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 00:56, 30 January 2013 view sourceBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,407 edits Staying hip: unimportant comment (these asterisks and colons drive me crazy - anyone, feel free to fix)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:52, 18 January 2025 view source The Banner (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,809 edits Advice needed 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
<!--New comments at the bottom, please.-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 151
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 5
|algo = old(15d)
|archive = User talk:Drmies/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}


==Mail==
*Moving right along, as if nothing ever happened. Let's see. Some editors were blocked and very quickly unblocked. YRC got hisself banned. Malleus has left the building though you can leave a note for him in the foyer. Ed has given up on me as a writer and taunts me with his "meh"s. Crisco wants to get a Ph.D., and Ungcel is messing with asterisks. Have a great new year.
{{ygm}}

== Call me the opposite of Goldmember... ==

but I love the Dutch! is the best thing since sliced bread! No, the wheel, no.... since language! I got the release date for '']'', and it seems our friend ] left the Indies in ! Why can't Indonesians do something like this?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 12:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
*I'm pleased the KB is good to you: that's tax money well spent. I had a bad experience with them a couple of years ago (in the flesh) but they responded nicely to my complaint. I wasn't aware of that archive: that offers great opportunities to really put the motherland on the map. Hey, when you're done with your dissertation you should visit: I'll hook you up with a place to stay and some good food and beer. Pardon me if I don't comment on your member; I'm sure it's lovely. ] (]) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
**Ah, so the English Professor vacuum eats another pop-culture reference, bringing it to the depths of H-E-double hockey sticks. I've we're going to do articles on Dutch actors or TV shows this will help quite a bit... I ended up playing with the site for an hour or so, and got some decent stuff for '']'' as well.
**Thanks for the invite... I'll try and keep that in mind, but I may start my doctorate ASAP if funds allow. So I can be Dr. Cooking Oil.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

== Fed up and don't know what to do ==

I'm completely fed up and I have no idea what to do anymore when it comes to {{u|Neotarf}}. I encountered him when he showed up at ] complaining that 49 minutes after he created it, someone put on it. The discussion there goes round and round and finally got closed because it wasn't going to go anywhere (although I have no idea what AutomaticStrikeout was thinking when he suggested asking someone if they were still editing the page on their talk page). Neotarf (in the article no less). It was made abundantly clear to him at ] why the tags where there, but he ]. I actually had the Swedish language book sent to my school so I could hopefully work with Neotarf (by scanning pages) to insert inline citations, ]. I begin with some English language sources. Adding one section about an upcoming movie based on Pettersson and using a source to add an inline citation to content previously written by Neotarf. In what I'm assuming is an ] issue, Neotarf removes my edits stating that he's removing counterfactual material. I bring the issue to ] where Neotarf begins claiming that the books don't exist, the movie doesn't exist, and the website in question doesn't have any editorial oversight, which, coming from him, is a bunch of bullocks. He shows ''zero'' ability to collaborate, which is a huge issue of ]. I picked an edit at random of his, not having time to go through all of his old edits, he's been here for over a year and he's still direct linking in text instead of referencing . And when I mention ], I don't in any way mean that he's "incompetent". He speaks in a relatively intelligent manner, it's more of a ] type of an issue and a failure to collaborate.&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 13:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
:::*<small>Just for the record, I was saying that perhaps before tagging a page, the patroller could leave a note on the article creator's talk page asking if the article creator is currently editing the article. I know, it does sound rather like jumping through too many hopes. (As an aside, I can't remember, was Drmies a Duke fan or a UNC fan or something else?). ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
:* <small>For the record it's a ''drove''. The ] for a ''bunch of bullocks'' is a ''drove''. You may of course be using the phrase as a euphemism. If so, consider ''clutch'' (]s) or ''drunkenship'' (]). My mother, bless her, once told me that "you learn something new every day" --<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">]&nbsp;(])</span> 19:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
::*<small>Perhaps I'm incorrect here, but I was neither referring to bullocks as any type of bovine or as testicles. Am I incorrect in using it as a less childish sounding way of saying "baloney"? Oh, and referring to cattle as a drove, is that a British thing? I've never heard anything other than a herd.&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
:::* <small>Indeed. ''Bullocks'' is a more polite way of exclaiming nonsense as in "Senra talks a load of ''bollocks''!". In fact, the first quotation (] ) noted in the ] entry for '''Bollocks''', ''int''. is instructively explicit! {{OED|Bollocks}} ''Drove'' comes from our article ]. However, in case of doubt, my ] was meant to be entirely ]. So sorry if I offended you in any way --<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">]&nbsp;(])</span> 18:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
:*<small>Also for the record, I thought AutomaticStrikeout had retired out of protest against admin abuse or something like that. ] (]) 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
::*<small>AutomaticStrikeout left very briefly, but he was back right away. He got stressed out over the whole Malleus issue, it's a shame how that turned out on all sides&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
*Do nothing. There's nothing you can do to make them collaborate. If you get the book, if you're still going through with that, work on the article. Favonian almost speaks Swedish, he might could help and I know he's a great Pippi Longstocking fan. Theleftorium is listed in ], and AlexTiefling in ]. Both of them are good and helpful, as far as I know. Yes, you (and others) stepped on Neotarf's toes, and they're exaggerating, but there's nothing you can do about it. (FWIW, the tagging was not problematic in my view, but the orphan tag is a bit stupid, IMO.) That RS discussion, I saw it and I looked at the Cineuropa website and it looks perfectly reliable to me, given their editorial board and the number of staff they have, or claim to have. You could ask Favonian, Theleftorium, or Alex to look at that discussion and maybe settle it. The other issues--let it go. They don't want to use proper references, so be it. It's not helpful but it's not worth fussing over; the only thing you could really do is an RfC/U or something like that, and nobody wants that, not for this case. The article itself looks very interesting, by the way, worthy of a DYK. You could consider finishing it and nominating it, but drop them a line to tell them that you're considering that. I don't know if they can say no or if they will, and what such a NO might mean. Good luck with it, Ryan--and remember, it's not worth the stress. I know, I'm a fine one to talk like that: do as I say, not as I do. ;) ] (]) 16:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
**Thanks Drmies. At some level, I brought this on myself, just in that I shouldn't have stepped into the discussion on "tag-bombing" to begin with. I wasn't related to the discussion in any way when it began. I used to have a tendency to seek out arguments when one could be found, but then started a personal policy of avoiding arguments when one could be avoided. Here, I did more seeking than I did avoiding. At what point should I restore my edits to ]? Also, do you know the best way to fix ]? I added ] and ] since they weren't linked from any DAB pages. Would a ] that dealt with Petersons and Petterssons be alright?&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
***Bollocks, dear Ryan. I'll get back to you after I put the kids down. ] (]) 02:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
**I could be mistaken but I believe ] may speak/read/write Swedish. ]] 02:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
***]. Ryan, go back to work on that article. As far as I know, your counterpart said they were on strike and even if they weren't it's fair game: we sign away our rights and this is a collaborative project. I quit owning ] some time ago (and no, it's not the next best thing to writing a book!) and that's fine. Multilingualism is a plus here--the FAZ article is great, and I'll see what I can do. As for the dab: you don't have to make ] (note the double T) since there's only two; you could make a hatnote on each article to the other one, and in that hatnote you can add a link to the dab page ], if you like. Mandarax knows the templates, no doubt, and he also knows the rules better than me so he can correct me. Good luck with it; I'll help when I can. ] (]) 03:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

