User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:23, 6 March 2015 view sourceJohn Carter (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →Requesting advice: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:18, 13 January 2025 view source Fyunck(click) (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers63,617 edits →On a side note to above template talk: new sectionTag: New topic
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}}
	{{NoBracketBot}}

			==Mail==
	*I may have pinged you in a response to a recent message; please see ]. Thank you.
			{{ygm}}
	== What emptiness. ==

	]
	] ] (]) 12:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{-}}		{{-}}
			== DCAU page ==

			Hi! I'm currently engaged in an edit war with a user who believes that two films released in 2017 and 2019 are canon to an animated universe of TV shows from 1992-2006. I've provided multiple clear as day sources from the people who worked on these that show this isn't the case.
	== What is this place? ==
	]- God of Wisdom ]]
	]
	Me thinks I'm lost. It was hard enough being a talk page stalker knowing where I was, but now I don't know where I'm not. ] <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 15:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Join the club . ] (]) 16:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Shall we al sit here and feel the ]? ] (]) 16:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

			You can read it here.
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:DC_Animated_Universe#Article_Cleanup ] (]) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I tried to read that: it's clear as mud. But yes you are in the middle of an edit war, and you really need to stop. If you want that talk page discussion, and your editing career, to go anywhere, you might could try making smaller edits and explaining them on the talk page--briefly, with sources. ] (]) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Blanking your talk page is not a good idea. ] (]) 23:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			*], is this your only account? ] (]) 23:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Yes. I had a previous account a while back that I lost my password too.
			*:The person who I'm having an edit war with literally went and removed my sources, while his sources are non-existent or incredibly flimsy. ] (]) 20:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			== With respect to Bai Jingting ==
	:*May I ask {{U\|Technical 13}} what was the point to ? Or why archive somebody else's page? ] (]) 20:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

			Hi, I seen few deletion, need clarity to improve.
	== Archived RfC at Slavic Speakers of Greek Macedonia ==
			1. For Philanthropic activity the source 8th line mentions artist name, need to understand why the source is doubtful.
			2. If "features" is wrong vocabulary could it be replaced with other word? As new writer I observed many articles already accepted those details from years. Need to understand how to represent here with proper writing. ] (]) 20:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Not every time someone is mentioned in some competition they're "featured". If someone is featured it means they get a special placement, and there is no evidence at all that this is what is happening here. Yes, it's a buzzword now used for every guest performance and appearance, and we need to fight back, like linguistic warriors. I don't really know what you mean with "source 8th line", but if you're talking about , it's pretty obvious to me that that gossipy glossy website is NOT an acceptable, neutral, independent source for BLPs. Thanks, ] (]) 16:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			**Thanks for the reply. For Philanthropic activity link <ref>{{Cite web \|title=持续更新！汪峰章子怡林志玲黄晓明等为河南暴雨捐款 \|url=https://ent.ifeng.com/c/883OdhBmV5C \|access-date=2024-12-17 \|website=ent.ifeng.com \|language=zh}}</ref> was used. 8th line suggest artist donation towards natural disaster. It was removed stating doubtful. If we mention actual ranks of few listings, instead of "feature" I hope it's fine provided link attached is not from gossip site and provides enough evidence. ] (]) 23:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			***What 8th line? I see five lines, and then some weird image that took me 26 clicks on "Page Down" to get through--and then there's comments. Anyway, I see his name is mentioned, along with dozens of others, on a website that at best looks like a gossipy site for fans of entertainers. Whatever that site is, it's not publishing journalism; please see ]. How much did he even give? Or did the record company give a few bucks in his name, to add to his resume? Who knows? ] (]) 02:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			***Oh you mean the seventh line of that picture with a list of donors--who knows what that picture is, and what its authority is. Again, that's not how we operate here. It's too easy to manipulate pictures, and there's no source or context--"according to incomplete statistics" actually expresses part of the problem well. ] (]) 02:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			{{reflist-talk}}
	If, after having read the comments again, you still disagree with my synopsis (in particular, that 6 out of 7 respondents agree that in some cases it's permissible to make a specification), please let me know why (about ]). Thanks! ] (]) 23:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Tropcho, that "the motivation had nothing to do with questions of ambiguity/difficulty of verification" is immaterial: it's a serious problem. In addition, you do not seem to acknowledged that "ethnic/language affiliation" is not an easy yoking together of two terms, which is a serious (BLP) problem recognized by {{U\|Pmanderson}} and {{U\|Taivo}}. I do not agree with your synopsis, and I do not understand what exactly the problem is: if you have a person, and you wish to include their nationality, ethnic background, linguistic affiliation, mother tongue (or stepmother tongue), blood group, etc., you can propose it on the talk page. You may think that "it's important to state explicitly in the summary that in unambiguous and reliably verifiable cases where ethnic/language affiliation is part of the notability (e.g. national activists, ethnicity researchers, etc.) a specification is permissible", and that six out of seven agreed with your wording, but I disagree, and I'm not going to stick something in the close that I don't see consensus for. Six out of seven? As I said before, there are three '''NO'''s, and how that gets turned into 86% support for your statement, I don't know. You have a way to get the things into the article that you want in, if you have the evidence for it and get the consensus for it; I don't know what more you want. Thank you, ] (]) 23:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Should I do the count?
	::Comments 1-3: yes, it's OK.
	::Comment 4 (Taivo) no
	::Comment 5 yes, if they unambiguously and verifiably stated it themselves.
	::Comment 6 (PMAnderson) bad idea. '''Comment finishes with''' "''If a person was a leader of a Bulgarian or Macedonian ethnic movement - and for some of the history involved these would be the same thing - that's a biographical fact. Include, and source.''"
	::Comment 7 In general no, '''with exceptions for those''' where that ethnicity is a significant part of their notability (activist, researcher specifically in ethnicity, etc).

