Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:57, 1 December 2017

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

User greentar

I never had an account other than this snowlands.

Hey...

Try not to cuss in noticeboards... 😉 Corky  05:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, I got you--but really, that was bullshit. :) Drmies (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Cussing is neutralised by the addition of a good Latin tag. So sez the bloody vox populi, anyway... — fortunavelut luna 15:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

.. but what should a poor dog with no latin do? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Barcus barcus woofus woofus...? ;) — fortunavelut luna 19:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

O felix canis, qui dicit arf…!, nomen tuum est Arfer. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I know you're citing someone fancy, fancier than Sadie's boss. Semper ubi sub ubi, Drmies (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Bastards. -Roxy the dog. barcus 22:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Mater! Mater! Barcus me mordet!" (Thank yer God it wasn't Winnie Ille Pu) Anmccaff (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Beat this !!. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom

I am a bit confused about the ArbCom. Is your term expiring now? If so, will you run again? The Banner talk 10:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Lucky Drmies eh  ;) "It's not luck... Todd" :D Yo, @The Banner: This page explains the terms (basically they overlap... in droves), with a nice coloured picture to explain it for the likes of me! — fortunavelut luna 10:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know, Banner. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please run again. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

How can we convince you to run again? Bribe you with some back and white pudding? The famous Misplaced Pages t-shirt? The Banner talk 02:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know, Banner. I've said before that I feel like the worst arb around, and I wonder what I've contributed. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• You contribute biological diversity to ArbCom, which is important. Do you really think we can find another ostrich to replace you? TonyBallioni (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please run again. You are qualified, after coffee (see above), and I also said I'd vote for you. I bribed Opabinia regalis with images of three cats (obviously not enough yet), what do you want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Please do run. Even if you don't have detailed policy knowledge (or whatever it is you refer to as making a contribution) I trust your judgement, and ultimately I think that's all this is about. Vanamonde (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll join the pile-on in also urging you to run. If nothing else, you bring a much needed sense of humor, not to mention the Dutch perspective. "Run, Doc, run!!" Geoff | 16:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

We already know you don't suffer from insanity. You enjoy every minute of it. Put your name in the hat! 23:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

+1 SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• You are a good and fair-minded Arb, and the community definitely needs more, and experienced, and neutral, candidates to choose from. Please re-run. Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• You're the BEST CzechUzer and we all DEEPLY ADMIRE you! ;) But seriously, you should run again. And that's high praise coming from me considering my general scepticism of ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• @Drmies: Your deft touch is needed, please nominate! Arbcom needs trusted admins, particularly those known for building content. There are plenty of contributors who can place a dozen blue links in each sentence but Arbcom needs thought, not blue links. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Please? The ArbCom is useless without arbitrators with balls (either on hip height or a bit higher up). You are definitely not a slacker or mere decoration. The Banner talk 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's too late, Banner--the die has been cast and the deadline expired while I was cleaning the house and entertaining my guests. I was being wishy-washy and it sort of slipped my mind... Thanks for the kind words; no doubt there are some good candidates... Drmies (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    • In that case let me be the first to say thanks for serving. Much appreciated! -- zzuuzz 22:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    • There are some good candidates, I am sure I'll vote for five six, would have been six seven with you ;) - I made a new icon for discussions that get too long: Es ist genug. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    • You did good, while there. On more than one occasion I was impressed by your ability to actually understand the point at issue, rather than run with the herd. Try it again, after a while, like Cas and NYB did. You'll have my support. -- Begoon 10:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I need your help

First of all, I promise I won't attack GrapefruitSculpin anymore. I accepted your warning.