== AR15 ==

So ill take your statement about extenze as a joke. I like AR15s for the same reason I like my DSLR - modularity. My wife leans anti-gun, so having a large collection of guns is not an option. With an AR15, I can have "one gun", with support for different calibers to handle anything from squirrels to elk, and different stocks and sights for hunting, camping, target practice etc. They are scary, but there are a large number of guns nobody considers an "Assault weapon" that have the exact same capability. Any semi-automatic with a magazine is the same. Being scary, black, and having a pistol grip or an ergonomic stock have nothing to do with the how dangerous the gun is. ] (]) 19:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
:This isn't a discussion you want to have with Drmies :)&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 19:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
::He started it! ] (]) 19:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
:::'twas a joke, indeed. I'll tell you one of my problems with gun ownership, though--when your house gets broken into, your gun is the first thing they'll steal, and not likely for the purpose of shooting squirrels. (Our house got burglared and they took my watches; my mother-in-law's house got broken into and they took her guns.) I'm surprised your wife lets you have even one, let alone such a one: she's way more lenient than Drmies. For camping, I suggest a headlamp and waterproof matches, and bourbon of course. Happy days, ] (]) 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I hope IronKnuckle doesn't take offense, of course. ] (]) 20:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
:::: I disagree with that. They'd have to steal it off my person. But no offense taken :) ] (]) 05:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

== Main page appearance: green children of Woolpit ==

This is a note to let the main editors of ] know that the article will be appearing as ] on February 2, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at ]. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director {{user|Raul654}} or his delegates {{user|Dabomb87}}, {{user|Gimmetoo}}, and {{user|Bencherlite}}, or start a discussion at ]. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at ]. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

<blockquote>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;">]</div>
The ''']''' is the name given to two children who reportedly appeared in the village of ] in ], England, some time in the 12th century. They were of generally normal appearance except for the green colour of their skin. They spoke in an unknown language, and the only food they would eat at first was green beans. Eventually they lost their green pallor, but the boy was sickly and died soon after baptism. After learning English, the girl explained that they had come from an underground world whose inhabitants are green. The only near-contemporary accounts are contained in ]'s ''Chronicum Anglicanum'' and ]'s ''Historia rerum Anglicarum'', written in about 1189 and 1220 respectively. Between then and their rediscovery in the mid-19th century, the green children seem to surface only in ]'s fantastical '']''. The story also provided the inspiration for '']'', the only novel written by the English ] poet and critic ]. The main explanations of the story are that it is a typical folk tale describing an imaginary encounter with the inhabitants of another world, or it is a garbled account of a historical event. {{TFAFULL|Green children of Woolpit}}
</blockquote>
] (]) 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
{{clear}}
*Woohoo! Thanks UcuchaBot, and thanks Raul--and thanks to Malleus Fatuorum who, in an ultimate stroke of irony since he was so often falsely ''accused'' of driving editors away from the project, was driven off the project. Malleus, I salute you--thanks for letting me ride your coattails on this and other articles. ] (]) 23:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
**It's a great article, but ;-) ]] 00:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
***Sure thing--thanks! ] (]) 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
***:*Did you know when Raul scheduled last? (right: 1 December) How many in the last quarter of 2012? (right: 9, one of them should not have appeared.) Thanks to Dabomb (until 23 November) and Bencherlite for all the others! --] (]) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
***::*That's the idea of Raul having delegates, it means that he can oversee the process but not have to do the day-to-day work. Same with FAC/FAR delegates. And remember that Raul scheduled every TFA, as far as I'm aware, from 23rd February 2004 until June 2011 when ] (and he's done some thereafter as necessary). I doubt I'll have the energy to do it for anything like as long as that! ]] 22:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
****Congratulations! BTW, speaking of Main Page appearances, did you notice that ] is back on ITN after being off for about four days? It's accumulated about page , mostly during its 7+ total days so far on ITN. I'm sure this is vastly more than it would've gotten during 8 hours on DYK. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:blue">•</span>&nbsp;] 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
**Congrats! I'm still in the stage where getting an article into DYK feels awesome. This must be the next best thing to publishing a book.&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 02:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
***Congrats Drmies, nice work on a really ... <s>weird</s> interesting topic! :-) ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 03:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
****True story Ed, since it's on the internet. ] (]) 15:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*****] (my favorite: the ]) ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 22:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
******Ha yes, I remember that one. DYK...that I edited that one too? Imagine all the things I could have done with my life were it not for this infernal time sink...I could have been a contender... ] (]) 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*******You could have been a fiction writer! ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
********]&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*********I made him a Facebook page, hoping it will go viral and I'll acquire notability that way. TonyTheTiger will have written him up by the time he gets 100 likes (he's at 32 now). There's great pictures of poopy onesies on that page, even some cleavage (not his, obviously). ] (]) 05:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

== I guess I'm in the club now ==

My squeaky clean block log has now been befouled and I even got globally locked by the stewards because of my potty mouth. I got unblocked quicker though, only nine minutes. ] (]) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*I'm sorry to hear that Beeblebrox. Did you at least get warned? I usually kiss before I get fucked. ] (]) 01:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*I see. "Compromised account". Odd. What was removed--a big fat FU? Strange call on BWilkins's part, I wouldn't have expected it from them. And I ''do'' expect a potty mouth from you--in fact I demand it. Beeblebrox, you're just fine in my book, and I think you should take some pride in the fact that yours was an "anti-civility block". I got blocked for the policy I've always found the most problematic, and I would have never thought that what I said would be blockable--never. I've blocked (I think) for morons going around hating gays and jews and arabs and calling people nazis and shit like that: that's incivility. BTW, my counterpart never apologized to me, haha. Well, looks like we all got some reading and chatting to do. I hope the fajitas were good, and I got a hall closet full of delicious beers if you run out. Take it easy pal, and see you next time. ] (]) 01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*Bah. You sprats and minnows! You need to try to aspire to of the "blocked" club, where such as I dwell in glory. Not so much unblocking going on! ] &#124; ] 00:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC).
**Bishonen, your talk page history from 2009 reads like a fucking Who's Who of Misplaced Pages. I even saw my old pal CoM in there, surrounded by big shots. Well, at least you got blocked by Jimbo--by the top dog--unlike me. I'm still hurting over it: I guess three years was long enough for you to now joke about it. ] (]) 01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
***Well, I take pride in taking him to RFAR over it. (What's that you say? Did the arbcom accept the case? Now ''you'''re joking. But I had an unexpectedly good run for my money.) ] &#124; ] 11:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC).


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


Line 76: Line 21:
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|- |-
|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)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For fixing up ] while I couldn't, and furthermore being an all around awesome admin and contributor. Thank you for helping this project in a time of need. ]]] 18:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
|} |}
*Sure thing. Thanks for your help at AfC: it's an ungrateful task, and sometimes a very frustrating one. ] (]) 18:07, 23 January 2013 (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)


