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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:43, 28 February 2017 view sourceGlane23 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,319 edits →COI?: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 18:49, 28 February 2017 view source Drmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators407,409 edits →COI?Next edit →
Line 386: Line 386:


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) 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)

Revision as of 18:49, 28 February 2017

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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.


That's right y'all.

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
Drmies!
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

WP:ANI

Is there any particular reason you removed this, but not the entire post? I don't see how that's neutral at all. Are you planning on closing the discussion? DarkKnight2149 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. Drmies (talk) 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. DarkKnight2149 01:28, 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. DarkKnight2149 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. Drmies (talk) 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). DarkKnight2149 01:44, 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. John Carter (talk) 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, Drmies (talk) 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. DarkKnight2149 02:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of wrapping the whole trainwreck up after your closures of the various proposals. Blackmane (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Darkknight2149, 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. Drmies (talk) 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. DarkKnight2149 02:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • John Carter: 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. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That would be frickin' sweet, but the community will never go for it. Misplaced Pages has independent articles on Jeryn Hogarth and Aldrich Killian -- that proposal would never fly. I wish the only fictional characters on whom we had articles were Shylock, Sun Wukong, Hikaru Genji 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.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Meh--those two are nothing! See Category:EastEnders characters and bloated monstrosities like Mick Carter (not even the worst I've seen). On the other hand, poor Wiglaf barely gets playing time; Ohthere 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. User:Curly Turkey, if there is such a discussion, cast a vote of "minimal coverage" for me plz. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Problem sovled: we can rely on primary sources. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 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> Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
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. Drmies (talk) 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. --MASEM (t) 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 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. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes me think of Poison River, 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. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Tell me about it. I'm a fan of George R. R. Martin'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 Game of Thrones 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 this nonsense ("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 my GARs, but I can't really be blamed for frequently coming across GAs that really shouldn't have passed their initial GA review. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 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. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
someone told me one of my summaries was too short I'd actually have the opposite problem. Really short, generic plot synopses like "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 decide for themselves 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Category:Emmerdale characters is also a mess... --Izno (talk) 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 comic book articles are out of the question. But what about comic adaptations (television shows like Gotham (TV series) and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., character articles like Joker (The Dark Knight), Joker in other media, ETC)? What about linking comic-related articles to non-comic articles (such as List of mad scientists)? 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 WP:COMICS members if it has nothing to do with comics and isn't at the WikiProject? This is all new to me. DarkKnight2149 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. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day

Happy Valentine's Day!
Dear Drmies, I wish you a happy valentine's day.-- Mona778 (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Need eyes at Grigori Rasputin

Need content-editor and admin eyes at Grigori Rasputin. This is a top-importance article, and it has a multitude of problems, including just for starters:

  • 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.

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. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Softlavender (talk) 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. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I sure hope that "Perception" section is not yours. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Regarding his penis, see Talk:Rasputin's penis/Archive 2 - there used to be a whole separate article on it. I think that this article might benefit from someone contacting WP:RX for any recent reference work (encyclopedia, biographical dictionary) articles on Rasputin which could be used as a basis for comparison.
  • Seconding Softlavender's request - yes please. This article's present bloat of non-biographical details coupled with an apparent WP:OWN/WP:GREATWRONGS editor who 1)is having issues understanding WP policies/guidelines & 2) has extreme difficulty communicating with other editors to gain consensus.
Re that Perception section - it was started by the editor in question in May 2014.
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. Shearonink (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 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. EEng 09:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I would be enormously relieved if the editor received a CIR article-ban from Grigory Rasputin, 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. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

About that penis of yours

Thanks Shearonink--it took me a while to find the merge discussion. It's here, Talk:Grigori_Rasputin/Archive2#Merge_from_Rasputin.27s_penis, and it's the lousiest merge discussion I've seen. User:OlEnglish 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 EEng and Softlavender feel like about all this. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of somewhat confused imagery, I must say that, compared to the larger issues we've got on the article, a faux–big-penis merge discussion is WP:BIKESHED. EEng 03:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
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 Nicholas and Alexandra and seen Fall of Eagles. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
So you're not a die-hard editor, but rather a soft sea cucumber? Drmies (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of die-hard editors... EEng 17:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I was setting you up for something like that. Your opinion over there would be appreciated. EEng 03:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
What is this, comedy night? Don't quit your day job; leave the comedy to SNL. Softlavender (talk) 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. Shearonink (talk) 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 Sitush and 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, Drmies (talk) 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... Drmies (talk) 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. EEng 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I to read this as we actually had a separate article about a person's penis? Good freaking grief. LadyofShalott 23:13, 16 February 2017 (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. Cullen Let's discuss it
…and for viewers at home tonight's mystery object is a trepang

