Requesting your help ==
|]

Hi, doctor. "Kim Jong-woon" is both the birth name of the singer ] and an alternate transliteration of ]. While the title redirects to the former, its talk page redirects to the latter. It doesn't seem like something to take up at RfD, since it's clearly an error one way or the other, but I can't move the talk page myself. Can you help with this, or should it just be left as is? Hope all is well with you and yours. ] (]) 02:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*I didn't move anything, just changed the redirect. Thanks, ] (]) 03:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

== Archiving isn't quite working completely.... ==

Yay, another ] issue! Well, ''kind of''...<br />
The automatic-archiving is working for the talkpage but the linkage isn't showing <u>up</u> on the article's talk page. And then there's are the two different Archives for the Rasputin's penis talk and for the main article talk... By the way, both of the (manually archived) archives are malformed according to the Bots' naming conventions, they are named "Talk:/Archive#" instead of "Talk:/Archive#. The bot is doing its work correctly (there ''is'' a Talk{Grigori Rasputin/Archive 6) but the article talk page doesn't know that Archive 6 exists. (A discussion about this issue is on ] at: Thanks, ] (]) 07:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:<small>Thank goodness you archived his penis. It might hold him up if the ] don't work...</small>
::<small> (I didn't have a thing to do with his penis (or even archiving it for that matter...) That was done looong before I happened upon the Rasputin-scene. ] (]) 22:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC))</small>
::In any case, could someone ''please'' take a look at the automatic-archiving and fix whatever it is that is going wrong? Thanks, ] (]) 22:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:::If you don't get a response, ] is the place to get technical support. ] (]) 06:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Thx Softlavender - that's going to be my next stop. I've looked and looked at the code and can't quite figure out what's wrong. ] (]) 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

== Why did you do that? ==

Did I miss something here ? The IP editor didn't explain their reasons for removing the content. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
*They did--"duplicate sentence". The sentence with the number of horses. You have to look twice to see it; I didn't see it until I saw their summary. ] (]) 04:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
::Oh, it's in grey. Well, now I just feel dumb. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Shit happens. Yes, it does look odd, doesn't it--shows you how easily we get used to seeing what we think we see... ] (]) 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

== A bowl of strawberries for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for the barnstar! It was a wonderful surprise. Also, thank you for being the voice of reason on Donald Trump talk. Please stay there. ] (]) 20:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
|}
*Haha, I don't get accused of that very often, but thank you very much. And {{U|Coffee}}, who is also a Good Guy (I think he's a guy?), blocked the IP for quite some time. ] (]) 02:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
*:Guy? Yes. Good? That's still up for debate... <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 03:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

== Reference errors on 17 February ==

] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows:
*On the ] page, caused an ] <small>(])</small>. ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

== ] ==

is wot I was thinking of; hope you can assist, but if not possible, totally understandable. <small>On the assumption you don't want to spend your weekends doing other people's work of course :)</small> ]] 14:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
*Hey, that's fascinating. A quick Google search reveals some English sources. I'll get on it but not tonight--and I wonder if {{U|Crisco 1492}} might have an interest in it... ] (]) 02:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
:*Interesting indeed. Shame my own work's been keeping me swamped (POTD and TFA scheduling are behind, and ] needs references). &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 02:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
::*Fortuna has a draft in user space. Let's see if we can get on it in the next few days. Nice to see you again, Chris. ] (]) 02:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
:::*You too, Doc. PhD-ville's been crazy. I'm going to be defending my proposal on Friday, and then it's time to use all my "spare time" (HA!) to read and write. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 02:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
:::: I'm half expecting my PhDville to get bulldozed ] at some point ;) but thanks for looking into our Dolly, everyone :) ]] 11:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

== Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories ==
This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at ] or at ] has resulted in a ] at ] <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
*Thanks for getting that started. ] (]) 02:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

==Mediterranean horse mackerel==
Thank you for giving me a barnstar for expanding ]. However, the award was an error. Instead, would you please award it to {{u|Drauv}}, since he is the editor who actually expanded the article. --] (]) 02:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
*Well, I can give them one too, but it was your edit I noticed, and for that I thanked you. ] (]) 02:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