== Serendipity == == Mail ==


{{You've got mail}} ] (]) 07:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Drmies, I may have been the one to give you a ] for your recent DYK nomination, but I hope ] with a DYK credit which you never expected. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:blue">•</span>&nbsp;] 00:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*? Mandarax, I'm almost too excited to click the button! Let me go to the bathroom before I pee in my pants. ] (]) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*That is a fine, fine piece of work Mandarax--congratulations, and you deserve all the credit. ] (]) 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
**Thanks. But you deserve much credit; for your contributions, sure, but also for the fact that I would have never written it in a million years if you hadn't brought it to my attention. It's good to know that I can occasionally write about something other than art. BTW, I came up with a much better hook than the one I first suggested. It's one of those things where I look at it now and wonder how I could have ever missed such an obvious opportunity to imply that Batman and Clark Kent were lovers.<p>Oh, and if you're wondering why I called the nomination page {{tl|Did you know nominations/Throatwobbler Mangrove}}, it's because about three months ago there was ] about how one shouldn't move nomination pages, and I pointed out that it didn't matter ''what'' you called the page; I gave that as an example nom page name. When I decided to submit an April Fools' Day hook, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to turn that old red link blue. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:blue">•</span>&nbsp;] 03:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
***Mandarax, you are too smart for your own good. If there is a Mrs. Mandarax (I ''think'' you are of the male persuasion, and with "Mrs" I simply mean "partner"--I do not mean to imply that you are or should be, by definition or in any other way, straight), xe must be in stitches all the livelong day (not that I'm implying that you should spend every waking (or sleeping, for that matter) hour with them, far from it--absence makes the heart grow fonder, which you shouldn't read as an incentive for (or even a gentle nod toward) leaving them, of course) (but you know, you being you and them being (I presume) a rational human being, I would think that they would think of you pretty often even if not ''literally'' (or metaphorically, that goes without saying) the livelong day, which is nothing but a silly expression anyway though it has a nice ring to it, livelong, like livestrong, but not artificially strengthened with EPO or blood doping--but you catch my drift I hope)! What fun! I do hope they appreciate your sense of humor. I sure do. ] (]) 03:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
****Thanks! That was an entertaining stream-of-consciousness note; I see that "LOL" is no longer prohibited by your editnotice, so I'll give you one of those. I find it baffling that you seem to think I would be in a relationship with a rational human being. Even more baffling is that it's true. I have no idea what EPO is, but now I want some! <small>I'm gonna guess that that was a timely reference to Lance Armstrong, but I didn't follow that story very closely, and I don't know what he was using.</small> ]&nbsp;<span style="color:blue">•</span>&nbsp;] 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*****Thank you. Yes and no: I was actually thinking of ], whose article I need to return to since today, I believe, '']'' ran the second part of a tell-all interview. OK, I see now that this is very Lance-y. ] (]) 05:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


== Edits to Columbia High School (New Jersey) ==
== A redirect for you! ==


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)
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
*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)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | ''']'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Might as well make it official. ''' —&nbsp;]'''] 02:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
|}
*Tres gentil--merci. No doubt you'll see it at MfD imminently. ] (]) 02:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Preemptively. Why break a link to a page that ''works''?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 02:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*We'll see. ] still works (for the ''first'' alternative to ANI... back in the day), so you never know... ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 04:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*Your camaraderie is lovely, but I suspect this redirect will have to go. As a new admin, can someone opine on the proper CSD criteria for a link from WP space to the userspace mancave of an old hand? ]<sup> ]&#124;]</sup> 04:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
**Meh, it's not doing any harm in my view. If someone raises a fuss, sure, but otherwise, I like IAR. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 04:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
***You probably want to discuss this at ]. ] (]) 04:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
**You'll have to give me a little more credit than that, Occasi. ;) I know my speedy criteria. Unless you wanna take a stab at ] (which would hurt my feelings), this'll have to go to RfD. But come on, why delete it? It's no worse than ] or anything like that. More importantly, though, now that this is officially ANI 2.0, we can just have the deletion discussion here, since the "2.0" gives it extra powers that ANI doesn't have. Let the !voting begin! The choices are '''keep''', '''delete''', '''elect to ArbCom''', '''desysop''', '''CheckUser requested and self-endorsed by clerk''', '''indef site ban''', or '''1-second block'''. Oh, or '''create a double redirect and then editwar with the bot ''ad infinitum'''''. Admins' votes get more weight if they're accompanied with wheelwarring. As usual, synesthesia and sloth are strictly disallowed.''' —&nbsp;]'''] 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
***"Meh" is also disallowed. "Per Malleus" is perfectly acceptable. ] (]) 18:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
****Without weighing in on the merit of the redirect, I would like to point to examples ] and ]. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 06:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


== Sockpuppet ==
== You know you're Dutch when... ==


Got someone editing as an IP to escape a block and complain at the Teahouse. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 04:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
:Nevermind, they got globally blocked literally ''the'' minute I sent this lol. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*Ha! Most of them are indeed true. Ever had vla? It's grrreat. ] (]) 04:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
**Nope, and if it's custard, no thanks. ;-) ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 04:53, 24 January 2013 (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)
***You don't like custard?? I thought you was from Michigan! It's all Dutch cuisine over there! Vla is usually made with cornstarch as a thickener, so it's not really a custard, IMO. ] (]) 05:09, 24 January 2013 (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 ==
== Your attention required at ] ==


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)
I've done quite a bit of work on this article, formerly at least partly a copy of the conservatory's website. See the history, specifically , where I marked my (partial) restoration point--I kept the edited lists of notables etc., which were wieldy and fluffy tables. Your help is required in two ways:
*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)
#Please edit the article and make it better, to the point, preferably, where the tags can go.
**Thanks for the response. This response makes sense, and the email was great; thank you. ] (]) 19:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
#Admins and copyright experts, please check to see if the intermediate edits are such gross copyvios that they need to be revdeleted. Of course, if you go back further you'll find a lot more copyvios done in a piecemeal fashion.
This being a formal thread on ANI 2.0, I am notifying the most recent involved editor, here: Hey! Drmies! you're wanted on ANI 2.0! ] (]) 05:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
:Hi, you're Drmies. Please don't talk to yourself. Those who talk to themselves keep bad company. ] ]] 18:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


== Shoot == == Advice needed ==


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)
And I was about to slap a notability tag on this . Nominating it for speedy would have been too obvious. ] (]) 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*Yeah yeah. Just get a fucking account already, IP hopping vandal. You know, just cause you don't sign in doesn't mean you're always right, you know. ] (]) 19:02, 24 January 2013 (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 think ''Huffington Post'' is considered reliable. And I think something else: a. we should have a list of reliable sources (with links to RS discussion if there've been any) and b. we should have a category, ]. I know that such a category is a kind of miscegenation, but it would sure be helpful. ] (]) 19:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
***Unfortunately, the learning curve after the prior block is best described as flatliner... <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 02:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
**First, watch your language--what sort of example are you setting for your young ones? Second, unfounded accusations against this IP may be met with a post to some noticeboard or other, or at least high umbrage. Third, I could be wrong about HuffPost, but in the recent past I've seen links to it reverted by others for not being a reliable source. And since a lot of it is made up of blogs, well that doesn't bode well. Me, I've got nothing better to do until the next young loverly shows up at the studio-- shouldn't you be grading papers or something? ] (]) 19:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
****Hmm Banner I jumped on that too quickly: it was not a complete flatline, and I left the editor a note, which one might call a final warning. ] (]) 16:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
===]===
*****I disagree: and . <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
[[File:Pita giros.JPG|right|thumb|The second ANI: <br />
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second ANI is at hand.
The Second ANI! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight:<br />
TURNING and turning in the widening gyros<br />
The Crimson Tide is loosed....]]
***Lunch break, that's my excuse. I graded all the HEL homework for today, and class isn't until 3:45, but I'm about to run off and prepare for class, yes. Loverly, huh? Funny--I showed the opening scenes from ''My Fair Lady'' in HEL the other day. ] (]) 19:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
***::You should break out the Chaucer and get medieval on their asses. (Love that Commandment about not coveting thy neighbor's ass, which I re-learned from ''Catch 22'' and recommended at WP:VPP.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 23:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
****I can't believe there isn't already a list for reliable sources; I guess it would be a nightmare organizing and patrolling it....good luck in class. Later I'm bringing a canvas to someone: a few years ago, working alongside the class I was teaching, I painted a large informal portrait of a model. The model, a young woman, shuffled off the mortal coil recently, and I'm giving the picture to her mother. One would have liked to have sold it, and the money would have been welcome, but sometimes there's only one thing to do. As I get older I find more of my time is spent on such issues, not at all what I envisioned in youth.... ] (]) 19:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*****Here we go: ]. Feel free to pitch in. ;) Now I gotta run and teach the mother. ] (]) 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*****:Just checking in to see whether you had jumped ship. The update at the top agrees with my feelings. Gyres and centres not holding....
*****:Shouldn't you be writing HEL in "]" fashion? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 23:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 11:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
*****::Kiefer, you don't know what you just did to my stomach. It's trying to tear its way to the nearest place which sells tzatziki sauce... and that's probably a good hundred miles away.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 12:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