Well, how to make a form on Misplaced Pages? Such as I had something I need to make a form. And how to do it? ScrewsHirsch (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• This sounded good until I saw this--it took you eight hours to realize that "I wanna kill him" is not acceptable? Drmies (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, I want to give a belated thanks for your help. I haven't had much time to deal with this group of disruptive editors, which ScrewsHirsch is a part of and Davey2010 has been helping me with. I appreciate your sound judgement in handling things. I'm building a little spreadsheet on these users (mostly IP) for a future sockpuppet investigation. - GS ⋙ ☎ 05:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• OK--keep me or other admins posted. I'm sorry someone felt the need to tell you that. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

New Editor

There is a new editor (less than 500 edits) who keeps marking non-minor edits as minor on Constantine, including restoring information to the infobox that was reverted last night. He restored the same info twice. I have asked twice for him to stop and don't want to break 3RR - should I post at ANI? Seraphim System 07:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System 07:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

What can I say? Here I am, agreeing with SS on something. I reported this CIR user at 3RRN. Dr. K. 08:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm. Interesting. In hoc signo vinces? Drmies (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• OK that's tough. Fortuna, pretend to be an admin. What would you do (if you hadn't edited the article)? Drmies (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines on pinging and i-bans

I know that there are comparatively few individuals around here who have blocked themselves. One such person is someone I have been in an interaction ban with for some time now. I think the history of his user talk page, particularly since his self-block, might show that he has rather clearly used his user talk page to ping people I have been in disagreement with.

I want to make it clear that I am not actually seeking any sort of action against this person, which is why I am not specifically identifying him here. My own impression is that the pings are likely being made, at least to some extent, to remind me of his presence as a form of indirect intimidation or whatever, but I think if the option were removed from him he would start using Misplaced Pages email instead, so there might not be any real change in the situation anyway. But I was wondering whether you might think there might be enough possibilities of pinging messages to others, and perhaps adding a link to the person on the other side of the ban to effectively ping them, on user talk pages in such a way as to maybe put something in the guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, yes, an area where common sense should prevail, I suppose. You've asked them to stop? It's a weird situation: if someone else had blocked them it would be abuse. But I'm not the person to ask about changing or adding to policy here. If you've asked them to stop and they didn't, I can talk to them. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ignocrates is someone I am subject to an interaction ban with. After being blocked for thirty days for violating that interaction ban, he, somehow, changed his user settings so that he is unable to edit anything other than his talk page, based on comments from others on that page. And, FWIW, taking that into account along with his having changed user names once already, ir seemed to me to make sense to watch his page in the event he changes his name again to get around the self-imposed restriction. So, no, I haven't contacted him. And, like I said, I'm not actually seeking anything against him. But, as I doubt I am or have been the only person who has been or will be involved in such matters, I do think maybe having some sort of clear statement against such in the future might be useful. I personally, however, am miserable at attempting to write policy or guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ignocrates is under a voluntary indef block, which means he can edit nothing except his own talk. I don't see any edits by him at his talk page since 31 January 2017. John, I wonder how he could have been leaving any pings for you? In my view, we don't yet have evidence for a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say they were for me, I don't think anyway. And, like I said, I'm not looking for any sanctions against him. But, if you were to see the timing of his posts, you would see he pretty much exclusively was pinging people I was in disputes with at the time, which seems pretty obvious stalking. I was raising concerns about the idea itself, based on the one incident I know of, thinking others might be encountering it as well. It probably is less common than stalking emails, but it also might be more visible than them too. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

John, can you provide a diff for such a post? EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please ask the other editor to stop responding to me

I don't want to be bothered and I don't want to take this any further, but I would like to be left alone and not have such direct contact.

• WP:IBAN

Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to: reply to each other in discussions;

Help, C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, did I miss an iBan? I thought y'all were only banned from Patriot Prayer. Anyway, you can take this to ANI, or maybe ask another admin--I feel like I've already spent too much time arguing with both of you. You're best helped by a fresher, friendlier person. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is an two-way interactive IBAN which is sadly the only way to stop things, but if you and others allow (the other) to push the edges of the boundaries, there will be no peace. They will just comment directly to me, in the same section, just not in line with my comment. Look at what was written, it is in direct response to me and I can't find another way of taking it. The frustrating part is that Cyberpower678 suggested to me, "Try not to get too close to the boundaries of the IBAN though. Some people may eventually see it as trying to game it." I get the feeling of a double standard, or at the very least, no clear lines; if others can get away with this. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I was hoping everything would calm down by way of the IBAN, so I could ask for the lifting of the topical ban as I wanted to create a new Rose City Antifa page, but some issues overlap in the the area of the topical ban. As long as I can't get away from the other editors, I can't move forward with anything else as I keep getting dragged into Admin. My hope was that this IBAN would end all that... C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Just curious...

