Misplaced Pages

User talk:Drmies

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.

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by The Banner (talk | contribs) at 18:52, 18 January 2025 (→Advice needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 18:52, 18 January 2025 by The Banner (talk | contribs) (→Advice needed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 Add topic