== Football sock ==
===Huffington Post===
Strictly regarding the Huffington Post, I think it's reliable; it used to be AOL News, I believe. I've cited it before... ] ]] 22:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*I don't often read that publication (too liberal for me, haha), but I would not cite everything that comes from it--from what I know, there's too much opinion. I could be wrong, but it's not one of the sources I regularly look for when I'm writing articles. ] (]) 05:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
*Okay, I've struck my objection at the talk page. Not that it matters--it's become a piece of puff pastry again . <s>I don't want this to fall on you alone Drmies; if you suggest I'll bring this to the BLP noticeboard.</s> ] (]) 00:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
*I've primarily cited it in reference to sports articles; I agree, too liberal on politics. ] ]] 23:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
**I had the opportunity to see the HuffPo owner, ], speak at Penn. I gladly skipped. It's a reliable source for strict facts (sometimes), the rest of it is trash.&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 00:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
***You know I was joking about "too liberal for me", right? Why am I surrounded by right-wingers? ;) My politics probably resemble those of Soman. Not that I care for Huffington personally. ] (]) 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
****I'm not a Tea-Partier...frankly I think that most Tea Partiers are a bit dangerous. By the way, I hadn't noticed your edit notice and wanted to say that I liked it. <small>Does that mean "meh" and "lol" are now allowed</small><small><small>Just kidding, I think both are really stupid.</small></small>] ]] 00:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
****I'm not necessarily a "right-winger". I dislike both parties (just not equally). I'm more of a ] type of guy. In regards to HuffPo, I knew you were liberal but thought you could be telling the truth. Fox is far too conservative for me, HuffPo is far too liberal, the New York Times is a bit liberal, but it's my main news source. I actually much prefer NPR (or MPR when I'm at home)&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 00:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
*****I was always a fan of ] and ]; the moderates are always the ones trying to get things done. ] ]] 02:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
******Right, left, I dunno. What astounds me is the pervasiveness of fear. Would be a much better world if people bought dogs instead of guns. Of course, Belgian ale works, too. Just had a nice glass of Allagash, and all is right with the world. ] (]) 03:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
******He's swung far right since he lost, I can't stand him anymore.&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
******We're probably cracking open a ] in a minute. Had an ] earlier, so I'm feeling fine. Plus, I finished the last sub in the ], which some people find really exciting. Ryan, you probably didn't see McCain introduce John Kerry the other day before the Senate committee at the hearings that will confirm Kerry as Secretary of State, and that's a shame--you might feel differently about him. He's not always a typical Republican politician. ] (]) 03:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
*******Had to go dig up a , as I missed it too. Don't tell me there aren't still a few good statesmen in the U.S. Senate. ] ]] 04:19, 27 January 2013 (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)
== Testing the efficiency of ANI 2.0 ==
: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)
::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==
Well, don't you just love it when you try to support someone and it eventually ? I don't think talk page access is going to be needed at this point. The IP already assured us once that they would behave and then misbehaved again upon unblocking. I had taken up for them (and Drmies actually shortened their block, in a good demonstration of AGF), but the IP seems to be quite insincere. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
*And, per ], I've locked their access to the talk page. I coulda been a dick and semi-protected the page though.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 22:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC) {{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)
::Thanks, Crisco. It appears that the efficiency is quite good. Not sure as to why semi-protection would have been mean, though. It would prevent them from editing the page from a different IP. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
::*I see it as a snub. "You're not good enough for a block". Oh well, that's just me being a (weird) Canadian I guess. Cheers, and hei ho, it's off to the hills I go.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
== Academic articles and three editors ==


] from the past month (December 2024).
This was first brought to my attention on my talk page by our good friend 99. I suggested he run it by you because you know more about academics and ] than I do, but he seemed not to want to bother you with it. I have no such compunction. The cast consists of one article, one potential article, and three editors. The article is ]; the potential article is . Two of the editors are apparently the subjects, ] and ]. I'm not sure who the third is but given the timing I assume she's related to the other two somehow: ]. Lisa's account was created on January 21, 2013, and Becca's on January 23, 2013. Caroline's account was created on May 19, 2011, but her first edit was on January 21, 2013. Caroline created the Wade article all by herself (I'm assuming the IP is her not logged in). Lisa created the Heldman article, but it has been edited by all three accounts.


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
If you're still with me, putting aside the conflict issue and any puppetry issue, do you think these two articles satisfy our notability guidelines?--] (]) 00:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
*Not wishing to out anyone, but it didn't take much research to establish that, based on username, Becca coop is a COI account, too. ] (]) 00:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
:] ]
**Heldman may squeak by if there's coverage (per GNG) or if her work has been reviewed (per PROF). I don't see anything in the article that would lead me to believe she's notable yet--that Gracie Award doesn't really do it for me, and most of the article is the typical resume stuff. My apologies if my liberal arts colleague Prof. Heldman takes offense at that. OK, after checking around, she may pass the notability guidelines in the new Misplaced Pages, the one written by Tony and Laura, since she's mentioned in the media and has appeared on TV. I'm making some edits. ] (]) 02:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
***Why does everything go right over my head? Who are Tony and Laura? Thanks for your edits.--] (]) 02:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
|]
****Never mind that. OK, we got a nice set of articles here. Add ] to the portfolio (and I ran into and pruned ] along the way), which I'm still working on. ] (]) 02:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
|]
****OK, ] has been pruned as well. I made a note on the talk page; a bit of Googling (like, the tiniest little bit) indicates well enough what may have caused the problem. I'm moving on to the next one. Bbb, the real experts in this field are DGG and Randykitty (haha, according to some they are the stereotypical inclusionists and deletionists, in that order). The proof is in the pudding: put it up at DYK. Heldman is still iffy, in my opinion. ] (]) 02:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
}}
*****I didn't see anything left in Soul Sides to support notability, and have requested speedy. If you think I'm amiss feel free to revert. ] (]) 02:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
******Oh, I'm perfectly fine with that. Bbb, for Heldman I found articles and book reviews in JSTOR, but no reviews of her work. There's more databases, of course, and they should be perused before considering AfD, for instance. I've pruned the article at AfC as well, and I just left User:Heldman a note on their talk page. Thanks for making me waste an hour or more, time I could have spent drinking or playing with Mrs. Drmies, ] (]) 03:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
|]
*******Not at all, I'm sure Mrs. Drmies could use a break from you. Please let her know that a thank you gift is unnecessary. And I stand by my original contention that you're much better at this than I am. Are there are others who are better than you? Perhaps, but I'm more comfortable ordering you around.--] (]) 13:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== 75.84.95.229 again ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Deep_Space_Industries&diff=prev&oldid=534766853 --] (]) 03:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
*Merci. Sorry that a block is the best I can do. ] (]) 03:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
]
**Thanks! Let's hope that we won't have any reason to have this conversation again in 36 hours. Some of these abusive editors remind me of an ant colony attacking an electric fence. --] (]) 06:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
***A trip to ] should disabuse you of that upbeat comparison... Let me know if this pops back up one way or another. You know there isn't much we can do. There's mole-whacking and semi-protection, that's about it. I doubt that Jimbo would equip a set of Juggalo and/or straight-edge Wikipedians to deal with such editors. ] (]) 00:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
****Actually, I have always been amazed at how short the LTA list is. I wonder what percentage of vandals, spammers, etc. give up after the first block, after indef, etc? I bet someone has done some statistics on that. I tend to edit in the science and technology areas, which aren't really abuse magnets, but it seems like the first block does it most of the time. I would imaging that they are more persistent in, say, the political articles. --] (]) 09:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