Is this what it feels like to be an admin? If so, then you have my utmost admiration. Is a site ban against such a violator of WP policy not a possibility? I'm beginning to wonder if such vile attacks need to be elevated to the highest level for my own protection. I refer back to this edit summary and the sock's use of the words "violent oppose", and their ignorance about US law while making untoward allegations. I realize it's possible that we're dealing with immaturity or perhaps mental instability but I'd rather not have to deal with it. 21:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• No, Atsme, I'm sorry, but it gets worse than that. When they start bringing in your family, that's when it gets bad. With socks we do what we can, which isn't much. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dilemma

Yes, I am a postgraduate researcher at the University of Oxford, who also works with various post-docs. I have been searching for someone to talk to about the conduct of two administrators, and it's impossible to outline my case since its deleted before I get the chance by those two very same administrators. This is manifestly absurd. You just banned an IP for and I quote "messing around with IP addresses" from the University of Oxford, for restating my concerns on the page. You did not take action against the two administrators concerned or even approach the case from a neutral point of view. Since I now have the opportunity to make my case, on the off chance you won't immediately delete the comment and ban the IP for "disruptive edits" by attempting to reinstate by request for help in dealing with two administrators who attempted to repeatedly remove the register of my complaint for help, I'll explain the situation. The editor MarnetteD with Sr203 appear to have been reverting all - and I mean all- edits to articles on the European Schools, including but not limited to the European School, Luxembourg I, without explanation, just as they did to me in the TeaHouse. Now, from what I have ascertained, they appear to have been in a long running battle against one user who was banned. They accused me of being that user, they locked the page. I went to another admin to ask for help, they repeatedly removed my requests for help on that admins page, which then the admin banned me for "disruptive editing" - just as you did - for simply reinstating my complaint. That is all! Following 24 hours, I created an account, as I thought this perhaps was the reason why I was being suspected, and left a message on the talk page of the article in question asking for clarity. It was removed by MarnetteD an hour ago, so I reinstated it. It was removed by Sro23. So I saw a link to the TeaHouse for help, and registered my complaint.

Now as far as I can see, these two admins have been the true disruptive editors, they are making judgements with no evidence and nothing to support them. It doesn't help when other administrators support them blindly. I'm not asking for much, just the ability to edit articles. I think it is evident that the rules regarding the conduct of admins needs tightening up, especially in regard to how they pursue claims. This isn't Star Chamber, though the analogy is apt for how these two are behaving.

And please, if you could, do not delete this message, but reply. 129.67.117.15 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI: , , and Euexperttime (talk · contribs). At a dead minimum they were harassing MarnetteD, and their edits are identical to Euexperttime's socks. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to update the articles so I went back to the last version I remember seeing a few months ago and started editing from there. This is obscenely absurd. The edits you've linked to were me trying to reinstate my edits following this outlandish attack. At a dead minimum I was harassing MarnetteD? Are you joking? I think 20 or so of my edits were reverted without explanation, I was accused of being someone, the investigation into me being that person failed, yet I was not allowed to edit. I have now just been informed that I have been listed as being that person anyway with no evidence other than the suspicion of the double act admin crew. Doens't a check user test settle this question? Hasn't it been run and hasn't it concluded that I'm not who you say I am? Every attempt to simply write to a third party for assessment has been removed, and any attempt to reinstate it is listed as disruptive editing. And on top of that, I'm witnessing a strange miscarriage of justice and notable failiure of admin policy. I'm aware that there is a wiki ambassador at the University at that may help in resolving this since I can meet in person. Edit: I've just noticed that the edit summary left by Acroterion very crudely repeats the accusation of me being another user by saying "hello euepxerttime". I think the case is settled and he's made clear that this is a with hunt against that user - perhaps even a politically motivated one - who knows?!. I hope to see the appropriate action taken against these administrators. 129.67.117.15 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I see Drmies is familiar with your circumstances and has arrived at the same conclusion as I did. Therefore, I'm blocking this IP for evasion as well. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who blocked the range for 24 hours. The reason were clear harassment and block evasion. To put it simply, your behavior is disruptive, and has gone beyond any claims of sock-puppetry, which those have been separately reviewed by a clerk (User:GeneralizationsAreBad) at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime/Archive.