== Help, I think I found a mass of copyvio ==

See ]. I'm afraid I may not have found all of it, and I think ] may also need a careful going over. One of the editors involved may actually be the author of the text I found elsewhere, to complicate matters. The other is from a BBC programme and I have to dash and have yet to hunt for it to make a proper footnote ... but I'm afraid revision deletion is going to be needed in addition to rewriting for tone and to keep the facts, and as I say, I fear I may not have found it all. Pinging poor old {{U|Moonriddengirl}}, but I'd appreciate help from any watchers here who know their way around finding and dealing with copyvio. Argh. I'm sorry. It appears to be a bit of a mess. ] (]) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
*Eh, I don't really know what to do with that. (Is that by way of ?) If you determine something happened in this or that diff, I can check and start revdeleting. ] (]) 23:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
**Yes, I confess, I looked at it because you had edited it - and saw some peculiar prose. The sad story of my researches so far and the changes I've made based on them is on the article talk page. What I've found and tried to fix was introduced by two different editors, both of whom edited the article many times, and goes back to 26 November 2012 that I've found so far. (I've since traced the TV programme to 1988 and a 1989 broadcast, but the website I found the material on is not 100% clear that the text is a transcript.) I'm afraid there may be earlier copyvio and/or passages I didn't spot. I'm also out of depth on the topic matter: I cut what seemed to be an out of place second section of technical specs, but possibly I should have instead moved it and referenced it. And I haven't even looked at other related articles, but they were coming up on Google search for the key phrases I used. Hence, "a bit of a mess" above. What I believe I'm seeing is a need for revision deletion back to before that 26 November 2012 edit, and possibly similar treatment at ] and other articles worked on by the same 2 editors. ] (]) 12:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
***Thank you. It's a sad situation. I must do something tonight or I'd look for a Swedish obit on Vinos Sofka. ] (]) 06:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

== A few more redirects ==

Hey there, Drmies. I'm here to tell you that I have helped you out by redirecting a few unsourced album articles. Those albums are: ''Sunrise in Eden'' by ], ''Stairway to Fairyland'' by ], and the first three albums from ]; ''Wings of Forever'', ''Neverworld'', and ''Magic Never Dies''. Well, that's what you wanted, all the weakly sourced articles eliminated, and all the properly sourced ones kept. I hope you would thank me for all this, instead of just reverting those edits and blocking me....] (]) 02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
*Sure, thanks, great. I don't get the blocking reference but sure. ] (]) 05:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

== Precious five years! ==

{{User QAIbox
| title = Precious
| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
| image_upright = 0.4
| bold = ]
}} }}
:] ]
Thank you also for the help above! - Did you follow the discussion on classical music (Reger), which eventually may need someone to merge ], not so much the content as the complicated histories? - I heard the Dutch violinist mentioned further up in a concert conducted by ]. --] (]) 15:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
*Thank you, my dear Gerda; it is much appreciated, though my contributions in article space are minuscule compared to yours, and so are my contributions to articles you worked on. So no, I have not followed the discussion, and if time permits I will look at it in the next day or two. Thank you again, and thank you also for you many improvements to our beautiful project. ] (]) 19:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:: Thank you, - one thing about precious is not to compare ;) - some get it for their first DYK, some for gnomish edits, - we all do what we can. - I noticed strange moves of user pages just now, by User:R-athrill, please take a look. --] (]) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:: The strange moves were repaired, no need to look ;) --] (]) 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I would create ], but after the LHvU category debacle I'm sure it would be deleted forthwith.--]<sup>]</sup> 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:::: Such people could just nominate themselves on the talk page, also suggest others, also pass Precious themselves. It's an easy template now that everybody can fill. - I don't have my eyes everywhere, and typically stop looking when I found one a day. --] (]) 23:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::No self-noms or handouts for me, I'll earn it the hard way or die trying :) --]<sup>]</sup> 23:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::Ah, it's Ponyo; that means it's a party. Gerda, please grab the cheese and crackers (the good cheese, from the back of the cheese drawer), and I'll get us a beer. We are having a ] Fond Tradition. If you don't like it sour, and yeasted ''au naturel'', you're out of luck. Woohoo! ] (]) 23:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::A beer should emulate its drinker; I have a strong preference for cold and bitter. Cheers!--]<sup>]</sup> 00:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Haha, I think {{U|Bishonen}} would agree that sour and ''au naturel'' fits me like a glove. I may have an IPA for you--these gueuzes are pretty light anyway, and I wouldn't mind more beer. It's President's Day! Yay! ] (]) 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::<small>...what beer emulates the president I wonder :) ]] 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::::The president doesn't drink. ] (]) 15:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::''At ALL?!'' Not even dihydrogen monoxide? Holy liquid abstinence, ]! Must be a super-power of some sort ] (]) 16:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*He's a ]. ] (]) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::*"The future's bright, the future's ]". ] (]) 11:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