			== You are being discussed here ==
	::So (depending on how you interpret PMAnderson's remark) either 5/7 (comments 1-3, 5, 7) or 6/7 (1-3, 5-7) people think in some cases it's permissible. Two of the "no's" have an important '''except'''.

			] ] ] 16:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	::And this is not a BLP problem, because 1) most people on that list are dead 2) we are not talking about the ambiguous cases where we can't know or verify; '''let me emphasize this:''' the question is whether it is permissible to do a specification for '''some people''' on the list (those where we have a way to know unambiguously), '''not''' whether it is permissible to specify everyone's identity. I agree that it's in fact impossible to do the latter. ] (]) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	~~:::And~~ ~~to answer your question~~, ~~I'd be happy to see a summary that somehow reflects the 4 (or more) YESes, not only the 3 (or less) NOs.~~ ] (]) 00:20, 2 ~~March~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		*Very exciting, Doug--thanks! ] (]) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			** {{tpw}} ] ]!!! ] \| <sup> ]</sup> 20:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::It's not a vote. If there's so much math involved in your summary, perhaps you were asking the wrong question. You can take the matter up at ] (with the other commenters) or at ] (to get this close overturned). Thank you. ] (]) 01:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
			*** A tremendous amount of truly reprehensible stuff does happen on this talk page. However, in my opinion, none thus far had been quite so egregious as using the word "revenant". That said, I myself understood the word immediately by way of it being the true and accurate translation from the Danish of the title of Ibsen's '']''. -- ] (]) 05:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Very interesting. How much math is counting up to 7? And who said it is a vote? I just suggested a summary that reflects all comments, not the minority. And in case you didn't notice, Taivo's concerns were addressed. Perhaps the question could have been phrased better to avoid any misunderstandings, but even as it is there's no reason to have a summary that completely ignores a significant number of the answers, in my opinion. ] (]) 07:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	~~::::::Good~~ ~~luck~~ in ~~the next state, if that's where you're going. Perhaps there they will recognize that, for instance, "Taivo's concerns were addressed" simply ''must'' mean that~~ a ~~universal truth is~~ ~~uttered~~. ] (]) 16:42, 2 ~~March~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		****Hey I just learned a new word. ] (]) 16:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			**** Well, {{yo\|Softlavender}}, a joke explained is not much of a joke. But what I meant by using the word was precisely a reference to the Danish sense in that the ghost of the quite dead argument had been revived by a (now blocked) user who started the (now closed) discussion. Let us hope for the new year that the argument inappropriately raised from the dead remains in the grave to which it was returned and that no further sticks are raised. Heaven forfend that I should post reprehensible stuff on this hallowed site. ] \| <sup> ]</sup> 14:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Huh? ] that? Or was this a taunt? If you have difficulties assuming good faith or staying civil, perhaps take a break. For the rest, I do think your summary isn't accurate, for the reasons stated above, and will probably pursue further. Take care. ] (]) 12:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
			*****Let the dead bury their dead. ] (]) 15:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ]/] and others ==
	== "Failed at AN" ==