To spell it out, here's the reason for that range block:

• WP:HARASS - if someone removes your post from their talk page, it's evidence that they saw it and are not interested in discussing (at least, not on their talk page). Repeatedly restoring that discussion after they removed it is, by definition, harassment. Also, repeatedly restoring the discussion also runs afoul of WP:EW (edit warring), which is also a blockable disruptive behavior - a specific exemption in policy allows a user from deleting an unwanted discussion from their own talk page, but does not exempt the repeated restoration of that discussion.
• WP:EVADE - intentionally changing your IP after one is blocked is block evasion, and is another blockable offense under Misplaced Pages policy - and I note you have done it again to post here, after both user:129.67.117.187 and user:Vindicators vengence were blocked earlier today (and both remain blocked).

As an additional issue - WP:POINT. Disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point is also a blockable issue. Because article talk pages are for the purpose of discussing improvements to that article and not for portraying or insinuating a link between the article subject with your perception of another editor. So the edit warring to harass user:MarnetteD at Talk:Star Chamber could have also been used as a blockable reason in itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And to spell it out for you, the user MarnetteD repeatedly undid my revisions to the article without justification, which IS in the fist instance WP:EW. The user in question then insinuated I was another user and continued that accusation without evidence. The user in question ran an investigation using the check user service which yielded a null, and then continued to his allegation nonetheless, also removing my queries from the talk page of the article (!) - which included such outrageous comments as opening a discussion on what was going on. That would be disruptive editing by MarnetteD to make a point? No? An admin then intervened to remove my power to reinstate the question on the talk page of the article citing disruptive edits - disruptive to whom? Who does that disrupt? I then admit that after that much injustice I lost my temper and tagged the user on Talk:Star Chamber. However, I thought - and think even more - that it is an EXTREMELY APT analogy to how certain administrators behave; the wielding of absolute authority by an accuser, with no effective recourse of the accused, and the hilarious presumption of a fair process. You don't think so? What do you asses my situation to be? I notice that the account I created this morning was banned on no evidence but the presumption of the accuser, with no process involved. The only oversight is other administrators such as yourself, who see a in your words "disruptive" editor - and as we've already explored, editing the talk page of the article in question to ask why my edits are being reversed can in absolutely no way be described as disruptive. How is this remotely fair? Now you may not like me, or know me, and I don't have a billion barnstars like you other admins but I have a very good point. 129.67.117.155 (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)\

Edit: Also, just to make absolutely and abundantly clear, what was the result of that investigation you cited and what hard evidence was cited? I just want to make doubly sure we are all on the same page as to how absurd these accusations against me are. 129.67.117.155 (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

To be abundantly clear: I didn't even know about the claim of socking when I applied the prior range block - that range block was strictly for the harassment and block evasion. I learned about the sock investigation afterwards, and I was not involved with it - that was processed separately via a report at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime. Your behavior was disruptive, and the block was a direct result of that disruption.

