Page semi-protected

User talk:Drmies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Yonkers Police Department Page (Again)

Hey sorry to bother again but I am having a bit of a issue. I am attempting to post the Yonkers Police page again which I revamped but it is not letting me stating "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist." Is there anyway you can help me out with posting the page again? Thank you for your time.

Draft:Ted (franchise)

You recently deleted the draft article at Draft:Ted (franchise). This was a collaborative effort and a lot of work went into make this page. Why did you delete it? Please reinstate that draft.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) See the deletion log entry. Geoff | Who, me? 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Geoff. DisneyMetalhead, you should really, really wonder whether you want to be associated with an LTA who's been vandalizing this place since, in the case of this article, 2016. And what is this obsession with drafts for franchises? Drmies (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Glane23: and @Drmies: I have no association with whoever it is that you have an issue with. However, Ted is a franchise now and I was working on the draft article. I had an admin reinstate the article. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that you were wrong in stating that some other user made the article... I was the one who first started working on it. Secondly, why are you making a declarative statement as to what my "obsessions" are, User:Drmies? Strange indeed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett, thank you for correcting my error. You saw this in the history, I'm sure, and the edit by this IP, which led me down that path, incorrectly I suppose--looking at that IP's deleted contributions will give you an idea of what we're dealing with. The three dozen or so entries in my log for June 26 of deleted drafts are perhaps my excuse for missing one. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I left the earlier creation by the sock you mention, deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Franchise articles seem to be the in-thing in pop-culture subjects right now. See Top Gun (franchise) for but one a example, with a possible recreation discussed here. Oddly, we.don't have a franchise article for The Flintstones, which is certainly one. (My attempt to create one at Draft:The Flintstones (franchise) petered out, but I wouldn't object if someone else wanted to work on it.) BilCat (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The IP (well, there were at least two IPs) created dozens and dozens, going back to 2016. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm--Biggus Dickus or Pussy Galore?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of memorable movie character names Drmies (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the article creator's responses, Badger should be on the list! BilCat (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PROD notifs

About this... I didn't give it much thought before the prods but twinkle automatically notifies the page creator when an article they created gets prodded; obv you knew that already but I apologize for the disturbance. --VersaceSpace 🌃 05:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that option is a checkbox on the nomination splash that can be turned off if necessary, though obviously that's only helpful if you know and/or remember who created the page. Primefac (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Somehow I missed that...I'll definitely be checking that box in the future. --VersaceSpace 🌃 14:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:VersaceSpace, no apology necessary--I know it was automated, and I appreciate Primefac's help here. I was just, you know, cleaning up... Drmies (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CU request

Some days ago I warned Ftillimi for edit warring on the Arbëresh language article. After that they stopped reverting. Today a London IP started to edit with the same weird POV. I note that the first edit of Ftillimi on enwiki was the creation of the draft article of a London-based Arbëresh linguist. After I warned the IP for edit warring, ARBERESHTV started to make edits with the same POV. After another editor reverted ARBERESHTV, Ftillimi reverted that editor. Due to being on the phone at the moment I can't open the SPI page and the case needs quick CU due to the accounts causing edit warring with multiple editors, can you please use CU to compare the two accounts? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't say much, but I can say that there is no reason to suspect Ftillimi of foul play. Now Arberesh is problematic, but that's a different matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it can't be a coincidance that the very first edit of Ftillimi on enwiki was the creation of the draft article of Martin Di Maggio. Di Maggio is the person who operates the ARBËRESHTV YouTube channel. They even placed a link to the YT channel in the draft article. And then an account named ARBËRESHTV emerged with the same POV as Ftillimi. In any case, I understand you see this in a way other than I do. Thanks for the time, cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Btw, ARBËRESHTV apparently reverted your edit as "vandalism" [1]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, both Ftillimi and ARBERESHTV have the habit to write in UPPERCASE letters [2][3][4][5]. This combined with pushing the same POV and the fact that Ftillimi wrote the draft article of the user of the ARBERESHTV Youtube channel makes it obvious that Ftillimi and ARBERESHTV are being used by the same person. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I saw; they are disruptive. You can start an SPI if you want, and the YouTube thing is powerful, but I'll have to come by and state that there is no technical evidence for that claim. Now, it is possible that there's hanky panky of one of two kinds--either MEATing, or a technical evasion that I do not see, so I won't dismiss it, but there is nothing that I can see. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the CU data does not connect the two accounts, I will not open an SPI - at least for now. If the disruption persists, then I will try to understand what is the best way to deal with it. Maybe they improve their editing after all. Thanks again for your time. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, sorry. Still, that YouTube thing is bothersome. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prune request

(talk page watcher) We can all use some good prunes. Especially chocolate covered with an almond. DFO