			Thought they had given up and taken a new hobby, but nope... Here is this IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:67D4:8700:461:2CED:6508:F5E3), for instance continuing with the transfer speculation at ] (and reinserting their ref that "supported" ] winning the title last season by mentioning a ] match!!), duly reverted! Ah, with a completely polite and encyclopedical edit summary, so let's see what their reply will be (because they WILL reinstate their version again!)...
	So far as I can see, the only two admins with any objection are the two admins that abdicated their responsibility to supervise an editor that they unblocked over the strenuous objections of multiple parties. I really am at a loss here: what was the purpose of placing a 0RR restriction on an editor if you did not intend on reblocking when the restriction was violated? What did it ''mean'' if it could be violated without consequence?—](]) 23:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
	*There is no formal ban, and you're not at a loss: I'm sure you were quite pleased you could drop a three-month blockhammer down after that edit warring report. Maybe you should learn to see farther than "block"; two sides can be at fault, and you never seem to look at the other side. Why should you? That guy from Chile is just an asshole who refuses to get an account and who, for some weird reason, gets pissed when they get reverted. I am not claiming that I was right here just because you're so wrong, nor that the IP didn't deserve a block of sorts--but the glee with which the vultures come swooping in, yeah, that's a distasteful spectacle. And what you're trying to enact on that LTA page isn't just distasteful, it's also wrong, and if you want that enshrined you're going to have to get it certified, in triplicate, from AN. ] (]) 01:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	:*What reason do you have to believe that the IP will ever reform his behaviour? That's the point that you seem to miss: the quality of his edits doesn't matter when judging his behaviour, and his behaviour is unacceptable. And I actually ''am'' at a loss: while I disagree with you on many things, I don't tend to see you as dishonest. What was the point of the 0RR restriction? Why are editors having to take him to the edit-warring noticeboard instead of you blocking immediately on the first reversion? If you weren't intending to do that, what did you ''mean'' by a 0RR restriction?—](]) 05:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	::*Kww, I don't think I swore a blood oath to start blocking. If I remember correctly, the IP quit pinging me, and Yngvadottir responded on a number of occasions. Yngvadottir, like me, also doesn't seem to think that blocking is the way to go. And again, this ANEW thing was preceded by a number of reverts on the other editor's part, reverts that were in themselves at least open for censure. So I chose not to block either one, yes. The point you ''continually'' miss is that it always takes two to tango: the editor who took him there was themselves guilty of edit warring, and that's not the first time something like that happens--and pardon ''me'' for not believing a block is always the answer. But I'm done with this, Kww. The IP doesn't seem to want to discuss this with me or change their behavior to suit your desire (which is, I believe, for them to just roll over the first time someone hits them with a revert, no matter what the edit was), and your side seems to be winning in this fist fight. You also seem to miss that Y and I attempted to be in the middle, to mediate, to improve the project for everyone, and all we get as thanks is a bunch of shit. So now I should have blocked. I'm "enabling". I let someone chase people off the project. (I don't see who left, but OK.) I gladly admit that this attempt (which I have been in on for years) was an abject failure, but at least I tried, and maybe there is life and hope for future years in there. You can be all righteously angry, but I can only be sad. ] (]) 16:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

			Happy 2025, take care ] (]) 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hi Drmies, Sorry you're getting so much grief over the IP. While I do have issues with the way they conduct themselves, and with their judgement on occassion, their editing of articles is normally (but not always) beneficial. I think you and Yngvadottir have done a worthy job in trying to curb some of the behaviourial excesses, and I am truly sorry that your efforts have not led to a satisfactory conclusion for all. Cheers – ] (]) 19:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	*], thank you very much. A bit more help from their side could have made all the difference. I appreciate your note, I really do. ] (]) 21:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

			Edit warring started already, please intervene (you or somebody) ASAP! --] (]) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Good... goooood! ==
			*], ], can you please have a look, given your experience with ]? Thanks, ] (]) 19:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*], I found another one (User:Lazaric12), and removed some of that awful content. Take care old friend! ] (]) 16:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			== A barnstar for you! ==
	My plan is working puhrrrfectleeee. <rubs hands, laughs diabolically> . ] (]) 02:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Broken clocks and all that... :) ] (]) 02:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	**LOL, but even "broken clocks" can be fixed. Broken ]'s on the other hand... :) --] ] ☮ღ☺ 20:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::But the dreaded greengrocers apostrophe is forever. ] (]) 04:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Green groce the rushe's O. ] (]) 08:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	== I'm back! ==
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
			\|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)
			\|}
			*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 = 0.8
			\| 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)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	Thanks again for looking after my talk page and wondering what rock I was hiding under. I dropped 10 spots on ] during the time I was under the rock. While you might have passed me, I'm still leading you on ] by a wide margin. So there. =) -- ] (]) 04:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
			]
	*Dammit Gogo, what do I need to do? Block more? Delete more? Write less? Hey, nice to see you. Really, I didn't mean to twist your arm, trying to make you come back--but you were one of the old guard, one of the ones with a cool name who got their admin tool by emailing Jimbo and sending him ten bucks via PayPal. (No?) And the ranks are thinning: the latest admin to leave, it appears, is Coffee--ANI has insightful reading material, if you have nothing better to do for a half an hour. Anywayz, thanks for dropping by: not everyone gets a visit from a dodo. That reminds me! Dodos came up before dinner today--must have been something silly one of the kids said, but they played dodo until they realized that would mean they're all dead, extinct. Well now. ] (]) 05:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traditional monarchy (2nd nomination)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Oh man, you got me by a factor 10... But you gotta watch out for that {{U\|Materialscientist}} dude, who's been on a tear ever since he got the tool. Ha, I'd be proud if I had any kind of ranking in the unblock and undeletion list. ] (]) 05:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