Continued block evasion and attempts at wikilawyering to obfuscate that issue ... have obvious results. 129.67.116.0/22 blocked 60 hours. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Just want to add that reading this thread only strengthens my opinion that some kind of long-term resolution, such as perhaps indefinite temporary protection of the concerned article(s) might be worth considering. Accounts have been blocked for various reasons, but the editor/editors subsequently hop(s) to a new account to continue engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND over article content when the protection runs out. This type of long-term disruption is, in my opinion, slightly different from the kind of nonsense talking place at some articles (for example, the silliness continuously happening at Whisk) since it has spread to other pages and has evolved into accusing administrators of acting inappropriately when they appear to have only acted in good faith to prevent further disruption. There are appropriate venues to discuss concerns one may have about other editors, including administrators, but editing warring on talk pages and at the Teahouse is not going to elicit sympathy from others. There appears to be no attempt being made to stop blaming others and instead figure out a way to be here and edit according to relevant policies and guidelines. My advice to this person/these persons is to stop all attempts to try and force the community to "see the light" in this matter since they are almost certainly going to continue to be rebuffed. If you really want to be a seen as a constructive member of the community, then read WP:UNBLOCK, WP:GAB and even WP:OFFER to figure out what needs to be done to get unblocked because the deeper you dig the hole you currently find yourself in, the harder it's going to be to find a way out. Once your account is unblocked, you can then work on resolving any issues you may have with other editors in accordance with WP:DR or just drop the stick altogether and move on to something else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• As hilarious as tagging an admin at Star Chamber is, I generally support requiring registration to edit. Yes, I'm one of those. Seraphim System 06:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Winkelvi--I appreciate it, and I wish you all the best as well! Drmies (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Review of my latest DYK by Saff V.

Hi Drmies. In the recent past I had a protracted dispute with Saff V. and now this user has taken to reviewing my latest DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Polity of the Lacedaemonians where he did not pass it based on questions about notability(!) (it is a classical work by Xenophon, carried in 8 other wikis) and has issues with the way I cited the same source for different page numbers, which is not a DYK problem or issue. I am going to ask for another reviewer but I may also need your assistance in this because there may also be a language barrier in this case. Thank you. Dr. K. 14:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I just copy-edited the article.  – Corinne (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait, what? What is this Xenophon fellow up to now? Seriously, any work by Xenophon is notable, unless someone can explain why not. Perhaps I should look at it in more detail in order to understand what on earth is happening. What is this about? MPS1992 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC) My apologies, seems already resolved, please ignore me :) MPS1992 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha, it seems I did, having taken off for the holiday! All is well? Drmies (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you back Doc. I hope you had a wonderful Thankgiving. A quick update: Yes, now all is well, thanks to BlueMoonset who acted quickly to request a new reviewer, who subsequently approved both proposed hooks, although I'll go with ALT1. It turns out this is the only surviving constitution of ancient Sparta. Isn't DYK wonderful? Take care Doc. Dr. K. 17:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible NLT

Hi Drmies and Drmies' talk page watchers. I'm wondering if someone would keeping an eye on Wikidocs. This is a fairly new account who maybe involved in some COI editing involving Jigsaw Records. The reason I'm asking for more eyes on this editor is because of this "possible" legal threat made at User talk:Wikidocs#Jigsaw Records. I'm not bringing this straight to ANI because again this is apparently a new editor who might not be familiar with things such as WP:NLT, etc. I have posted something in the thread about NLT and suggested that they reconsider what they posted. ANI or a block may be necessary depending upon how they respond. There is also some related discussion at User talk:Theroadislong#Jigsaw Records and Talk:Jigsaw Records for reference. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick update. It appears that Wikidocs has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of someone who has been trying to continously recreate previously deleted articles related to this company and its founder. The Jigsaw Records (UK company) article has also been speedily deleted and salted as well. Thanks to anyone who helped sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha, that's not me--welcome back again, JzG, and thanks for helping out, and you too, Yunshui. Marchjuly, you saw two of our administrative MVPs in action--turkey legs all around! Drmies (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Surely "two MVPs" is a contradiction in terms? Yunshui _水 16:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holiday Greetings

