Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:34, 28 January 2016

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

A quick observation

Hiya, and congrats on how you handled that monster of a dispute on ANI and all of us involved. For the moment, at least, it appears everybody has moved on to constructive editing elsewhere which is of course the best outcome of a conflict. Well done! Keeping that discussion in mind, I raised an eyebrow when accidentally seeing you know which case. If ours was bad (and it was), this is even worse. So if a forum is a reflection of its admins, as I'd say most forums are, I fear we're in for a bumpy ride 2016. But let's hope I'm wrong. In any case, thanks again for your unusually skillful settling of the ANI dispute. Jeppiz (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Jeppiz, but we'll have to wait and see if anything is really settled. Some folks want ANI threads to end with blocks, since words typically don't have teeth in the way that blocks do. A lot of problems, and that goes for that case too, would be forestalled if we all gave a bit more thought to the words we use. To put it another way, words probably do have teeth. Thanks again, and please help out in any way you can: by calming folks down if they get upset, by mediating if you can, by keeping the focus on content and reliable sources. Everyone will benefit from that. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You probably missed a ping

If you leave a message at my talk page and I ping you, you're expected to reply. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Haha, you funny. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm bad at humour. Honestly, I was expecting you to be cooperative but no. If you're not gonna care enough to reply to my message, mention that in your thread and I assure you I won't annoy you with my questions ever again. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm cooperative enough, but you're not one of the people who can expect me to jump when they ping me. Let's see. There's Mrs. Drmies...Kelapstick...Jimmy Wales... (I'm kidding; he never pings me). I'm a volunteer here, and your "I'm waiting" was...how shall I put it...well I won't put it any way. This: yes, personal attack; please note L235's subsequent edit, here. L235 is a clerk for ArbCom and as such one of the people we ask to maintain decorum on ArbCom pages. As for "blackballing", I was thinking more of the "bullying" connotation warranted by various online dictionaries, but as it happens the "secret cabal" connotation has an unexpected warrant in the fact that ArbCom asks clerks to keep the house clean. Secretly, of course. Let me add that pissing off the clerks isn't a good way to go; before you know they start imposing that 500-word maximum on your 2000-word statement. Now, is it OK with you if I go do something else? Please? Drmies (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Noted. As for my statement, clerks can do whatever they want with it. I've never been retaliatory (excessively) and I know speaking up on enwiki is like making yourself heard to a deaf audience. As for the I'm waiting, it wasn't true in its literal sense, I was sleeping then. :3 I am yet to see how calling someone unaware could be construed as a PA. It's also surprising that, FPAS' well-worded attack still remains in the statement (pointed out by another ArbCom member too) while what isn't a PA gets removed entirely. I get it that you aren't a clerk or the one in question but you're the one who brought it up on my talkpage. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Because you brought up its restoration. I really can't explain what should be obvious. I don't have much of an opinion on FPaS's statement. I could say that it's hypothetical but that's kind of a cop-out. The problem I had with your comment is that people really shouldn't mess with clerks' edits to begin with. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Here, have some ☕ (no bacon symbol yet, sadly). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate it. It's been a long day. Also, I'm kind of baconed out. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about "pending revisions"

Just started noticing a few of these in my watchlist. I was wondering what they are, and how I can be approved to move them from pending to accepted. (Or even if I can be approved for such a thing. Perhaps that's just a thing for administrators?) Hallward's Ghost 20:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I gotta run, but maybe Misplaced Pages:Reviewing answers your question. Briefly: no, not just admins. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for the tip. After leaving the previous message, I was able to figure out some info about pending revisions. Hallward's Ghost 01:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• There was some controversy about the second "type", I believe--early on in my admin career I protected an article that way and someone started yelling at me. Very confusing, since I was blissfully unaware of the ban on it, and it was just another option in my toolbox. Then it get unbanned; I guess it had served its time. Anyway, I don't really much care for it, but many admins like it for BLPs and for articles that see a lot of "popular" traffic, I think, like Wrestlemania and NFL player transfers, stuff like that. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  The funny thing was, at least one of the pendings (which has now been cleared by someone) was on a long-dead author. Perhaps Oscar Wilde, but I'm not sure of that. I wouldn't think having pending revisions on such an article would serve much purpose. I do think I will throw my hat in the ring to become a reviewer, though, as I think I could be helpful in that area. Hallward's Ghost 07:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Craunching the marmoset