] '''Oversight changes'''
== Wanna help write an article? ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
I am thinking of writing an article on the ], and also including a section about it on the page of ]. Would you like to help make this happen? ] (]) 05:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
</div>
*Hmmm. I don't think I've ever written on any law before--that is an area of Misplaced Pages that I'll gladly leave to the legal experts, cause I'd get it wrong. I can help with formatting and language, and I'll be glad to, but I'm not the one to ''write'' it. In ] I saw a few familiar names--Bearian, Bencherlite, and Shirt58, for instance, all seasoned editors who are better at that than I'll ever be at most other things. Give them a buzz if you like? Good luck with it, ] (]) 05:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
** Thanks. I will ask them about it. ] (]) 06:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
***@Drmies - I don't want to make any assumptions, but considering your expressed opinions on gun control, I wasn't sure if you were aware of . ] (]) 06:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
****Thanks BMK--but check out his (un)block log. ;) ] (]) 06:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
*****You're a better man than I am, Drmies, my AGF doesn't extend that far. This editor knew '''''precisely''''' what he was doing, and the intent waa totally political. That he backtracked and prostrated himself to be unblocked doesn't carry much weight with me, but then, I'm a cynical son of a bitch. (Although the guy who almost ran into into me on the sidewalk on Park Avenue today called me a "bitch", even though my gender was not in doubt -- only his sanity.) ] (]) 06:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
****** I'm still learning, but I think the article that will be made will help right past wrongs. ] (]) 08:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
******BMK, the article is a blue link now. The proof is in the pudding: is it on a notable topic? Is it neutrally written and well-verified? Are IronKnuckle's contributions valid? I've worked with editors here with whom I'd have been in shouting matches had we met elsewhere... ] (]) 15:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
*******The article looks good to me - congratulations to you both! ] (]) 16:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
******** Thanks. ] (]) 12:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== ==
* 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'''
I am not sure he wants back. I hope he does not. ] (]) 05:13, 25 January 2013 (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}}.
*Just FYI, the above IP user is {{user|Mbz1}}, returning to the fold once again despite being banned by Arbcom. ] time? ] (]) 16:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
**Oh sure, now tarc is going to go around screaming "murder", sorry "mbz1". @tarc, I predict you'll be seeing mbz1 anywhere you turn for the rest of you life. ] (]) 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
***Tarc, I can't spot banned editors like you can; I have no idea. If the IP is Mbz1--hey Mbz, how you doing? I hope all is well in real life. I can't block on your suspicion, Tarc--but IP, that's a shitty remark/threat and if you wish to continue here on my beautiful talk page (a mandatory happy place), please take it back.<p>Right now I don't have much of an opinion on Rob coming back or not. I personally think it's gone on for too long, but that's a thought: I have not followed him closely enough to know if he has been a net benefit or not the last year or so (and I am not interested in anyone making a case for or against him on this talk page). I hate it when long-term editors get removed from the project, or remove themselves. Sometimes it has to be done, I suppose, and I don't agree with Tarc's easy WOW argument, but even if a ban is consensual there's nothing funny or satisfying about it. I could list a half a dozen editors, in seconds, who I don't care for ''at all'' and whose net contribution I have serious reservations over but I wouldn't want them banned. I'm going to leave it at that. Re:Rob, the ball is in his court, I suppose, but maybe it should stay there for a while. The community has set standards, as inconsistent as they may be, and is enforcing them, as imperfectly as that may go, and anyone who wants to play here has, unfortunately, little choice but to live by them. ] (]) 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
****I've seen "WOW" a couple of times now, and I don't think I'm familiar with what it means. ] (]) 16:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
*****]. ] (]) 16:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
******The applicability here being that ban (and other) discussions are won by the part that lines up the most orcs (or humans, depending on whether you're the winner or the loser). It suggests that there is no rationality leading the way in such discussions, that they are made arbitrarily and have nothing to do with the policies and guidelines, that it's all partisan politics. It has been frequently applied (though not in those terms) to Malleus and now to YRC. I don't know if Tarc would claim it for CoM (his one-year ban) or for OttavaRima (I don't know Tarc's relationship with the latter); the problem is, of course, that you can't claim an exempt status for the decisions that you agree with. Anyway, it's been fun. I'm going for a walk. ] (]) 16:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
*******See, I don't detest CoM as much as ya think I do. I look at the content he worked on, all the food articles and the bacon stuff, and it's good, funny, and creative. But then he'd put a toe into a political article and it was night and day. Like an old Loony Tunes short, where Daffy would have the angel whisper into one ear and the devil whisper into another? When CoM listened to the devil, he was sunk. It's really the same for Mbz1; if you know her name, google it, you'll see her photography used in literally hundreds of places, and it is all rather stunning. But as soon as she set foot into an Israel-Palestine related article, it was a different person. Perhaps I was a lot better off when I used to pretty much stick to uploading album art and making sure the t's were crossed and the i's were dotted on fair-use rationales. "Angels of our better nature" is somehow applicable here, if I were a wittier fellow. ] (]) 18:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, her pictures are stunning. Too bad she no longer uploads them to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
********Oh, I didn't say you detested him at all, and what you say you think about him, I knew that already; it's pretty much in line with what I think. I've seen Mbz's good work and really, not the rest of it (before my time, and not in my area of interest), so I'm not speaking out one way or another. I *think* she's active on Wikiwatch or one of those sites (I don't need to be reminded of what they're called--I have no interest), and I didn't much care for the comments, but ''my'' interactions with her, here, were positive. ] (]) 18:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::*Maybe we need to make more/better use of topic bans to keep people out of the areas that are problematic for them, but keep them contributing where they do a good job? <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 18:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::It is ''so'' painful to watch a prolific contributor of content become their own worst enemy. Mbz and CoM being perfect examples. Both of them made some truly great contribs, but seemed to keep wading into areas where they caused disruption. I think that's a shame, as mentioned above Mbz1's photographs were fantastic, but she was attacking users here at meta and commons, and we are now deprived of any future images because the person producing them could not accept the decision of ArbCom and chose to contest it in the worst possible manner, i.e. opening an en.wp bashing RFC on meta and harassing WMF staffers on commons, as if WMF staff are going to do something about a site ban. . And of course harassing me at every opportunity while she was at it, including socking to ask me questions that all had her as the common thread during last years arbcom elections. Lesser sanctions won't work on someone with a "revenge mindset".