	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	A Thanksgiving tale... Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns). The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?” The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”. The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?” 02:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, that's a pretty good joke--thanks. I'll have you know I didn't cook a turkey--just a turkey breast, and we ate almost the entire thing. Your joke reminds me of a Dutch remark regarding spruitjes, where Jantje says "Oh my god it would be terrible if I like spruitjes, because then I'd eat them!" Drmies (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Spruitjes - love them! *lol* Speaking of Dutch, the cuisine on Bonaire tantalizes even the most discriminating palates, and with a wide range of delectables, although I've yet to see any spruitjes. My favorite place to shop for Dutch cuisine on-island is van den Tweel. If only I knew how to read the labels... 03:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, Doctor. Hope all is well with you & your family. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is, Joe--thanks. The Thanksgiving craziness is over, which is both good and bad--my little boy is complaining RIGHT NOW that he wished that his aunt and uncle and cousins could have stayed longer. I overcooked the pork roast a bit, but hey. I hope you and yours are well too; I really appreciate the note. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Moona Sehgal (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well that's exciting. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:B4204T43

Based on the discussion on that page, it seems to me that they may be running a boiler room type editing center. "The boss knows". This user's defense of the sockmaster's edits while apologizing for his conduct. The sockmaster is no longer working for them because of the personal attack edit summary. Obviously, there is more going on there beneath the surface. I sense an agenda that is apart from building the encyclopedia. I'm all for AGF too, but sometimes one must see that which is staring them in the face. I suppose AGF preculudes a CU, but I think we are allowing the wool to occlude our vision. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There have been many (un)worthy candidates for "worst AN/I report of 2017", but that thread has skyrocketed to the top of the list. I only got three sentences in and the effort to parse the post caused my brain to liquefy and leak out my ears. The effect is so horrific that I am hereby pouring myself a lovely glass of chilled Sauvignon Blanc and logging off of Misplaced Pages until at least Monday. Enjoy your turkey leftovers, my friend! --Jezebel's Ponyo 23:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I avoid AN/I on advice of my physician-- blood pressure, you know. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Gah, this reply was meant for the section directly above! And that's before the glass of wine...--Jezebel's Ponyo 23:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ha! What, did the Archivebot get in the way? YES that report is something, isn't it. Ponyo, you may have seen what we're talking about; a little-known variation on LITTLEBROTHER called CURRRENTLOWERLEVELEMPLOYEEREPLACINGTHEFORMERLOWERLEVELEMPLOYEEWHOSCREWEDITUPANDTHEBOSSWANTSMETOCLEARTHISUPREALLYTHAT'SWHATHESAID. On the subject of drinks, I poured the last of the Chimay Dorees, which is a sad, sad tale: I bought them by accident since they come in yellow four packs, THE EXACT SAME COLOR of the famous Chimay Cinq Cent, their delicious tripel, but in fact it's more like a table beer, at a low alcohol level and a very watered-down taste. And they're still twenty bucks! The real tragedy is that this was the second time I made the same mistake. You know what the prez said...Fool me once...fool me twice...you don't fool me twice...oh wait you just did... Drmies (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Remember?

"To the memory of an angel" is finally on its way to appear, pictured on Sunday, if things go as planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Excellent. You just keep churning them out, don't you... Drmies (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

In 2017, I tried one article a day, new or expand, and it worked for most days ;) - Thank you for the barnstar! ... reformation, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It's on the Main page now, and I changed several related articles which said the unusual scale was by Bach, while credit goes to some Johann Rudolf Ahle who wrote it before Bach was born. "It is enough" will make a good icon for use in lengthy discussions ;) - To you and your watchers: I had hoped to get rid of the tags on Duruflé's Requiem by today, but didn't get to it, and there's RL, believe it or not. The refs needed are all in the article, but need to get to the prose. Help welcome, even small steps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

For your info

Your attention is drawn to the bottom of: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Golden jackal/archive1 William Harris • (talk) • 09:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Reported and revdelled & IP blocked. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Clearly on ongoing issue with someone who just won't let go. It validates that Drmies has been making the correct decisions.William Harris • (talk) • 20:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Everyone knows who it is, and I'm sure he's been Redditing about me all over the place. It's weird how they could have disguised their true nature for so long. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a natural gift for detecting that personality type. I like most people, but those I do not like and can perceive them from the beginning. (It is possible that I am a border-line one myself, but I choose to use my powers for doing "good" rather than "harm".) Keep up the challenging job, you are what keeps Misplaced Pages ticking! William Harris • (talk) • 11:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope six's enough