			== Mail ==
	I think I really just wanted to get off of ]. I paid 15 bucks for my admin bit. Still wondering if it was worth the investment. I read ANI and the Signpost article. I see that nothing much has changed during the months I was hiding under a rock. -- ] (]) 19:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	*I'm like halfway down the list. Drmies has thrice as many actions as I do, almost. — ] (]) 02:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	**That's still nothing compared to the high hitters. Hey Crisco, India Against Corruption is after me now--maybe that means that {{U\|Sitush}} gets a breather. I'm pretty sure it's just one disgruntled person, from their language and tone. Hey, are you at a thousand Featured Pictures yet? ] (]) 02:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

			{{You've got mail}} ] (]) 07:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	== An article that you deleted ==

			== Edits to Columbia High School (New Jersey) ==
	] has been recreated. You had deleted it before? Or atleast the talk page. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 13:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Yep, as spam. I see that {{U\|RHaworth}} and I likely disagree on what the threshold is. ] (]) 20:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

			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)
	== Expert admin advice sought on canvassing quandary ==
			*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)

			== Sockpuppet ==
	I ] ] for deletion. I'm wondering if I should notify the ten users who have put their pages in that category. While it seems courteous, I don't want to appear to be inappropriately canvassing, as I believe all of those users would be in favor of deletion (unless someone's just striving for irony). ] <span style="color:blue">•</span> ] 21:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	*The moment irony ''may'' be involved there's no telling who might swing which way, so I wouldn't worry. Appearing to be courteous is always good, unless you're on ANI. ] (]) 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
	:*Thanks for the reply. Now that I've thought about it some more, I don't think there's any reason for notifications. Given my logical argument (in honor of ], I always try to be logical), I don't see how it could possibly fail to be deleted no matter what anyone says. There's only one user for whom the category is currently applicable, and even in the unlikely event some other people who use it wanted to keep the category around for the irony, I don't think it would be acceptable for other reasons, such as joke categories not being allowed. (And in this case, the mere existence of the category ruins the joke anyways.) ] <span style="color:blue">•</span> ] 01:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Live long ], Mandarax. ] (]) 04:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Did you know ... that when ] portrayed ], he was unable to perform the ''']''', so his fingers were glued together? ] <span style="color:blue">•</span> ] 19:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Of course, the ] is ], to which I've just added myself. If you belong to it, then categorizing yourself as such means you are no longer eligible for it, but as soon as you remove it, you belong to it again and so need to re-add it. I knew Misplaced Pages was good for something. ] ]] 20:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

			Got someone editing as an IP to escape a block and complain at the Teahouse. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 00:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== No article ==
			:Nevermind, they got globally blocked literally ''the'' minute I sent this lol. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 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! ] (]) 00:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	] ]]] (]) 16:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC){{-}}
			:::"Resolution 1: Complain about being banned on a website for almost 7 hours" ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 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. ] (]) 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)

	== ~~Thanks~~ ==		== 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 ], and there are no deleted contributions. ] (]) 05:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	re: ] & blocked user ]
			*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)
			**Thanks for the response. This response makes sense, and the email was great; thank you. ] (]) 19:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Advice needed ==
	Note: Three more IPs that geolocate to the Netherlands have appeared:
	*Talk: ] ] (+157) (A brilliant solution, just brilliant)
	*Talk: ] ] (-218) (A brilliant solution, just brilliant)
	::Note: claimed to "have been blocked without a valid reason"
	*Talk: ] ] (+343) (Abraham and Sarah or Joseph and Mary.)
	*Talk: ] ] (+93) (Moving forward)
	::Note: Within 14 minutes after that posting, a new account was created:
	*Commons account: ] ()
	::], each described as "Dirty old man with much younger woman. By Lucas Cranach the Elder", and source as "Own digitalization of ancient painting".
	*en.wiki account: ] ()
	*Talk: ] ] (+218) (File:Lucas Cranach Elder 1.jpg)