] '''Miscellaneous'''
::::::::::CoM, I am pretty darn sure there was more socking going on there than is recorded in the block log, but others were not convinced and CU was unable to provide a clear answer one way or another. At the moment though, CoM does not appear to be blocked, if he wanted to come back right now he could.
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
::::::::::Rob, I don't know. I've worked with him a few times, but I have also seen him dig in his heels and refuse to give a few times. While that can sometimes be an admirable quality, one needs to pick their battles with a bit more care and not use it as the default response in every circumstance. Rob seems to see himself as a crusader for the subjects of BLPs and to believe he has the moral high ground, which has led more than one well-meaning person to their doom over the ages. I don't know that he ''could'' abide by a BLP topic ban with that attitude, but I'd love to be proven wrong. ] (]) 23:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
{{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==
:::::::::::Drive-by stalker wondering who CoM is here. I've been reading through this and still don't know who everyone is referring to. ]&nbsp;]⁄] 23:16, 26 January 2013 (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)
{{outdent}}]. Lover of all things bacon. ] (]) 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


== FORDROCKEFELLER1974 ==
::::::::::::Geez, that was a long time ago. I wonder who will tell the stories like this when wikipedia is 100 years old. ]&nbsp;]⁄] 00:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Beeblebrox, your statements are very misleading. For example you write: "could not accept the decision of ArbCom". There has not been any decision of ArbCom regarding Mbz1 request. They did not even look at it: So, if you write about a person who has no ability to respond at least try to check the facts before making untruthful allegations. You also write about attacking users. I understand Rob was banned for being uncivil. The only thing I cannot understand why . ] (]) 04:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}}The above post perfectly demonstrates the attitude I was referring to. Arguing semantics instead of logic, painfully obvious block evasion, the same tired arguments over and over and over again, presenting "evidence" that doesa not actually prove her point, and just the overall tone of clueless arrogance. Anyone can see from her massive block log that arbcom did in fact get involved and is "holding" her block. I don't know how we could get just the good parts of a user like that back without taking the bad parts as well, unless they decided to leave WP alone, as the have promised to do time and again, even claiming 'retired" status, and just uploaded images at Commons. Of course that option is and was open to her all along, but look where we are. ] (]) 17:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
:I believe the best way to make a person to leave WP is treating this person fairly, and with a full transparency, the two things that are missing on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:11, 27 January 2013 (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)
== YRC ==
*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)


== ] ==
I think some people forget that the talk is a place to talk TO a person, not ABOUT him. I a similar case, there was at least a ], - but I don't feel like the one to do that, --] (]) 16:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
*I don't know, Gerda. There's one IP there with an axe to grind (with me as well, apparently, condemning me for some action when I didn't act at all), but I don't feel comfortable hatting the entire thread and the off-topic comments are interspersed. Rob still has talk page access and can remove what he likes. Someone else, another admin, may well disagree with me and that's fine. ] (]) 16:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
**At least I tried to talk TO him. --] (]) 16:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
***Gerda, I'm enforcing asterisk rules per Ungcel; hope you don't mind. I dropped YRC a line. Off-wiki, I think I like him a lot though I'd need to know, of course, his stance on gun control and Alabama football to see if we would ever get along. At least he's never (to my knowledge) said "meh", and that's a good sign. Bis spaetzle, ] (]) 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


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)
== Radford audio ==
*{{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? ==
Im not sure I understand how the history of an article works but I think you are the person who removed the list of products from the Radford audio page. If you are could you explain why you did it. I and others had gone to some trouble to create the list and I believe it to be accurate. I should know as I was there in the 1970s. Regards Chris Clarke <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*Hello Chris--yes, , unfortunately--you read that well enough (you know the blue text I'm inserting here is clickable). Here's why, in some detail but maybe not exhaustively. a. mentioning forums isn't encyclopedic (by our guidelines); they may be useful to some, of course, but Misplaced Pages isn't here for all kinds of information: ] has some guidelines, and that page as a whole has more that may be of relevance. b. by the same token, a list of models is not usually deemed encyclopedic--UNLESS such a list is accompanied by references (from secondary sources) that help establish why such a list, such models, are notable and worthy of inclusion. If you look at you'll see that I tried to improve the article by adding and tweaking text and by adding references to (more) reliable sources. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find that much, but I tried to do justice to the company. Note also that most of the content in the article is still unverified, but it's the kind of content that is undoubtedly of encyclopedic value--it just needs sourcing. I'd '''love''' to get my hands on one of those amps... ] (]) 17:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


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)
== ANI ==


For some reason, no admins have bothered to weigh in here. If you have a minute, could you take a peek? ] (]) 19:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC) :The user has 509 edits, and 250 of them were done three days ago on the linked sandbox. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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)


== ]/] ==
== For Mrs. Drmies ==


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.
Found something you could give Mrs. Drmies for Valentine's day, a , or . Of course if you give one of these wonderful gifts, you will need a . A scarf can be called a ], which would be more appropriate in this case. The foulard sure looks real. ] (]) 21:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
*Thanks! Bacon lube...if you really want to make sure you'll never get any... ] (]) 21:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Attentively ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Meh ==


== Books & Bytes – Issue 66 ==
You write me an article on a warship, and I'll stop taunting you with my 'meh's. ;-) ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 01:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Yeah, what have you got against "meh" anyway? I'd never heard of it until I started editing here (never watched ''The Simpsons''), and, just as our article says, I assumed it was Yiddish. Even now, when I use it (you can now put me on your shit list), I always think Yiddish, and I like Yiddish.--] (]) 01:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;">
:Bbb, nice to meet you. I think we'll be good friends here. ;-) ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
]</div>
::I think we've met, Ed, but not quite so formally. There are a great many people who become friends ganging up on Drmies. It's one of the few sports that actually interests me. Perhaps you could interest Drmies in writing an article on a ship that was christened with a rare bottle of champagne.--] (]) 01:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
<div style="line-height: 1.2;">
::*I think the Dr would rather just drink the champagne, but that's just me. Or maybe a warship named after ]?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 01:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br />
:::*I find it to be the most entertaining thing I do here, Bbb. I think the good Dr could do without the champagne, though, seeing as he has a new member of the household. Well, unless they soothe his teething with whiskey.... ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 01:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Issue 66, November – December 2024
::::*That ain't gonna happen. He's not gonna let a little thing like a baby interfere with his libations.--] (]) 01:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
</div>
:::{{ec}} *No doubt you're right, but we could withhold the champagne unless he wrote the article. And please don't mention Francis Bacon - all I can think of is English/Irish/English/Irish/etc. Maybe Drmies could dunk the bacon in the champagne, or given the amount of fat in southern bacon, maybe he could dunk the champagne in the bacon.--] (]) 01:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
<div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;">
:::*Apparently we've got a bacon ship too, the ]. There you go Drmies, a freebie from me.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 02:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
* Les Jours and East View Press join the library
::::*Ooh, and at one point the ship was named Professeur Bergonié - the HMS Drmies - he could eat bacon, drink champagne, and lecture. (Boy, that article has a lot of redlinks.)--] (]) 02:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
* 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 ==
===This is for you, bitches===
] Hello, and ] to Misplaced Pages. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Misplaced Pages, please note that Misplaced Pages is an ] and not a ]. Misplaced Pages is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing this website, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia (please see ] for further details). Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-socialnetwork --> ] (]) 02:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
:Clearly, his account has been compromised.--] (]) 02:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
::Don't you hate it when an editor templates his own talk page (and we're all experienced <s>bitches</s> editors, too)?.--] (]) 02:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
::*They say talking to yourself is a sign of mental illness. Postpartum depression?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 04:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
*I was busy translating ] for Ed. Somebody better give me some props: ships are boring. ] (]) 04:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
**Props. <span style="font-family:century gothic;letter-spacing:2px;">&nbsp;]]</span>
***Let's all go over to ] and critique the prose style. Should we recommend that Drmies do more ship articles? ] (]) 05:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
****Oh shit, the Eds have come home to roost...there were a bunch more Os; I picked the first one that didn't have an English version. I'll do the rest when I get around to it, or when I get appropriately rewarded. ] (]) 05:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
*****I already left one critique, first thing I saw. So, I'm not here to roost?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 05:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
******Muahaha, contrary to what they told me in grade school, bullying and peer pressure DO work! (oh, and ... nice article, Drmies!) ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 07:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
*******Crisco, you're great, and you can roost here anytime. It's just rare to have two Eds in one thread, don't you think? Thank you all, by the way, for brightening up my morning with these lovely, friendly messages. It makes coffee, boiled eggs, and rosemary bread even tastier. Oh, Eds, I an going to try and do a bunch more Os, and then home up with the boringest sextuple DYK ever. ] (]) 14:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
*********Even better than 50+ paleontology articles? What is that, a cinqantette?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 16:03, 26 January 2013 (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.
== About e and ij ==