{}{}{}{}{}{}

Take it easy. Volunteer Marek  01:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Man that hurt. Good win for you guys--well done. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

On Iban's

So seriously what am I meant to do now? I'm in an editing dispute with Slatersteven and Gilmore heads over to his talk page and calls me a Pig He adds shite to an article I created and am still working on, so now I can't do anything to it. I can't be dealing with this ejit messing about anymore. Other than take pages I created and others off my watch list, any advice please, I know he will appear to lawyer this so will not post again. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I did inform Gilmore that his comment on my talk page might well be a convention of his interaction ban.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• My comment on Slatersteven was at 16:39, 25 November 2017; this is well before Slatersteven got into the current dust up with another editor. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• I also found it strange that I mention that I was wanted to publish an article on Rose City Antifa, here on this page; and not even 10hrs later it shows up published by another. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

My first interaction (on the 25th was 2 hours before the comment on my talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but your full on dust up with threats of 3RR and all; this has come in the past 22hrs. It's not like I can predict the future or even spoke of a single editor. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This is why In said it was borderline, I will let admins decide if it was a violation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I was working on Jefferson Davis Park article and the vandalism by Rose City Antifa, so I added that information to the very basic Rose City article to expand it into something. I do not want to see it on the AfD page. Now I have work to do, so please stop this. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• You two, what is this doing here? I am not a party in this, and I don't want to settle y'all's disputes. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Then you should have made that clear when admonishing me at Cyberpowers talk page. Sorry for disturbing Ya Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That's nonsense, DS--a fellow admin asked me a question. I opined. I didn't "admonish" as much as I advised you, and I didn't act. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I'm just so pissed off with this constant needling, I've taken it to ANI, were no doubt I'll get blamed again. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies, I believe that someone is trying to report me until they get they answer they want, as they did not get their way with —CYBERPOWER, or when reporting me to AN/I; I think they are attempting to come shopping it to you before reporting me again to AN/I. Sorry C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Good luck to both of you. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Just to let you know...the accusation article you wished didn't exist is open again. The initial close didn't follow proper procedures so I had it reopened. Hopefully an admin with BLP experience will close it next time around. It's time for tea & honey. 03:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

184.146.207.38

Hi, could you pull talk page access from them. They are continuing to be disruptive/time wasting after you blocked them. Sakura Cartelet 00:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, but you might as well leave them be. They're a time sink. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

Drmies, I’m trying to figure out what just happened with this close, and if the 5 days the AfD was shut down actually counted toward the 11 days we’re supposed to have for discussion? MelanieN originally opened the AfD on Nov 15th. It was inappropriately closed by an involved non-admin as a Snow Keep on Nov 19th, only 4 days later. There’s no way it was a snow keep based on the comments. . I requested a review of the AfD 5 days later on the 26th, and an admin agreed that it was an inappropriate close. He opened the AfD just yesterday and it was closed today, the 27th. That’s barely 6 days total that the AfD was open to discussion, not 11 days. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am over the way that entire AfD was handled - the sock activity, the brand new spa accts that were created to vote in that AfD - it was just plain inappropriate. 06:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• One can take issue with the NAC quality of that first close, but that was a valid application of SNOW, in my opinion. SNOW doesn't require unanimity--it requires the possibility of a discussion going any other way, and at that point, there wasn't. It's by the same token, plus another, that I can't find fault with Oshwah and his colleague: this was going to be kept. You can argue (and you have a point) that it wasn't open for that long, but since that period was spread out, there was an opportunity for nay-sayers to pitch in during that last time period it was open. I know, it doesn't look superclean, but I don't see how this was ever going to go any other way: there is just too much well-verified content from too many sources on those allegations (besides the new Veritas-related scam) for this article to be deleted from our Misplaced Pages, which is focused way too much on the NEWS. BTW there's a Christmas tree on the steps of the Montgomery Capitol building; I drove by this morning to take pictures. No sign of any other activity, though there was a (smallish) demonstration yesterday. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree...there's no sense in re-opening it now. I've learned something new from this close and will keep it handy as a reference. I believe it set a precedent as the shortest 4 day AfD that was allowed to stay open 1 more day. *lol* I wasn't aware we could Snow Keep an AfD with a substantial mix of iVotes - sorry, but I disagree about the direction it was going, and the rush to close speaks volumes. Anyway, it was relief for me when RoySmith finally caught on to the point I was trying to make about the premature close - he also explained it much better than I did. 20:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