</div>
== Troublesome article ==
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
], a massive article written by a newbie SPA, is mostly unreferenced promotional bloat. I'm not even sure it meets notability. (Hard to tell with the silly references and the wall-of-text self-serving bloat.) It definitely needs help, and eyes. ] (]) 03:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
:Talk-page stalker note: I saw this note by ] and checked out the article. It looks like a legitimate topic, offhand, though the article is too laudatory and can certainly be improved. The situation is confusing though: this is a brand-new article in February, yet there is notice at ] about the article being accepted at ArticlesForCreation by editor SwisterTwister, back in December. There is no ] however. --]]] 03:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
:: It was G11'd on 3 Dec last year . ]] 05:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
*I have given the article a trim, but it still needs some help in terms of tone, language, over-promotionalism (and remaining bloat), and the blizzard of titles that should be in italics but are not. ] (]) 04:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
:<s>''Edited to add'': I also notice that the article subject died this month, and the wiki article was created nine days after his death, apparently intended as some kind of memorial. ] (]) 04:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)</s>
::Oopsie, it was 1 year and 9 days, not just 9 days; death was in February 2016 not 2017. I personally don't mind articles being created upon someone's death, either, that is a pretty big reminder to people about them and it is natural to think of creating or adding to a Misplaced Pages article then. --]]] 06:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Christ, I seem to do that more and more. ] (]) 06:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
*I would also like to invite {{U|JamesBWatson}} into this conversation, since he wrote a very relevant warning notice on the article creator's talk page in early December , and per Doncram's information above there seems to have been some smoke and mirrors involved in the (re)posting of the article live this month after JamesBWatson had deleted it (G11) on December 3, 2016. ] (]) 05:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
:JamesBWatson, is this version substantially the same as the version you G11ed in December ? ] (]) 07:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
:*{{tps}} You know if I came across this tagged for G11, I'd delete it without hesitation...and I'd tag it myself right now were there not so many eyes on it already. ] (]) 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
:*], the answer is yes. I'm hesitant to drop the ax, however, since it's not actively being worked on and doesn't look a thing like that horrible promotional piece anymore. ] (]) 18:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Thanks for checking the deleted version. I agree that the article as it now stands, a fraction of the size of the original, is much better, and as long as the article creator does not come back to it, it's fine as is. ] (]) 03:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
== 122.104.7.121 ==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
*{{IP|122.104.7.121}}
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


==WP is not a Multilingual dictionary==
Did you think that the single edit that they made justified a block...? ] (]) 02:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Please take a look at ] and comment. Though this may be implied by other policies, I think it's worthwhile making it explicit. Thanks, --] (]) 19:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*No, but the two attempts at vandalism that the filter caught count also. ] (]) 03:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


== FORDROCKEFELLER1974 ==
==Accused sockie==
Someone made a claim that disruptive IP editor ] is a (]). What do you think? ] 03:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
*It's possible, hell, it's likely--but there's little we can do about that, I think. ] (]) 03:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


See {{UTRS|98810}}. The claim is that Bishonen allowed a new account to be created, in comments over at ]. What are your thoughts? Note that I have ''not'' looked at the checkuser technical data and... am dubious... --] (]) 23:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== Disruptive edits and hate propagating by a long-term vandal ==
*Ha, yes, but Bish said that before I had a looked and confirmed that Looney had logged in (and I just checked again, to make sure). I can't read the VRT (I still can't log in) so I don't know what the "compromised" thing was, but this is socking going back to 2021. ] (]) 02:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
Hi Drmies,