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)
Hi Drmies! Thanks for ]. <br />
*No clue. I'll add to your note. Thanks, ] (]) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
To be honest, I probably wouldn't have noticed, except that the word included ], which always reminds me of a experience from my misspent youth. When I was 16, I spent most of my leisure time playing sports, watching sports or reading art history books. Happened to mention to my long suffering High School art teacher (she had to put up with my 'orrible "art works", after all) a painting that was hanging in the "]", and was gently corrected. Gasp! I was suddenly confronted with a shattering revelation: ''I was not as clever as I thought I was''.<br />
**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)
And a happy ] to you. I'm usually not much interested in patriotic hoo-hah, but when ] identified as ] dumps two of its candidates for making homophobic comments... well, maybe I'm just a little bit proud to be an Australian.<br />
--] (]) 09:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
*] isn't a rule, you know. &#9786; So &hellip; you know one part of the sound that ]s cannot utter except in circumstances where ]. Don't make ] utter it. {{gender:Drmies|His|Her|Xyr}} Chameleon Arch will shut down and {{gender:Drmies|his|her|xyr}} memory will be restored.<p>Doktoro: In the spirit of Aussie Day, and to help you forget that ] here brought up the unfortunate subject of mis-spelled names containing alien sounds, you could gain some more of that elusive youth cred by bringing '']'' and ] up to snuff. Several of the plot summaries are teasers. ] won't be able to help you, even though {{gender:Shirt58|he|she|xe}} mentions {{plainlink|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4880301/|Kiki}} on {{gender:Shirt58|his|her|xyr}} user page.<p>] (]) 11:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
**Sorry Ungcel, I don't do TV shows, certainly not Australian shows. My mom used to watch one of those soaps, and so it's always been difficult for me to take Australia seriously (we didn't have ''Eastenders'' or American soaps on TV in those days, excluding ''Dallas'' and ''Dynasty'' of course). Your soundbyte is right on the money, though--a bit shorter than my mom might say it, and she wouldn't put that 'u' at the end, but real good. ] (]) 03:30, 29 January 2013 (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)
==Private spaceflight==
:], 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)
The ] is back at it again. Regards, ] (]) 15:05, 26 January 2013 (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 ==
== thank you sir ... ==


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)
— <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 15:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
*Happy to oblige, Ma'am! ] (]) 15:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


== On a side note to above template talk ==
==Disambiguation link notification for January 27==


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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
*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)
*:I posted at Manual of Style/Layout first to see if anyone knows the answer. Thanks. ] (]) 22:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== AfD sock ==
:] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])
::added a link pointing to ]


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)
:] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])
*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)
::added a link pointing to ]
**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! ==
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
== Happy Sunday! ==
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]

|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''
Drmies, would you have a look at this one ? It has a reprehensible edit history, which I think merited a userblock long ago, and article protection, if not deletion altogether. Makes one's skin crawl. Oh, and cheers on this winter day. Thank you, ] (]) 15:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
|-
*Sure. I wish ANI 1.0 had as much traffic and as quick a response time as 2.0. I got a thread languishing there. ] (]) 15:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
**Johnny come lately here. I did nominate it for AfD, and the rest has been handled by others. Sorry, my Sunday got busy all of a sudden. ] (]) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC) |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for helping reduce the use of "served as", "serves as" and such like for what are not public service roles. In those two examples, "was" and "is" would be preferable (this last sentence is obviously not for your benefit, but might help someone else who reads this). ] (]) 12:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
|}
***Thanks for the notice on the AfD. For some reason I'm seeing a lot of autobiographies lately. ] (]) 22:10, 27 January 2013 (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)
==Talkback==
***], 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)
{{talkback|LittleWink|HNLMS O 13|ts=15:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)}}
] (]) 15:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

== Why? ==

Hello Drmies, could you please explain to me what is the purpose of now, when the block has ended? Why not to welcome this person back by removing the template? Thanks. ] (]) 17:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
*CoM knows it's there; that's not what's keeping him away. If he wants it gone he can easily take care of it himself. Thank you, ] (]) 22:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

== Your message to JMBZ-12 ==

Hello. I saw your message to the user JMBZ-12 concerning about the ] page and, while I do understand that him, putting up the fact template causes disruption was unintentional, the only reason why he did so is because Sakine's DOB has yet to locate a source of the date of birth, as there is only the date of year, but no dates of month and day, so I fear that the page still remains of low quality, in my sincerest opinion. Thank you. ] (]) 18:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
*You can't seriously claim that a page is of low quality because it misses a precise date of birth. ] (]) 02:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

== Got Time? ==

....to deal with a pair of disruptive accounts, pretty clearly the same person? I've filed a report at AiV, where it languishes . Thank you and cheers, ] (]) 21:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