			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">] ]</span> 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	I doubt that those images were digitized by Commonismus since they seem to be crude modifications of a work which is actually by Albrecht Altdorfer, not Lucas Cranach:
			*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)
	*http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Albrecht_Altdorfer_-_Loth_and_his_Daughters_-_WGA00206.jpg
			*:Okay. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 23:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	*http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Albrecht_Altdorfer_046.jpg
	*http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Lot_and_his_Daughters,_Altdorfer.jpg
	----
	*Disclosure. I made a previous edit to the above talk page ] using a different IP number ], and 1 edit to the article using present IP number after semi-protection expired. I don't know if any of the above is block evasion, but those newly fabricated pictures need to be deleted. Thanks for your time. —] (]) 05:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Where do I come in? Isn't {{U\|SlimVirgin}} a better person to ask? She's semi'd the article before... ] (]) 16:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

			== Football sock ==

			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)
	== Vietcong nuturlizer ==
			: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)
	]s" to go with his with his gator-eggs? ]]
			::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)
	You blocked {{user\|Vietcong nuturlizer}}. I attempted to remove the personal attacks (don't worry, being called isn't the worst thing!), but was reverted. You might want to go ahead and revoke their talk page access. DYK I'm a ? I'll have to share that breaking news with my husband. ] ] 12:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	*What an ~~enormous~~ ~~loser.~~ ~~Also,~~ ] (]) 16:08, 4 ~~March~~ ~~2015~~ (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)
	*That interview with ] is still totally cringeworthy: "we have no one like that on the team". One of my friends was on the field for that game, and apparently it was worse than the clip even suggests. ] (]) 16:11, 4 March 2015 (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==
	:Thanks for taking care of our dear friend, and yes, that clip is ''awkward''. (I laughed and cringed) ] ] 16:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{ygm}} I stopped e-mailing you long ago, since it always bounced, but perhaps it may be worth trying again? ] \| ] 09:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
			*YES. I've been so lonely! ] (]) 15:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
	]

			] from the past month (December 2024).
	<font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 20:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Maybe Dr Mice likes "]" with his gator-eggs? <small>Don't worry Doc, you're probably just a ].</small> ] (]) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	::What is a ] ] (]) 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::- That's the feeling you get when you unwittingly add something to an article that six other editors have atready taken out. ] (]) 20:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	Excuse me, but I respect Drmies, and don't want my little pokes of fun to be misconstrued. And I especially don't want anything I've included for the purpose of bringing a smile to this happy place to be misrepresented. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Why? ] (]) 22:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	:A ?! Goodness me, that's the last thing we need. ] (]) 22:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	== An Elegant Company Playing Music ==
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	]

			] '''Administrator changes'''
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}

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

			</div>
	]7+6 Found this on ] talk page. Had to share it. ] 21:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	{{smiley\| 5}}
			]
	] (]) 21:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

	{{-}}
			] '''Oversight changes'''
	{{u\|Hafspajen}}, any idea why Safari won't play videos and audio on Misplaced Pages, but Firefox will? It's really irritating. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 21:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
	::Because Elizabeth Green the Stork Woman ] has forbidden it. ] (]) 22:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
			\|]
	:Wow, is that really ] singing?? ] (]) 22:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] ]

			</div>
			</div>

			] '''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'''
			* 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}}.

			] '''Miscellaneous'''
			* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]

			----
			{{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==
			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)

			== FORDROCKEFELLER1974 ==

			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)
			*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)

			== ] ==

			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)
			*{{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? ==

			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)

			:The user has 509 edits, and 250 of them were done three days ago on the linked sandbox. ] (]) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	==DYK for Ploughing in the Nivernais==
			::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)
	{{tmbox
			:::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)
	\|type = notice
			::::Sure thing. That editor is headed for an indef: incompetence mixed with promotional editing. ] (]) 14:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	\|image = ]
			:::::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)
	\|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that ]'s ''''']''''' ''(pictured)'' was described as a "pictorial translation" of ]'s novel '']''?'' {{#if: \|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].\|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Ploughing in the Nivernais\|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].\|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Ploughing in the Nivernais\|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ].
			::::::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)
	}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— ] // ] // ] // </small> 22:11, 4 March 2015 (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)

			== ]/] ==
	== thanks ==

			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.
	glad you pinged LoS ... I wanted her view, but wasn't sure I should ask. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 00:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:{{U\|Ched}}, what made you hesitate? You can always ask me! <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: Mainly because I never see you in anything even the least bit controversial. You always just go about improving the project. :) (and thank you for your comments!) — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Hah, that's because since I don't care for the fighting that occurs, I just tend to avoid those areas. :) That said, I'll reiterate: if you want my opinion on something, always ask! If I'd rather not get into it, I'll say so. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 17:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::You know, I just saw a job posting in Knoxville, I am going to try and get it so we can all hang out more (don't worry Ched, I will stop in on my way down there). :) --]<sup>(]) </sup> 18:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Knoxville is a great town, unless you have asthma. ] (]) 18:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Fortunately I don't. The best pizza I ever had was when I was traveling through Knoxville, we spent the night on our way to Florida. Pity I cant remember the name of the place, although that was probably 25 years ago.--]<sup>(]) </sup> 20:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::I haven't visited Knoxville in a long time, but go for it! <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