Perhaps you could take a look at this - a new but prolific ip with all the jargon. Possible returning sock? Greatly concerned about the reputation of Philip II of Spain. Cheers, ] (]) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
There are ongoing problems regarding a disruptive racist editor who was indefinitely blocked last year per ]. ], justifiably, was blocked by {{ping|JzG}} . After his "long" messages and apologies on his talk page, user {{ping|Beeblebrox}} gave him a "chance" and reduced his block . However, only a few weeks later, I noticed that he began editing thorugh his "confirmed" ips (see Rebell's talk page) with exactly the '''same''' agenda for months , , , , , ,, (...) After his "Swiss" ips became "notorious", he abandoned them for a while and since June 2016, he has been editing from Germany , . As I proved on with dozens of diffs, those German and Swiss ips belong to the long-term vandal ]/]. Plus, the checkuser also agreed that those ips belong to the same editor. However, no action was taken since his sock account was  already "soft-blocked" for impersonating ] and he has not edited via his other account, Rebell, for a long time, despite he is very '''active''' with various ips and proxies. As I mentioned on the SPI case, the sockmaster "intentionally" impersonating other editors in order to escape "hard-block". It seems to me that, '''impersonating other editors is the "tactic" of this sockmaster: When his disruptive/suspicious accounts are noticed, they are first blocked for impersonating other editors, before blocked for socking or disruptive editing. And thereby, they become "soft-blocked", instead of "hard-blocked"''' Exactly the same problem has occured in the 09 January 2016 case (Kinetsubuffalo). Plus, he uses this situation as an . Two of his accounts were blocked for impersonating other editors, it is obviously not a "coincidence", but a tactic. 
*{{U|Johnbod}}, there is a copious amount of logged-out editing there, though I don't see direct evidence of them using IPs to circumvent policy--but that the same person is editing without logging in is indisputable (and I warned them), so that leaves the actual IPs. In many cases the logged-out editing is from VPNs that have been blocked before, by ]--who I see is retired? What is this world coming to... So I'm not exactly sure what to do, since that's not really my cup of tea, and ] isn't very insightful. I see ] is running that but they are not a CU, and it's at least three or four different ranges. ], if you know how to handle them, can you have a look and do what's right on those ranges? Yes, Philip II is certainly well worth our time. Thanks, ] (]) 04:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Do you have a second? ==
The same disruptive sockmaster was warned many times by various users for his problematic, "hateful" edits targeting a minority ethnic group: , , , , , (...) And finally, he was warned {{ping|Doug Weller}} for the '''same''' reason , . Despite all these warnings and SPI cases, '''exactly the same problem continues''' . The last SPI case was closed on 22 February, and he has came with a "new" ip range on 25 February. On the SPI case, I have proved with multiple diffs that the proxy ip "81.253.60.172", German ips and Hassan Rebell are the same editor and thereby the "new" ip "130.180.67.198" from Germany, obviously the same vandal. In other words, he is still active on WP and continues editing as if nothing has happened. '''If he had used an account, he would have been banned 100 times''', but no one can do anything because he is abusing '''plenty of ip ranges''' and only "soft-blocked" because of "impersonating" other editors. This is unfair. 


Could you walk me through reassigning user rights? I've discovered some PGAME at ] and I blocked them while I redo the user rights. Sorry, I've not done much of this. I've got Special:UserRights/54rt678 open. ] (]) 04:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
In order to solve this problem I request:
*'''Re-blocking for Hassan Rebell''', since he continues "exactly" (even worse) the same behavior/edits that was led to the block and he is still '''active''' though he edits when logged-out. Also, I request hard-block for his impersonator accounts Lrednuas Senoroc and Kinetsubuffalo, since it is not a "coincidence", but a tactic.
*'''Semi-protecting certain articles that were often targeted by him'''. Since he uses "plenty of" ip ranges and proxies, the range block does not work and semi-proctecting is the most effective solution in this case. In fact, he edited numberless articles but it is impossible to protect all of them. But, at least, certain articles that are constantly targeted by him should be semi-protected. Namely: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. 


:The user has 509 edits, and 250 of them were done three days ago on the linked sandbox. ] (]) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Bests, ] (]) 20:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::Do I merely uncheck, leave a reason and save (and watch)? Just something I haven't seen done recently. ] (]) 04:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: *{{ip|88.128.80.108}}
:::It was so simple I figured it out myself, but I needed another editor to reassure me. Don't mind doing the job, but am sometimes nervous about affecting someone unduly. ] (]) 05:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Sure thing. That editor is headed for an indef: incompetence mixed with promotional editing. ] (]) 14:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Not a very mature approach, granted. Hey, this morning I welcomed (after I reverted) a user who'd in Caleb Williams's article. It will get weirder than that... ] (]) 14:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::At least they apologized. I really loathe those kinds of edits, though not as much as the "daddy" variation. ] (]) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Among their last 4 edits, two were adding commas to TP's post. Looking at that I'm not sure why we would trust them to edit any longer. ] ] 14:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Maybe, ], but I found nothing--I was thinking of various returning nuisances but saw no evidence. Wait and see, I think. ] (]) 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I tried to make it as plain as I could to the PGAMER that all their edits would be under close observation henceforth. If they can't ''hold themselves'' accountable, how can we? ] (]) 16:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Ha, is that a rhetorical question? ] (]) 17:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== CS1 error on ] ==
] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that ] performed by you, on the page ], may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
* 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. ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->] (]) 23:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== CS1 error on ] ==
] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that ] performed by you, on the page ], may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
* 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. ( | )
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)


== ]/] ==
The long-term vandal is back now. Unblocking is just encouraging him. ] (]) 21:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