Hi there, hope you're well. Would you mind giving the Hyomin article a bit of a prune when you get chance? A few bits seem unnecessary to include to me. I’ve seen you do this with a few other articles hence my asking you as I trust your judgement on what should be removed. Alex (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you know that a K-pop fan a couple years ago contacted my employer to complain? Threw in a whole bunch of BS accusations, next thing you know I'm at HR, etc. Overly dedicated fans of anything are dangerous. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. And HR called you in for not-at-work BS. SMDH --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The K-pop mafia and the K-beauty mafia have gained too much power. Our democracy is at stake. If they join forces with the K-drama mafia, we're doomed. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex, did you see what happened after my mild and delicate pruning of some of the content? Drmies (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now, I'm not surprised they decided to revert but some of the edit summaries are.. questionable. I've replied on the talk page though I'm not sure how far that will go. You were called into HR because of Wikipedia activity? Yikes that's taking it to a new level. Alex (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was such obvious BS that it was dealt with quickly. It was not the only time--there's some Indian troll who claimed I got paid to edit Brian Krzanich, in order to obfuscate Intel's illegal dealing in stolen minerals or some crazy shit like that. I had to go and explain that too. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much

Thank you so much for temp banning that IP range. The last four months on this website have been dreadful with a guy following my every edit. Thank you so much. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure thing--I saw the latest revert and checked on it. But there's a thing--Ohnoitsjamie, you partially blocked that range for quite a long time, and I blocked them sitewide for three months--is that OK with you? Drmies (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sarah Jane Murray

Notice

The article Sarah Jane Murray has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability doubts and potential self-creation/promo.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kochhar

I have seen some very dubious edits on Atul Kochhar. Now the editor admits that he is the personal assistant of mr. Kochbar. A quick search on google pointed to a PR-firm. I don't want it to become an edit war but I certainly do not want the article to degrade to an unsourced BLP/promo-vehicle. What now? The Banner talk 21:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if the PA got the message duck alert. The Banner talk 17:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Melody

July songs
Lady's mantle, Eberbach.jpg

today: violin solo and you can listen Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yesterday I attended a unique concert - the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach conducting - and with some good luck caught him happy afterwards! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basshunter

Hello. About the interview in YouTube. Example: This is interview and can be published at New York Times website in form of text or it can be published by New York Times on YouTube in form of video. Is there any difference? About golf balls.Why not?. Also I don't think it's wrong information. Website is actually called "NZ Herald", not "The New Zealand Herald". Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find this hard to follow. There was an interview with the New York Times but they published it on YouTube? Sounds very unlikely. On Wikipedia we prefer that content be verified by reference to printed sources; it's not too much to ask to do that for this subject too. There's still a half a dozen or so links to YouTube videos in the article, which is one reason why it's such a bad article. Golf balls? How on earth is this detail relevant to a multi-million dollar earning artist? No, you can put that on Wikia if you like, but it shouldn't be here. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I gave example so it's easier to understand. It's independent source just in form of video so I don't see why it would be not recommanded. There is no difference if it is a text or video format - source remains the same. "I'm puzzled why "first" and "last" were replaced with "author" - you write name and surname - order as in any biographical article... Nonsense to reverse it. So if it is encyclopedic author then you are going to link it as [[Scott Kara|Kara Scott]]? Absolutelly redundant. Eurohunter (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you say makes no grammatical or semantic sense. It's independent? Bravo. Is it reliable? Oh, that's another matter. What even is the source? And we have "first" and "last" for a reason: in Swedish, in English, in a whole bunch of languages that helps with, you know, the alphabet. Even if I disregard that, there is this--it makes it hard to decide if you are what the Dutch call a comma fucker, or if you are just showing incompetence. The website of a newspaper reflects the article in the newspaper, and so we cite it as a newspaper, unless it's the blog of a newspaper's website.
        Anyway, that you don't see the difference between video and print is kind of sad, but the entire article is full of problems. You cite this--that's barely an interview since it's really just him yacking, and what even is FaceCulture? And why are they not listed in the citation? Are they an RS? And what on earth is this--why is the article called "Download"? Which article is it anyway? Because "Download" is on page 23. Page 26 is "Radio- & TV-Airplay", a page that doesn't list him. The entire section of notes is full of such questionable citations. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Piquet

Gtroviz has continued to resort to personal attacks within edit summaries over at Nelson Piquet - just notifying you as I saw you gave them a warning re NPA. Patient Zerotalk 23:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

I see a swathe of recent edits to Farnborough Hall by IP addresses. I suspect block evasion by Kalorama20008, whom you recently blocked. (Pinging 331dot, against whom the legal threat was made.) Maproom (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm technical evidence does not support that here. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Drmies, for checking. Now a new account StJohnPG has made a series of equally unconstructive edits to talk:Farnborough Hall. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Bullet Club

Hello, Drmies. I have seen you removed the timeline from Bullet Club. You said it doesn't work. Can you tell me the policie? Other articles also have this kind of tables, so I want to understand it better. Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y2edit