			Attentively ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Regarding Deletion of Page Angry_Engineers_Entertainment ==
	]
	Re: Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Angry_Engineers_Entertainment, please see the page talk page for a reason why it should not have been deleted; I was also given absolutely no time or indication before the page was deleted to actually contest it. Citation: http://store.steampowered.com/app/243300/ <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*Sorry, that's not enough of a reason. Existence does not equal notability. Thank you, ] (]) 00:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	** Notability? Various articles around the internet reference the game. Rock Paper Shotgun: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/07/08/space-station-titanic-centration/ / PC Gamer: http://www.pcgamer.com/the-early-access-report-contraption-maker-broforce-and-centration/ / The first game on Steam using Unreal Engine 4 that's available for Linux: http://store.steampowered.com/curator/6857821-But-is-it-on-Linux/ Gaming On Linux: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/centration-fps-space-simulation-released-on-steam-for-linux.3437 - I can also come up with -VARIOUS- other pages on Misplaced Pages with smaller companies with even less significant games on Steam; and will gladly provide a list of necessary - delete them all or put the page back up.
	***I don't do ultimatums, but I'll do advice. Rewrite your article and submit it through ], and when you do, put ''all'' your references in. Whether any of them count as reliable sources, and whether any of those mentions constitute significant discussion, I'll leave that for you to decide. ] (]) 01:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	****I was working on adding the references and formatting the page correctly when it was deleted. Like I said, I was given essentially no time to contest or even update the page before it was deleted; I thought you (or page patrollers) were supposed to observe a minimum time before you go all elitist egotistical delete crazy? You know nothing of this subject by your comments, so why are you even in a position to judge the notability of a game developer? ]
	*****Yeah, good question. Now, I gave you some valuable advice; go spent your time writing up a draft. And next time, consider writing something ''decent'' before submitting it. Thank you, ] (]) 01:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	******Nommyface, if I may offer my advice (as an angry engineer). The article was tagged quite soon after creation (probably too soon I will grant you, and I will discuss that with the editor in question), however the page was deleted about a half hour after it was created, which is generally long enough to sit before being deleted. As Drmies says, you should recreate the article through Articles for Creation, and have it reviewed prior to submission. You should also stop calling people names, it isn't very nice. I would be happy to restore and move the article for you (if it hasn't been done already). --]<sup>(]) </sup> 02:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	*******Thank you Kelapstick, I'm sorry for reverting to childish behaviour; kind of up to my eyeballs in a lot of different things at the moment. I'd like to have it restored - however I'll work on a new article that's done up properly before. Can I confirm the process for doing this so I don't get yelled at again?
	*******K, thank you for being so much nicer than me. Nommyface, my apologies. ] (]) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	********Not at all, I owe you a jar of our ]. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	*********You don't have to apologize for anything, I'm sorry for being rather rude about the whole situation; it's kind of more than a little insulting to have everything I've been working towards for the past two years called 'not notable'.
	{{outdent}} I have taken the liberty of restoring and moving the page to ], the article is not suitable as it sits now, it needs much more in the way of referencing in ], you should also have a read of ], which explains how to reference the article. Cheers, --]<sup>(]) </sup> 02:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	===Sidebar===
	*On a related note, know what an engineer uses for birth control? His personality. I'm here all week, try the veal. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 01:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	**I hope you get that extra tool so you can oversight your jokes. Nice to see you again, K. Been too long. ] (]) 01:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	***Oh come on, that's comedy gold. You can use that with the engineering students if you like. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 01:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	****Speaking of comedy, DYK that drafts (even this one, ]) do not seem to be eligible for A7? ] (]) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	*****I believe that is what IAR was invented for. Or you could wait six months for G13. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 03:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	******I don't find it surprising that someone who ] as a deletion criterion is advocating IAR. ] <span style="color:blue">•</span> ] 09:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	*******Really, because I thought I was on a roll here. Regardless, the outcome is the same. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 11:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

			== Books & Bytes – Issue 66 ==
	== Your thoughts on resolving the impasse at Landmark Worldwide ==

			<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
	I responded to your comments at the Landmark talk page - I probably should have pinged you. I was wondering what you saw as a good avenue for resolving the long-running dispute there. Mediation was recently offered, but many editors ignored or refused the offer. Your thoughts would be appreciated! ] (]) 14:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			<div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;">
	*I have no experience with mediation. I always hope for common sense--like with this NRM thing. Let's be reasonable: it's found in reliable sources, plenty of them, it's valid article content, it has a place--a minor place, but still--in the lead. And then we can move on. ] (]) 19:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			]</div>
	**Just FYI, there's an AE thread open concerning Landmark. You and your zebras may or may not want to take a spin over there. ] \| ] 19:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			<div style="line-height: 1.2;">
			<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br />
			Issue 66, November – December 2024
			</div>
			<div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;">
			* Les Jours and East View Press join the library
			* 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 ==
	== Opinion needed ==