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.
I hope I can find one admin who cares this ongoing vandalism! Seems nobody cares! {{Ping|JzG}}, {{ping|Ponyo}}, {{ping|Ian.thomson}}, {{ping|JamesBWatson}}, {{ping|Doug Weller}}, {{ping|DoRD}} ] (]) 22:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
*I'm sorry, but what am ''I'' supposed to do that wasn't already been done at ]? And please don't say those editors/admins don't care: they all work much harder than I do on this project. ] (]) 22:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
*OK so I looked at a bunch of things, including ], which you want me to protect. Perhaps is your guy--maybe, maybe not. Their edits do not strike me immediately as disruptive or worse. The most recent spat there involved you, restoring content removed by an IP. But that's all the action there in the recent past, so I don't see much of a reason to semi-protect that article. ] (]) 22:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


Attentively ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|Drmies}}, so you think that everthing is OK! I BET you don't even read the case, and even what i have wrote above. Just read the case '''thoroughly''' and the contribs of him. Many users, including admins, noticed his disruptuve edits many times! This is really unbeliveable. ] (]) 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


== Books & Bytes – Issue 66 ==
I spend my hours and provide dozens of diffs, mentioned the problems regarding the SPI case and you simply reject all of them even without reading it. This case is complicated and you cannot understand it by looking just a " bunch of things". And yes, i do believe that many of admins are just careless. ] (]) 23:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
As I said many times, this vandal is a "professional" and knows well how to escape hard-block. I suggest some solutions and i hope an admin, who read it "thoroughly" will do what need to do. You said that "it wasn't already be done on SPI?", and the checkuser told me that " it is not the work of checkusers". This is really weird. ] (]) 23:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;">
*There is little point in running CU on those IPs. Blocks have to be behavioral. What I looked at was already a few days old and many of the diffs are much older--there is no point in blocking old IPs. I didn't say "everthing is OK"; don't put words in my mouth. And I did read the case, and what you wrote above. But let me ask you, why do you come to me? You got a half dozen people working on this already--am I like the Lady who helps those whom no one helps? You asked for articles to be protected--I looked at two articles and saw no need for protection. If you think admins are just careless, don't waste your time--judging from your words I'm no better than the lot of them. ] (]) 00:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
]</div>
: Sigh...I did not even request "blocking IPS". In contrast, i have said that it doesn't work, since he has plenty of ip ranges! And can't you see, i have showed that he is still active "now", not stale. Also i have provided those "OLD" diffs to make you see that this user has been editing wikipeia for a long time with the same racist agenda. Plus, even the checkuser agreed that they belong to Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell. Is this a JOKE? Are you sure that you really read it? And I came to you because I noticed that you are online and admin, ok? But it was a mistake, i do accept it. ] (]) 00:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
<div style="line-height: 1.2;">
::Give me a recent IP with recent disruptive edits and we'll talk. ] (]) 01:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br />
Issue 66, November – December 2024
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;">
* Les Jours and East View Press join the library
* Tech tip: Newspapers.com
<big>''']'''</big>
</div>
</div>
<small>Sent by ] on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9 (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=28051347 -->


== Banned cease-and-desist photographer ==
== Doktoro ==
Having moved here to Earth, from Gallifrey, what is your opinion of the {{On AFD|European diaspora}}? &#9786; ] (]) 21:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
* {{cite book|ref=harv|title=The European Diaspora in Australia: An Interdisciplinary Perspective|editor1-first=Bruno|editor1-last=Mascitelli|editor2-first=Sonia|editor2-last=Mycak|editor3-first=Gerardo|editor3-last=Papalia|publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing|year=2016|isbn=9781443894197}}
::The flagporn is obnoxious. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 21:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
*My dear Uncle, what a joy to see you here: it is a day of happiness--I also just got a record player! Anyway, as far as I know "Diaspora has come to refer particularly to historical mass dispersions of an involuntary nature", so the word is not appropriately used, in my opinion. And Cambridge Scholars Publishing is not widely accepted as a righteous outfit... ] (]) 22:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
**I have found a source that calls it by another name. It is however, published by people almost as disreputable as the Aussies. As I am sure the good Onion Lady will agree, we are of course writing an encyclopaedia for people who do not read books. That is why we have all of the flags, to make it easier to not read. ] (]) 22:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
***{{cite book|ref=harv|title="To Make America": European Emigration in the Early Modern Period|editor1-first=Ida|editor1-last=Altman|editor2-first=James P. P.|editor2-last=Horn|publisher=University of California Press|year=1991|isbn=9780520072336}}
:::*''"Writing a New Caribbean"'', three-part series on BBC Radio 4 (available online). I heard the first one on Trinidadian literature and was entranced. Sorry about the plug- looking at the blue-on-blue map in that article at the blue-and-grey Hispaniola put me in mind of it. ] (]) 03:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