This discussion O_o ... I think it's time for me to remove this from my watchlist, lol. DarkKnight2149 02:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How many kids have a trepang? –EEng
Why is it that every kid who discovers Misplaced Pages thinks the site absolutely must have a picture of his trepang? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Re:

I am totally in the pro-seafood camp but shark fin soup seems counterintuitive. A dash of Tony's does wonders. Bon appétit. Tiderolls 12:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Valgetova

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: SUL Info. The Banner talk 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • 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, Drmies (talk) 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. The Banner talk 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, is this enough disclosure? User:Valgetova?? The Banner talk 21:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
No. The user must disclose his/her client and employer. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Correct. Who's going to be the bearer of bad news? Drmies (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have sacrificed myself... The Banner talk 16:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
God zal het je lonen, mijn zoon--want van ons hoef je niks te verwachten. Drmies (talk) 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 WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. Valgetova (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Teun van de Keuken

On 15 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Teun van de Keuken, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dutch television maker and author Teun van de Keuken started Tony's Chocolonely, which sells what is called "slave-free chocolate"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Teun van de Keuken. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Teun van de Keuken), and it may be added to the statistics page 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 Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for chocolate and literature! - Once I'm here: I'd like to write Liza Ferschtman one of these days, because nl has mo more than de, - could you imagine to help? - To any admin watching: Misplaced Pages:Iliya Zhelev 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 Mandarax with Bgwhite. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I found a helper for the violinist, - lacking sources, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI...

This CfD discussion may interest you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting your help

Hi, doctor. "Kim Jong-woon" is both the birth name of the singer Yesung and an alternate transliteration of Kim Jong-un. 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. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Archiving isn't quite working completely....

Yay, another Grigori Rasputin issue! Well, kind of...
The automatic-archiving is working for the talkpage but the linkage isn't showing up 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 Talk:Grigori Rasputin at: Talk Archive Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank goodness you archived his penis. It might hold him up if the poison, shooting, and drowning don't work...
(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. Shearonink (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC))
In any case, could someone please take a look at the automatic-archiving and fix whatever it is that is going wrong? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If you don't get a response, WP:VPT is the place to get technical support. Softlavender (talk) 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. Shearonink (talk) 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. Boomer Vial 04:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's in grey. Well, now I just feel dumb. Boomer Vial 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... Drmies (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

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. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Dolly Rudeman

This is wot I was thinking of; hope you can assist, but if not possible, totally understandable. On the assumption you don't want to spend your weekends doing other people's work of course  :) O Fortuna! 14:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm half expecting my PhDville to get bulldozed to make way for an intergalactic highway at some point ;) but thanks for looking into our Dolly, everyone :) O Fortuna! 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Misplaced Pages talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Mediterranean horse mackerel

Thank you for giving me a barnstar for expanding Mediterranean horse mackerel. However, the award was an error. Instead, would you please award it to Drauv, since he is the editor who actually expanded the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Help, I think I found a mass of copyvio

See Talk:Bluebird K7. I'm afraid I may not have found all of it, and I think Donald Campbell 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 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. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Eh, I don't really know what to do with that. (Is that by way of this?) If you determine something happened in this or that diff, I can check and start revdeleting. Drmies (talk) 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 Donald Campbell and other articles worked on by the same 2 editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:27, 20 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 Edenbridge, Stairway to Fairyland by Freedom Call, and the first three albums from Power Quest; 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....DAAOEM91019 (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious
Five years!

Thank you also for the help above! - Did you follow the discussion on classical music (Reger), which eventually may need someone to merge two articles, not so much the content as the complicated histories? - I heard the Dutch violinist mentioned further up in a concert conducted by Dirk Kaftan. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 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. Drmies (talk) 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. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The strange moves were repaired, no need to look ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I would create Category:Editors who wish they will one day be considered precious by Gerda, but after the LHvU category debacle I'm sure it would be deleted forthwith.--Jezebel's Ponyo 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. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No self-noms or handouts for me, I'll earn it the hard way or die trying :) --Jezebel's Ponyo 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 Van Honsebrouck Fond Tradition. If you don't like it sour, and yeasted au naturel, you're out of luck. Woohoo! Drmies (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
A beer should emulate its drinker; I have a strong preference for cold and bitter. Cheers!--Jezebel's Ponyo 00:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Haha, I think 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! Drmies (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
...what beer emulates the president I wonder :) O Fortuna! 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The president doesn't drink. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
At ALL?! Not even dihydrogen monoxide? Holy liquid abstinence, Bicyclerepairman! Must be a super-power of some sort 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Troublesome article