			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.
	Hello, you left me a note a couple weeks ago about revering vandalize... Anyway, you're the only admin I've run into. I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Last week, ] started working on replacing our notability guidelines. However, a couple editors refused to listen to my points and the dialogue devolved. Could you look at the conversation and give me feedback. Was I too harsh? It's probably not your specialty, but I'd like to know. Maybe I'm not fit for Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 20:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Yeah, well, that's a long discussion. A minimum number of words or sources requirement isn't going to work; it doesn't work that way anywhere on Misplaced Pages (for better or for worse). I agree that "Creating solid/well cited pages are better than nonreferenced stubs" but that can easily clash with any notability guideline. Now, if someone won something in Andorra, does that make them notable? First of all, liquor and cigarettes weren't taxed last time in Andorra, so I'd go there by car and load up. Second, well, yeah--since the sports projects have decided to fetishize nationhood, they have to come up with a rule that applies fairly to different countries (and then they can plant their ugly and inappropriate flags all over the place).<p>Now, I read all the way to the "let's start voting" bit--what's the problem? Is it about whether or not someone finished a Grand Tour? If that's the only reason to reject a proposal with many more elements, well, it's your right I suppose. And excluding national champions if they're from a small country begs the question of what "small" is--it's undefinable. If Basqueland ever comes to exist, you're talking about a minute country with a lot of great climbers. Plus, the systemic bias point that {{U\|Lugnuts}} brought up is very valid: no one should want to build notability guidelines on "what size is your country". (Well, my country may be small, but my ''pilum'' is stronger than your ''sternum'', that Roman guy from '']'' might say.) Telling them you're talking to children is probably never a good idea (though I believe Lugnuts drew first blood on that page).<p>See, you made your point, but no one accepts it. We can't force someone into agreement and, as an administrator and an old-time editor who has, for instance, closed lots of RfCs, at this point your opponents really have the stronger arguments (sorry--I'm an equal opportunity offender...); calling them children will make it only less likely that they'll see things your way. You win some, you lose some: it seems you're losing this one. Sorry, but I know how it feels--it's not a great feeling. Thanks, and good luck, ] (]) 21:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Northern Virginia? Must be a nice bike-riding place... ] (]) 21:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

			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">] ]</span> 14:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I was tying to exclude all national championships; the U.S. to Andorra (so we exclude bias). Only the Worlds and/or Olympics are level placing fields... But it doesn't matter anymore. Thanks for your opinion; it was very detailed. You seem like a very reasonable admin...
			*No clue. I'll add to your note. Thanks, ] (]) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			**Thanks, seeing the edits of this account, the editor did this wiki-wide. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 16:50, 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). ] (]) 17:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::NVA is great for biking and running, but the snow is annoying... Need to shovel my driveway... Have a great day. ] (]) 22:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:], 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)
			:{{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)

			== Just to clarify posts on Miijumaaru talk page ==
	== Your equal-opportunity offence ==

			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)
	Thank you for your comments and taking the time to look back into the Landmark article and AE threads. I'll gladly accept anything you throw in my direction, as long as it improves the project. Enjoy your afternoon, ] (]) 21:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

			== On a side note to above template talk ==
	== Requesting advice ==

			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)
	Please see the following exchange on my user talk page . I also believe it might be valuable to review the subsequent edits of this newly created account to other articles since then. In a number of ways, this seems to me to be a rather obvious sockpuppet, in a number of ways, of Tgeairn, but I think, under the circumstances, it would be best if someone other than me reviewed the matter and filed either the SPI or the AE request. ] (]) 02:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:18, 13 January 2025

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.

DCAU page

Hi! I'm currently engaged in an edit war with a user who believes that two films released in 2017 and 2019 are canon to an animated universe of TV shows from 1992-2006. I've provided multiple clear as day sources from the people who worked on these that show this isn't the case.

You can read it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:DC_Animated_Universe#Article_Cleanup Walterwhitehartwell (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried to read that: it's clear as mud. But yes you are in the middle of an edit war, and you really need to stop. If you want that talk page discussion, and your editing career, to go anywhere, you might could try making smaller edits and explaining them on the talk page--briefly, with sources. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Blanking your talk page is not a good idea. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Walterwhitehartwell, is this your only account? Drmies (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I had a previous account a while back that I lost my password too.