== Staying hip ==

So, how about a ] to keep you hip? No need for self-sacrifice, though.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*Maybe tomorrow, Crisco. I'm dealing with a few things, such as an abdication and a broken sewage pipe. Thanks, ] (]) 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
**And editing celebrity articles in an effort to stay hip. I hate plumbing problems - there oughta be a law. Who abdicated? Mrs. Drmies?--] (]) 02:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
***].<span style="font-family:'segoe ui','lucida grande';letter-spacing:2px;text-shadow:0 0 1px #999;">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 03:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
****Why? Did she have plumbing problems, too? I thought my speculation was much more interesting. :-) --] (]) 03:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*****Mind your manners, Bbb. You're American so I can't expect you to care for something higher than your state representative, but you're hurting me feelings, you know. I remember her coronation vividly (though I was a republican in those days, of course). ] (]) 03:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*******I'm American, so clearly I don't have manners. If you mean my congressperson, I don't care much about them. You were a child when Beatrix became queen. Does that mean you're now a monarchist?--] (]) 00:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::*Ugh. Sorry about the plumbing. Should I be sorry about the abdication too? <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 06:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*******Must be shocking to hear. And I do hope you call a plumber trained in these matters, rather than a ]. So you were at the coronation, or was it on TV?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 08:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}TV, Crisco. I wasn't old enough to travel to Amsterdam myself. Yes, it was clear that she would abdicate, but it's kind of a shock anyway. She has been a terrific queen; the papers agree on that as well. I can't say I'm glad to see ] get to the throne: I'm fed up with men being in charge. (How much he resembles his mother on our picture!) Y'all keep your fingers crossed that they dig up and replace that main drain today--I'm tired of peeing in the yard. ] (]) 13:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*Isn't abdication a Dutch tradition? Just wait twenty years and you'll have ] on the throne. :-) Now, if only Queen Elizabeth would abdicate in favor of Prince William and not Charles... ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
**And yet it never caused a constitutional crisis... by the way, Drmies, did you know that ]?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
**Yes, it pretty much is. The Dutch papers read that in the tradition of Dutch royalty not considering their status as divinely ordained, which is fine with me. That little girl looks just like her father, by the way. Crisco, we called a certified one, and since they're charging us $5000 they must be good. Insurance doesn't cover a penny. DYK...that '''Drmies''' hates ]s? Rosie was in the yard at 7, peeing like a champ; my oldest daughter of course had to pee on her feet, with ]. Oh, kids, please respect Ungcel's plea for asterisks, not colons. You might break the world. ] (]) 14:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
***Ah, I see. That is... not something I want to imagine. Sounds like Jakarta earlier this month.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 14:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
****Speaking of constitutional crisis, you can guess why I got my coffee from the coffee shop this morning instead of making it myself. :) ] (]) 14:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*****Gawk, a pun! And yes, I can imagine quite well. BTW, I ''hate'' how hard it is to find someone with only an initial. Haven't found a first name for ] anywhere, and Ph. G. "Flip" Carli is having the same issues (although it appears he was also a football player)&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 14:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
******There's a book/article (the citation in the footnote isn't clear) entitled ''Indonesian Cinema: A Glance of History'' by ] that ''might'' have the answer. ] (]) 00:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
*******82 pages, so a booklet. Might be able to track that down in Jogja, although it's quite old so I won't be getting it at a bookstore. Doubt it has Kruger's first name, but this might deal with the 50s and 60s (which would be nice to have)&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 00:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
On the asterisk thing - I use a variety of browsers in different locations (not always within my control what's available) and get odd-looking results in anything but Firefox when there is a string of multiple asterisks. Now I do prefer Firefox, but that isn't always an option for me. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 19:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*They work if they're not interrupted, so to speak, by colons or hard returns. Look, I'm just doing what he tells me to. He's got seniority. How's the book business, Lady? Have you replaced all of those dusty things with computer terminals yet? ] (]) 19:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
**No, if there is a long string of asterisks, I see either several dots (Safari) or a big white space (IE) unless I'm in FF. If there are several colons and then an asterisk, it looks normal anywhere I am. Anyway... bite your tongue! We have in fact greatly increased the number of computers we have, but we'll not be one of those horrible bookless places in the foreseeable future, thank goodness. You'd be amazed how many people have still never touched a computer, and now they have to do online applications to get jobs in fast food or book a cheap busride somewhere. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 20:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
***Really? Just to get a place at McD?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
***I'm editing with Safari 5.1.7 right now. There's exactly one square bullet for each list item, and no dots. ] (]) 00:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

***The way to get multiple bullets with Safari 5.1.7 is the same way to get multiple bullets with everything else: erroneously put a blank line between what are supposed to be successive list items, as here. That ''ends all of the lists'' and then ''starts a new set of lists''. In this case, one gets <source lang=html5 enclose=div></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
<ul>
<li>
<ul>
<li></source> in the HTML. Hence the bullets. They're the bullets for the first items of ''three new lists''. A blank line ends all lists. This is why ] says not to put blank lines between successive list items. ] (]) 00:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


== ] ==
==Jon Klassen==
Did you hear that ''This Is Not My Hat'' won the Caldecott award for illustration? <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 06:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*No, thanks--it's well deserved. ] (]) 14:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
** and honor books. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for your edits at ]. I had prepared this for a COI report, but was waiting for that editor's response:
== ] ==
*On November 30, 2023, that editor stated : "this account is not a business account, anyone using this account will be doing so with direct supervision of the account owner, ie. I will be standing behind them any time the login is used".
*That editor then made a number of edits at ] that removed content sourced by secondary sources, and added content of a promotional tone, sourced by primary sources.
*That editor wrote a lengthy declaration of their purpose , stating, "I kindly request that any changes avoid undermining the hard work and dedication of many business owners and community members who have strived tirelessly to erase the stigma and stereotypes associated with the region."
*A Google search of "invise" and "Mike L." adds depth.


Certainly seems like a single-purpose editor trying to cleanse the article of well-sourced negative content. Cheers. ] (]) 12:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I see you did some (decent!!!) subtantial edits to ]- I was just about to review it at ], do you want me to hold off? I wasn't sure about her ] to be honest. Cheers! <font face="Georgia">]</font> 15:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*Oh, I feel the same way. Did you see what they tried to post on your talk page? See the filter log. But the problem with the article (I'm sure you saw my pruning) is, in my opinion, much bigger than just that. The negative information isn't about that organization, as far as I could tell from that confusing article. But they're p-blocked from the article now; who knows, maybe they'll figure out how to gain consensus for anything on the talk page. I will reiterate that the argument "it's negative stuff and it shows up in a search" is completely inappropriate here. ] (]) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*Hey, thanks for your note. You can review it, if you like, but in my opinion, right now, she does not pass: the article contains no secondary sources at all except for the one award. Here's the thing: her position (and awards) do not qualify for inherent notability per ]--see criteria 2, 3, 5, or 8. That she edits that blog does not make ''her'' notable; notability is not inherited in that sense, though it would validate a redirect from her name to the blog (which is a notable publication, in my judgment). So, what needs to be added (and I commented on that at ], but that seems to fall on deaf ears) are secondary sources commenting on her as a person (a famous person, maybe, so ] applies) or as a scholar--reviews of her work would help. JSTOR is a good place to search, though I doubt it'll produce much since she has no books published, from what I could tell. Does this help? (If not, ask the experts--say, DGG or Randykitty.) ] (]) 16:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
::I'll try to add some well-sourced content back to the article. Cheers. ] (]) 17:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:*That's really useful, thanks. Apologies for only checking your page now, I forgot to watch it earlier.<font face="Georgia">]</font> 19:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Sure. You think, ], the subject is notable, that organization? Cause all I see in a quick search is some promotional BS. It may be better to consider . ] (]) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Wait. I'm wrong: I should have figured that there was more in the history, including a lot of you. The article ''was'' about a region and for now I'm going to go back to ; hope that's okay with you. Then we can take it from there. ] (]) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::: is where it got messed up. ] (]) 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:52, 18 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)

Silicon Slopes

Thanks for your edits at Silicon Slopes. I had prepared this for a COI report, but was waiting for that editor's response:

  • On November 30, 2023, that editor stated here: "this account is not a business account, anyone using this account will be doing so with direct supervision of the account owner, ie. I will be standing behind them any time the login is used".
  • That editor then made a number of edits at Silicon Slopes that removed content sourced by secondary sources, and added content of a promotional tone, sourced by primary sources.
  • That editor wrote a lengthy declaration of their purpose on the article talk page, stating, "I kindly request that any changes avoid undermining the hard work and dedication of many business owners and community members who have strived tirelessly to erase the stigma and stereotypes associated with the region."
  • A Google search of "invise" and "Mike L." adds depth.

Certainly seems like a single-purpose editor trying to cleanse the article of well-sourced negative content. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Oh, I feel the same way. Did you see what they tried to post on your talk page? See the filter log. But the problem with the article (I'm sure you saw my pruning) is, in my opinion, much bigger than just that. The negative information isn't about that organization, as far as I could tell from that confusing article. But they're p-blocked from the article now; who knows, maybe they'll figure out how to gain consensus for anything on the talk page. I will reiterate that the argument "it's negative stuff and it shows up in a search" is completely inappropriate here. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll try to add some well-sourced content back to the article. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Sure. You think, Magnolia677, the subject is notable, that organization? Cause all I see in a quick search is some promotional BS. It may be better to consider treating it as an economical "ecosystem". Drmies (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Wait. I'm wrong: I should have figured that there was more in the history, including a lot of you. The article was about a region and for now I'm going to go back to this version; hope that's okay with you. Then we can take it from there. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
This is where it got messed up. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions Add topic