BelAirWhale

Not sure if this was intentional or not, given your sometimes snarky closing statements but... you didn't actually block BelAirWhale. You just closed it saying you would. He's not blocked as far as I can see. --Tarage (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Snark? me? Thanks for pointing that out--I had every intention of blocking. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Another 30/500 case?

The contribution history of Belchicks (talk · contribs) is looking mighty odd, but I don't want to jump on it in case it's just me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think you are right, The Bushranger, and it's enough to be suspicious about, but my magic glasses reveal nothing. Can't really say what the best course of action is, besides checking back in a bit. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Username1928374666/Sandbox

Any idea what's going on here: User:Username1928374666/Sandbox? Username1928374666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created the account then and only the sandbox. Since, it's been a hack-a-thon. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just testing or practicing for major mischief? Geoff | 15:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) makes you wonder. i can't see anything that warrants a spedee tag tho, so i'm jsut going to watch it for now.-- Aunva6 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, someone's playing around a bit, including copying within Misplaced Pages without proper contribution. I gotta get to work, so I won't do anything now, but you can save this as a question for an RfA: What to do about the page, the user, the IPs? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hashemites

The Jordanian Hashemites are a branch of the Hashemites (big group), the main Hashemite page should list the main links. Unless its better the way it is now, you mus be seeing something I don't see? Tiwahi (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I see Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I just read your comment, I get it so it will ruin the edit history, makes sense sorry...sounds like a lot of headache to fix it...I tried. Have a good day Tiwahi (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Zeyrek

Should I drop my attempt to improve Zeyrek? not sure how to preserve the edit history. In this article its the same issue (3 Zeyreks) Tiwahi (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know what you are looking for, but what you should do is any time you copy content from one article into another, mark it appropriately, according to the policy in the link I gave you. An edit summary is the least of it. If you move the content of an entire article, as you did before, you should really move the whole article, but for that you may need consensus from WP:RM. It really depends on the situation, and the best advice I can give you is to discuss this with someone, or more than one, who a. knows your subject matter a bit (not me, for example) and b. is a more experienced editor. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Good, thanks Tiwahi (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

BAn decision not available

Drmies. The decision is unavailable. Please provide it clearly in writing, including justification. However, you probably understand that this perpetuates poor quality of outdated article CAGE. The article contains I.e. false quotations and descriptions based on presumptions of editors without factual evidence. I regret decision to accept wrong factual information in wiki. Cautious (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Cautious (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)#Musical style and influences

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)#Musical style and influences. Narutolovehinata5 11:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

The links you provided

To the N.Y. review of books, the caricature in that article is based on Isaac of Norwich, which we have an article on, did you mean we should have an article on the actual drawing? I have a few sources which discuss it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You asked, I answered. re:User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63

But, as I explained in that answer, if you need to continue this... whatever it is, then please do so here. I don't want your kind of attitide on my talk page. Thank you. - WOLFchild 04:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I don't need your bullshit attitude on mine, and more importantly, the IP editor didn't want your bullshit on their talk page either, but you never bothered to ask them or to apologize. It's your fuck-up, and your rude response to the IP, that brought me to your talk page. Hint: if you fuck up, cop to it. If you make needless edits that piss people off, people who have contributed significantly to the project, stop making them and apologize. Your responses are in fact rude and hostile--OK, your first one, to the IP, was more pissy and condescending, but really, you could have gone up since then, not down. I've worked with that editor for years, as have a bunch of others, and I don't understand what you think you were doing (you never answered anyway). User:JJMC89, User:El cid, el campeador, User:Diannaa, grrr. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)