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.
== You've been reported. ==


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)
Dear editor:
*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)
As the rules require (and as a courtesy), I am notifying you: You and 2 or 3 other editors have been reported:
:], thank you for doing some of that leg work--I had looked at various things but managed to miss that IP comment. And that IP comment: well, "excessive" use is a thing frowned upon but you laid out the (common sense) practices pretty neatly; thank you for that as well. ] (]) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tl|tps}} That photographer's license terms seem to take a strict position on the exact way credit must be given in off-wiki uses of their work. I'm not sure if they have pursued settlements against good-faith reusers or in other ways headed into license-trolling. I, like others, cannot find discussion about it on enwiki or commons.{{pb}}There was a previous case (long ago, different license-holder) where consensus formed that the ''effect'' of mass use of a certain creator's content on-wiki was to induce innocent/good-faith but not "strictly by the not-quite-expected license terms" use off-wiki, enabling forced legal settlements. There was thought that the creator themself was actually intentional about using wiki in this way, and that all of this exceeded the community's tolerance and good-faith. ] (]) 18:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::], yes, thanks--I remember a case too and I think it played out on Commons, that guy who posted videos of himself ejaculating and stuff, and there was a guy who sucked his own ****. But more to the point, I also remember a case of a photographer who, it was judged, was basically here to promote their own business and I think an ANI post led to removal of some of those images. But I can't see what practical guidelines ] is supposed to have broken. ] (]) 18:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have no idea if there is off-wiki evidence of actual legal actions against re-users, or claims that WP sites are inducement. But I also assume anything I'd find by googling I couldn't mention here for OUTING anyway. ] (]) 18:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yep, and any kind of case should be either discussed on-wiki or submitted privately if there's some privacy concern, rather than signaled (if that's even the word) with a boilerplate and vague edit summary. ] (]) 18:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:], I have reverted those edits. Thanks for bringing it up. ] (]) 18:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Your welcome. I hope the editor just made a mistake. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 02:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:For every one who's interested, please see ]. ] (]) 21:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Just to clarify posts on Miijumaaru talk page ==
Link 1: and Link 2: .


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)
Best luck in getting resolution.] (]) 03:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*Yeah, I have no idea what you're trying to achieve here. You must have too much time on your hands. ] (]) 04:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*Florida, the place to be for both of you. ] (]) 04:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
**I looked at it, stopped at the ''Daily Stormer'', then checked the IPs: both locate to central Florida. Complainant blocked. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 04:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
***I had occasion to spend a good bit of time in central Florida about 20 years ago when I was running a field experiment. The overwhelming impression was that it was exactly like West Virginia, except it was flat. ] (]) 04:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::* We West Virginians take offense. At least we were on the winning side in the Late Disagreement. Otherwise, spot on. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 04:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::*''Country roads, take me home to Central Florida''... it doesn't quite work does it :) ]] 04:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::West Virginia has 3500 year old cypress trees? And lovely oaks hung with Spanish moss. And crystal springs? ] ] 06:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::"Welcome to South Florida the rules are different here
::::::::The government is broke
::::::::but that's just a joke
::::::::come back and spend some more money next year
::::::::South Florida, where they pay morality cops to go to topless bars every day
::::::::To watch women dance in the nude, what a great way to receive your daily pay
::::::::And welcome to South Florida
::::::::A drive by shooting can cost you your life."
::::::::Sadly I don't remember the rest of the lyrics (of a song played by a 1980s and 1990s radio talk show host in South Florida where I lived then and now) except "if you put your head in underwear you can be a county commissioner instead." 20 years have passed and I'm sure I botched some of the lyrics. I tried my best. Where's the woman in the thong bikini selling hot dogs these days?], is the complaint department really on ] 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Well that's lovely. In line with Boris's comment, I feel more justified than ever in saying that we (Alabama) should get the panhandle. Culturally speaking it's exactly the same, and we need the coastline. Florida has enough. ] (]) 15:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::But that's really just the southeast coast down to below Homestead. The center and warps bits are quite different as are the Keys. My dad worked in the Everglades for over a year buying land for the park. ] ] 18:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


== On a side note to above template talk ==
Ping, There might be more ] {{=)|tongue}} - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 18:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