Vinos Sofka, 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. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk-page stalker note: I saw this note by User:Softlavender 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 User talk:Joymgb about the article being accepted at ArticlesForCreation by editor SwisterTwister, back in December. There is no Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vinos Sofka however. --doncram 03:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It was G11'd on 3 Dec last year . O Fortuna! 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. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
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. Softlavender (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
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. --doncram 06:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Christ, I seem to do that more and more. Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would also like to invite 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. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
JamesBWatson, is this version substantially the same as the version you G11ed in December ? Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 21 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. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

122.104.7.121

Did you think that the single edit that they made justified a block...? 172.58.41.136 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Accused sockie

Someone made a claim that disruptive IP editor 1.43.198.170 is a sockie of another IP (1.42.173.32). What do you think? Quis separabit? 03:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and hate propagating by a long-term vandal

Hi Drmies,

There are ongoing problems regarding a disruptive racist editor who was indefinitely blocked last year per WP:NOTHERE. Hassan Rebell, justifiably, was blocked by @JzG: on 14 December. After his "long" messages and apologies on his talk page, user @Beeblebrox: gave him a "chance" and reduced his block on 24 January. 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 [1 for months 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9 (...) After his "Swiss" ips became "notorious", he abandoned them for a while and since June 2016, he has been editing from Germany 1, 2. As I proved on the SPI with dozens of diffs, those German and Swiss ips belong to the long-term vandal Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell. 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 user:Kintetsubuffalo 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 excuse. Two of his accounts were blocked for impersonating other editors, it is obviously not a "coincidence", but a tactic. 

The same disruptive sockmaster was warned many times by various users for his problematic, "hateful" edits targeting a minority ethnic group: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (...) And finally, he was warned @Doug Weller: for the same reason 1, 2. Despite all these warnings and SPI cases, exactly the same problem continues 1. 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. 

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: Kurdish women, History of the Kurds, Origin of the Kurds, Kurdish mythology, Kurdish culture, Kurdistan, Persecution of Christians, Christianity in the Middle East and Christianity in Iraq. 

Bests, 46.221.221.199 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

*88.128.80.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The long-term vandal is back now. Unblocking is just encouraging him. 46.221.168.189 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope I can find one admin who cares this ongoing vandalism! Seems nobody cares! @JzG:, @Ponyo:, @Ian.thomson:, @JamesBWatson:, @Doug Weller:, @DoRD: 46.221.168.189 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@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. 46.221.168.189 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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. 46.221.168.189 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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. 46.221.168.189 (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • 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. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
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. 46.221.163.219 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Give me a recent IP with recent disruptive edits and we'll talk. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Doktoro

Having moved here to Earth, from Gallifrey, what is your opinion of the European diaspora (AfD discussion)? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Mascitelli, Bruno; Mycak, Sonia; Papalia, Gerardo, eds. (2016). The European Diaspora in Australia: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781443894197. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
The flagporn is obnoxious. LadyofShalott 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... Drmies (talk) 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. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Altman, Ida; Horn, James P. P., eds. (1991). "To Make America": European Emigration in the Early Modern Period. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520072336. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • "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. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You've been reported.

Dear editor:

As the rules require (and as a courtesy), I am notifying you: You and 2 or 3 other editors have been reported:

Link 1: here and Link 2: here.

Best luck in getting resolution.47.192.18.128 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

West Virginia has 3500 year old cypress trees? And lovely oaks hung with Spanish moss. And crystal springs? Doug Weller talk 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?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 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. Drmies (talk) 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. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping, There might be more in the pipe - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I see Mlpearc likes to give his friends inside information. You cannot talk about me behind my back. Stephaniesoftball (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, Stephaniesoftball, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Even worse article

NaadaKalasi. 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 Kannada-wiki. The article creator is a bit odd too. Softlavender (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"Move along, folks. IP has stopped edit warring and has thus staved off a block."

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 WP:CIVIL, eh? Pfft.184.145.42.19 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • 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. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User:BethOnei

This is obviously User:Nsmutte. Would you be willing to check for any possible sleepers? Thanks! 172.58.41.159 (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Whoever it is is an idiot--and I already checked. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2017 (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. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Pilling on nonsense

I am not whole sure what you mean by my making nonsense allegations, perhaps you would care to explain?Slatersteven (talk) 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. Drmies (talk) 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?Slatersteven (talk) 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, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh sorry ...

... if my last interaction with you seemed a bit grumpy. Paul August ☎ 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, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

COI?

Doc and stalkers: take a look at the edits by Tariq Durrani. 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 @Ariadacapo: on the user's Talk page. Seems like a conflict of interest, is it not? Adding one's own works, I mean. Thought I'd check with the wiser heads around here before I reverted the rest. Geoff | 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. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions Add topic