The person who I'm having an edit war with literally went and removed my sources, while his sources are non-existent or incredibly flimsy. Walterwhitehartwell (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

With respect to Bai Jingting

Hi, I seen few deletion, need clarity to improve. 1. For Philanthropic activity the source 8th line mentions artist name, need to understand why the source is doubtful. 2. If "features" is wrong vocabulary could it be replaced with other word? As new writer I observed many articles already accepted those details from years. Need to understand how to represent here with proper writing. SakuraSmart (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Not every time someone is mentioned in some competition they're "featured". If someone is featured it means they get a special placement, and there is no evidence at all that this is what is happening here. Yes, it's a buzzword now used for every guest performance and appearance, and we need to fight back, like linguistic warriors. I don't really know what you mean with "source 8th line", but if you're talking about this source, it's pretty obvious to me that that gossipy glossy website is NOT an acceptable, neutral, independent source for BLPs. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. For Philanthropic activity link was used. 8th line suggest artist donation towards natural disaster. It was removed stating doubtful. If we mention actual ranks of few listings, instead of "feature" I hope it's fine provided link attached is not from gossip site and provides enough evidence. SakuraSmart (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  - What 8th line? I see five lines, and then some weird image that took me 26 clicks on "Page Down" to get through--and then there's comments. Anyway, I see his name is mentioned, along with dozens of others, on a website that at best looks like a gossipy site for fans of entertainers. Whatever that site is, it's not publishing journalism; please see WP:RS. How much did he even give? Or did the record company give a few bucks in his name, to add to his resume? Who knows? Drmies (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  - Oh you mean the seventh line of that picture with a list of donors--who knows what that picture is, and what its authority is. Again, that's not how we operate here. It's too easy to manipulate pictures, and there's no source or context--"according to incomplete statistics" actually expresses part of the problem well. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

References

"持续更新！汪峰章子怡林志玲黄晓明等为河南暴雨捐款". ent.ifeng.com (in Chinese). Retrieved 2024-12-17.

You are being discussed here

Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review#Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review Doug Weller talk 16:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Very exciting, Doug--thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Run, run, the horse is a revenant!!! Geoff | 20:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  - A tremendous amount of truly reprehensible stuff does happen on this talk page. However, in my opinion, none thus far had been quite so egregious as using the word "revenant". That said, I myself understood the word immediately by way of it being the true and accurate translation from the Danish of the title of Ibsen's Ghosts. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    - Hey I just learned a new word. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    - Well, @Softlavender:, a joke explained is not much of a joke. But what I meant by using the word was precisely a reference to the Danish sense in that the ghost of the quite dead argument had been revived by a (now blocked) user who started the (now closed) discussion. Let us hope for the new year that the argument inappropriately raised from the dead remains in the grave to which it was returned and that no further sticks are raised. Heaven forfend that I should post reprehensible stuff on this hallowed site. Geoff | 14:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      - Let the dead bury their dead. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Pinzunski/User:SukunaZenin and others

Thought they had given up and taken a new hobby, but nope... Here is this IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:67D4:8700:461:2CED:6508:F5E3), for instance continuing with the transfer speculation at Francisco Trincão (and reinserting their ref that "supported" Sporting CP winning the title last season by mentioning a S.L. Benfica match!!), duly reverted! Ah, with a completely polite and encyclopedical edit summary, so let's see what their reply will be (because they WILL reinstate their version again!)...

Happy 2025, take care RevampedEditor (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring started already, please intervene (you or somebody) ASAP! --RevampedEditor (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, User:Izno, can you please have a look, given your experience with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SukunaZenin/Archive? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
RevampedEditor, I found another one (User:Lazaric12), and removed some of that awful content. Take care old friend! Drmies (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Haha thanks, Mz7--and I just hit you with a +2! Drmies (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Bbb23, happy new year, and how is it that you are thanked more than me??? I thought I was the good cop! Drmies (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a conspiratorial ploy by the perps to cozy up to the bad cop.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  - Shoot I just thanked User:Gerda Arendt for an edit, and she was already ahead of me. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

As explained on my talk, I hope I do more real thank-you than lazy click-thanks ;) - Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Did you watch Masilo talk and dance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traditional monarchy (2nd nomination)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traditional monarchy (2nd nomination) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 1 § Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traditional monarchy (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached. Liz 01:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Mail

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)

Happy New Year, Alansohn. I hope there are, and I hope they're grrrreat. That article was a bit excessive. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 3 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)
- Thanks for the response. This response makes sense, and the email was great; thank you. Nyttend (talk) 19:14, 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)

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... Drmies (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay. The Banner talk 23:33, 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

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).

YES. I've been so lonely! Drmies (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

CheckUser changes

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
A request for comment 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 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

Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

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)

No clue. I'll add to your note. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, seeing the edits of this account, the editor did this wiki-wide. The Banner talk 16:50, 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)

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)