While template "main" should not be used in the lead, the template "further" is less clear on placement. I just looked and the template "see also" also says not to use in the lead and is used only at the top of sections. "Further" says nothing about placement and I can't help but wonder if that should also say not to use in the lead. Where best to bring that up? On the narrow Template:Further talk page? Or is there a more general template talk page that it should be talked about? Thanks. ] (]) 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I see ] likes to give his friends inside information. You cannot talk about me behind my back.
*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)
] (]) 23:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*:I posted at Manual of Style/Layout first to see if anyone knows the answer. Thanks. ] (]) 22:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*Well, ], he can and he did. If you want to discuss article improvement, the talk page is the best place to do it. Oh, "He also announced on his talk page I was reported, trying to humiliate me"? No. I did not such thing. ] (]) 02:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


== Even worse article == == 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)
]. Please someone either help it or put it out of its misery. The only indication of what the heck the article is talking about is the fact that it has an article on ]-wiki. The article creator is a bit odd too. ] (]) 17:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*{{U|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} to the rescue. ] (]) 02:24, 28 February 2017 (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)
**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)
*****HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU REMEMBER STUFF LIKE THAT ] (]) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
****** That's a great question; there's plenty of more useful stuff I wish that I remembered. <b>] ]</b> 17:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*******The two users don't write at all the same. Light2021 doesn't sound like a native English speaker. Drmies, was a check ever run against Light2021? Looks like they were accused of socking (their block log is, um, busy)?--] (]) 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
********Yep--by ] and, to stay on the topic of memory, by you. ;) ] (]) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
********It's documented here, ], and Jpgordon checked after an unblock request in 2018. ] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*********Ha! If you remember, my memory is almost non-existent, and as far as CU-related stuff, I repress all of it as bad memories. That said, I suspect that if you were to check the CU log of Light2021 vs. the data on Karen, you might find that they edit from different continents, pretty much ruling out that she's a sock of Light2021.--] (]) 18:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
**********Hmm no I don't remember that. ;) ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! ==
== "Move along, folks. IP has stopped edit warring and has thus staved off a block." ==


{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
This is a really shabby way to close a thread where I was obviously being jerked around. I guess being an admin doesn't guarantee ], eh? Pfft.] (]) 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
*You were edit warring. You would have been blocked. You weren't being jerked around. You can guess what you like--I'm a scientist and don't believe in chance. ] (]) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''

|-
== ] ==
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for helping reduce the use of "served as", "serves as" and such like for what are not public service roles. In those two examples, "was" and "is" would be preferable (this last sentence is obviously not for your benefit, but might help someone else who reads this). ] (]) 12:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

|}
This is obviously ]. Would you be willing to check for any possible sleepers? Thanks! ] (]) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*Whoever it is is an idiot--and I already checked. Thanks! ] (]) 04:01, 28 February 2017 (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)
*You were right, thanks. I keep forgetting I actually participated in that ban conversation, that's how exciting this person is. I didn't find anyone else, but hey, tomorrow they may be in Goa or Kerala. I'm glad they have a mission in life; I wish improving their English was another. ] (]) 04:17, 28 February 2017 (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)
==Pilling on nonsense==
I am not whole sure what you mean by my making nonsense allegations, perhaps you would care to explain?] (]) 16:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*I meant to place that under your earlier comment, "He does not think the rules apply to him (that is clear form my interaction with him) and that he treats ANI's (and AE) as another tool in his pseudoscience. Frankly this is a joke", but accidentally put it under your proposal for sanctions. "Another tool in his pseudoscience" is particularly inappropriate. ] (]) 16:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::I left out the word "war", which might have made what I meant clear. And I stand by it, it was clear from his talk page comment that he see's things in a battle ground light and reads to me just like that, he has fought this battle many times (and many of the users he has opposed have been banned), well it is how I read it (note this thread was in response to the question of should I be topic banned). So can you see why I might think this user uses threats of bans (and thus ANI and AE) as a tool to silence users with whom he is in dispute with over pseudoscience?] (]) 16:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::That does make an important difference--but I am not going to accuse anyone of a battleground attitude unless I've seen the evidence for it, and in this case it really seemed as if you came by only to throw shade at jps based on an unrelated incident. But thanks for the clarification, ] (]) 17:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

==Uh sorry ...==
... if my last interaction with you seemed a bit grumpy. ] ] 16:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*Haha, that's OK, thanks. I like to think of us as being in the beginning of a rocky but hopefully fruitful relationship. We've bumped heads once or twice at AfDs, but I do appreciate this note--you're obviously a bigger person than I am (since I could have said the same), and you have one of the coolest names around. Thanks, ] (]) 17:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