Any chance this could be a sock? Special:Contributions/Mossad3 Some of the same interests, uses multiple posts on talk pages to get their point across. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I believe it's them. For example, this edit is from Y2edit?'s range (see SPI and my earlier range block); RegentsPark suggested that the IPuser use DR or start an RFC, and a couple of days later (one day after Drmies applied an LTA rangeblock) the Mossad3 account was created and the RFC started. Matching area of interest and POV too. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Y2edit? will be stale soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug that's about a 100% chance. Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking of a ban on article

Hello,@Drmies hope you are well, [[8]] according to admin @EdJohnston decision on article Zachumlia me and editor Santasa99 were both warned and will be blocked if we edit without reaching consensus on talk page, that was something that was officially posted on their talk page too [[9]] since then nothing happened on talk page, actually I was the one that had support from other editor [[10]] but today Santasa99 made the same disruptive editing on the page Zachumlia [[11]], which means they broke the official warning. Can you please react. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 02:18 09.July 2022 (UTC)

Squashing Discussion

Please don’t behave the way you’ve been doing. An edit was made to an article to make a non-political fact be a part of it. Someone with a seemingly biased point of view reverted it and then I pointed out that my statement was not a point of view or political view being expressed, but only a fact. You reverted that statement that I put on the talk page. Please don’t behave in ways that risk Wikipedia not being a source of information by squashing people from even discussing bias. Annfrankenstein (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read WP:NOTFORUM and act accordingly. If you don't, you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted them again on Ollie's TP @Drmies. We don't need more ideological/right wing warfare on WP. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw that, thanks. I'm hoping common sense will prevail. Hey, I'm watching a documentary on honey badgers. They really don't care, do they. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have more hope and faith than I do that the anti-woman crowd understands facts or common sense. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, what can I say. I just watched a honey badger eat the head of a snake. Speaking of snakes, I really dislike socks with offensive user names. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I...am sad to say that I didn't even think about the username. I'm losing my touch. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • No worries. It was the user name that suggested the socking, not their editing style, which is totally inept. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've given them a couple of alerts, with a comment that although routine they may have trouble with them. And a comment that they can revert most things from their talk page but NOTFORUM doesn't apply there. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

any chance...

when you blocked this spam sock, this one popped up too? This is clearly a spam sock of some sort. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm I don't know. I don't remember the specifics of the data, but right now I see no evidence of socking... Drmies (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drmies

Drmies, hello. I am nelson. Thank you for your help when you spoke up to secret squirrel about the personal attack he made towards me in the two AFD discussions (I saw you deleted his comments from one of them). I do feel affected about this and tried to speak to him to mediate between myself and him but he has not replied yet. Anyway I am writing here just to show how grateful am I for your help. Thank you again and wish you a good day ahead --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tistis/TisTru

if you're referring to those two accounts being socks, well not only do I agree but the OTRS ticket tells a different story than the one being told on-wiki from them. So, they're being far less than truthful. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The socking is CU-confirmed. I don't check OTRS, but I'm willing to let the TisTRU account go, for now, though with that indefinite partial block for that article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Arts & Humanities?

Hi Drmies! At 'Ilm al-huruf, a new editor added (and has now re-added) a copyvio from something called the "Journal of Arts and Humanities". I see you revdel'd the first one (thanks for that) and I've added a revdel tag for the second one now. Apart from the copyvio issue, the source they are attempting to add looks a little suspect to me. Have you ever encountered this journal (Journal of Arts & Humanities)? I can't find anything on either the journal itself or its publisher (LAR Center Press) to judge its suitability as a source. Thanks, and have a great day! PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you see this? Randykitty, are you familiar with this outfit? First I heard from them. PohranicniStraze, what is a giveaway for me also is the number of journals and their names--for Elsevier or whoever, that makes sense, but not here. I found the "editorial team" to look odd too. You may know that often real scholars suddenly find themselves listed on such editorial boards, without their knowledge; it's pretty disgusting. In this case, however, look at this. And here is an editor who apparently published in it. The article is here, and I'll refrain from commenting. I read a few articles and it's not great--in this one they couldn't even be bothered to proofread the title. One other article in Vol. 1, Issue 1, is typical of the kind of thing published by university administrators who need to pretend to have an active research agenda. I thought maybe that the first issue would be improved on, but look at this--can we get the Guild of Copy Editors to help out? So while there are indications of legitimacy, the proof is in the pudding, and this pudding stinks. There are other disqualifiers pertaining to that editorial board that I'd rather not discuss here, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never heard of it. It doesn't have the feel of a predatory journal but their claim to be indexed in DOAJ is false. Having a print version would be highly unusual for a predatory journal. So the evidence is mixed. In no way is this a notable journal, though. At best, this is a legit, but low-quality, bottom feeder. --Randykitty (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1097885009"