== COI? ==

Doc and stalkers: take a look at ]. Seems they joined us February 24 and have been adding their own works as references to a number of articles, which articles typically don't need additional references. Note the heads up to the new user from {{ping|Ariadacapo}} ]. Seems like a ], is it not? Adding one's own works, I mean. Thought I'd check with the ] around here before I reverted the rest. ] &#124; <sup> ]</sup> 18:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*This is always tricky (or "trickig", as ABBA would say), but I think that, in this case, we are dealing more with promotion than with article improvement, yes. ] (]) 18:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

== "This is where it started..." ==

If you had anything like a conscience, you'd have looked at all of ]'s comments (chronologically). Instead, you cherry-picked the first instance of me giving the slightest bit of snark while ignoring four instances of rudeness from the other editor. Disgusting.] (]) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:43, 17 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

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.

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

Edits to Columbia High School (New Jersey)

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

Sockpuppet

Got someone editing as an IP to escape a block and complain at the Teahouse. Tarlby 00:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, they got globally blocked literally the minute I sent this lol. Tarlby 00:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh, it's that one again. So boring. I wonder what their New Year's resolutions include. Haha, "this year I'm going to look for North Korean proxies". Good luck! Drmies (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
"Resolution 1: Complain about being banned on a website for almost 7 hours" Tarlby 00:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I actually forgot how long it's been. Has it been a year? Ah--I blocked User:MidAtlanticBaby indefinitely on June 18. I see they're now actually banned by the Foundation: I don't know if you know this, but you have to go REALLY crazy to get banned by the Foundation. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh yeah, definitely didn't know that...Also, this has been going on for MONTHS? Tarlby 00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes. When I say "childish" I mean it. This is likely a somewhat grown person with a driver license and the right to vote, who could be watching Georgia play football and make soup for their family and walk the dog. Instead, they're harassing a bunch of people including one who had nothing to do with them getting their dumb ass blocked. But they know some shit about proxies and whatnot and now they're just being cute, hoping to get caught and get attention. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, now whenever I feel down I'll just remember I'm way happier with my life than MidAtlanticBaby! Thanks for this Misplaced Pages lore Drmies. Tarlby 00:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

120.21.0.0/16

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

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

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)

Football sock

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

The ANI discussion has derailed into a discussion about whether Footballnerd2007 is using LLM, which they clearly are, but the user is choosing, unwisely, to wikilawyer, and GS, also unwisely, is trying to "nail" them. I thought about hatting it, but it's so rapid and I'm not sure where exactly I'd hat it. Oh, btw, another on my list above - read the user's Talk page - it's a cornucopia of warnings.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
What a mess. That got out of hand quickly--I'm also not happy with the alien's response. A check was run on the user, and I guess it showed nothing... Drmies (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. They are now being "mentored".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Drmies, alien was obviously not trying to defend the user (you can tell through certain, subtle signs, such as the use of a face palm emoji and the phrase "You're not helping your case right now"), they were trying to de-escalate things. Is this really how you want to treat them? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't know what prompted this, and I certainly don't understand that last, loaded question. Did I say that they were trying to "defend" the user? Where? What you could to is ask what I meant, if you're really interested in me and what I think. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Mail call

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.

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

WP is not a Multilingual dictionary

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

FORDROCKEFELLER1974

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

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

Beeldenstorm

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

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

Do you have a second?

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

The user has 509 edits, and 250 of them were done three days ago on the linked sandbox. BusterD (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Do I merely uncheck, leave a reason and save (and watch)? Just something I haven't seen done recently. BusterD (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It was so simple I figured it out myself, but I needed another editor to reassure me. Don't mind doing the job, but am sometimes nervous about affecting someone unduly. BusterD (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Sure thing. That editor is headed for an indef: incompetence mixed with promotional editing. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Not a very mature approach, granted. Hey, this morning I welcomed (after I reverted) a user who'd burnt the Packers in Caleb Williams's article. It will get weirder than that... BusterD (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
At least they apologized. I really loathe those kinds of edits, though not as much as the "daddy" variation. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Among their last 4 edits, two were adding commas to TP's post. Looking at that I'm not sure why we would trust them to edit any longer. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe, Doug, but I found nothing--I was thinking of various returning nuisances but saw no evidence. Wait and see, I think. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I tried to make it as plain as I could to the PGAMER that all their edits would be under close observation henceforth. If they can't hold themselves accountable, how can we? BusterD (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ha, is that a rhetorical question? Drmies (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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)
User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions Add topic