Nobody expects the Spanish confiscation. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I had no idea it existed. Thanks for helping out--I had figured out it was a translation of es:Desamortización española, and then saw your translation tag on the talk page. Yes, it's a bit much an essay and needs some other work, but it's very interesting. If you steal from thieves, who do you give it to? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I hadn't any idea either. I was defeated by the mangled English- "it experience and seen with pain everywhere". I had a fun half-hour editing the Spanish Misplaced Pages, which seems to have extra buttons to press… and ¡Hola! to you too! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

hey that sentence "let's get started. we'll let MF do the sfn method, if he ever gets around to this article" was directed towards me. i just I'll take that as that such is, as a cracker yank nonsense towards me, be smart, if your friends are the MF, just tell to their, and make it but do not threaten. ill creating and developing the article, but as you, i consider that is considerably important and still is not in the english wikipedia. is rare, but is you check the spain of history, many articles are too short because the spanish people like be more regionalist than developing articles refereing to the country. and i just trying to help with this and wikipedia--Vvven (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Vvven, "MF" (there was no article) is short for "Malleus Fatuorum", a former editor of many really good (and Featured) articles, who is really good at very technical systems of documentation, including the method that uses Template:Sfn. Also, I am not a "yank", and "cracker" is a racist term. Thanks for contributing the article, and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

ok sorry man i saying that racist terms and ironically im a white in my country, but stillbeing a latino, thats dont care, the thing is that i search in the self wikipedia and mf means really fanatics of computer and sfn method, amethod as said wikipedia, to change a language in a dos language of a computer, sorry the big mistage, and thanks too for help in the article--Vvven (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

and please, forget this and help me if you want for making this article a featured article, we wins a little and win all this, due to the importance of this article, with a next upload youll see a even more important information--Vvven (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sure thing. I don't know how much I can do for you: it's not really my field of expertise; Xanthomelanoussprog is usually my go-to editor for 18th and 19th-century Spanish topics. But I'll be glad to help any way I can. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

yet miss that a very large amounts of destroyed old and important landmarks were demolished during or consequense of the liberal measures of these confiscations, the buyers demolished these landmarks including Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished during the Spanish confiscation period, but this is just few building of that were demolished.--Vvven (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both for your interest. I think the article it deserve--Vvven (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a "go-to editor" for 18th and 19th-century Spanish topics??? Hmm… Some of the English in the article is difficult to understand; it can be rewritten, but there's a danger that it'll move away from the original meaning. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

maybe i can help you to determinate if your contributions are the correct meanings. im a native Spanish speaker, sure. if you want--Vvven (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

and i can read English. but i not yet finished the early translation--Vvven (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

What efforts, really, now im tired, i let you ready to modify, fix and improve it as you want Xanthomelanoussprog. I also let you few notes within the article, due some confusion with a translation, to give the correct meanings .--Vvven (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

True story

I've been working pretty extensively for the last few months, so I wasn't able to be the rabid college football fan I'd been in previous couple of years, but I was still following it closely, watching all the games that were on when I came home from work (Monday is my day off, generally), including bunches of the bowl games and the semi-finals. I was looking forward to the Clemson-Alabama game...

...And then I completely forgot to watch it. Didn't even realize it until the following evening at dinner. Very strange, I can only chalk it up to being very tired.

I hope you're well, and that you're getting into the swing of the Arbitration thing - I saw that you managed to keep your sense of proportion (and humor) in some of your comments about someone's desysop. Best, BMK (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• You're kidding. You didn't watch it? I can't believe it. I read the numbers were lower than for previous national championship games, but this was an exciting one. Just ask Tide rolls, who I think didn't go back to work until yesterday. So you're busy? That's good. All union jobs, I hope. I saw one of your comments somewhere today, on some block or whatever, and was reminded of how frequently you were so utterly wrong; I'll make sure to pass that along to some functionary or CU and find a reason to screw with you. I'll tell you one thing about ArbCom: it's not all fun and games, although Kelapstick and I had some fun after we poured a bunch of superglue on Gamaliel's desk chair. He had to get out of his pants and walk his bare butt out to his car. DYK he claims to be a USF fan but has a tattoo of Steve Spurrier, visor and all, on his left cheek? We got pictures but we've been told by legal counsel that we can't do anything with them--check your email, though.

  Hey, Bama won it, even without you, though it was no walk in the park. Mrs. Drmies is used to going to sleep at halftime, so she was kind of pissed. Take it easy BMK; always good to hear from you. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Do you realize how cold it was out there? And I'm not going to get a tattoo of my alma mater. I paid them enough, they should get a tattoo of me. Gamaliel (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

the nature of the posts

Re:

This is a mild admonishment given the nature of the posts, whose reinstatement was unprofessional and uncollegial. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Could the motion please include some description of the nature of the posts? I gather they were revdel'd and that they harassed someone, but in particular, who was the person being harassed? If it was TRM and he wanted to restore harassment against himself, that's less of an issue IMHO than if he restored harassment against some other person. Thanks. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• TRM was not being harassed in that message, and that's all I'm going to say about it now. Also, IP addresses make me nervous--sorry. We've met before, but you know, with no names it's hard to look the other in the eye. It makes me mix my metaphors. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that the harassee was another person is the main relevant fact. I think that should be mentioned. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to bring that up on the relevant page! Drmies (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If I ever apply to become an administrator

For the love of God, please, please indef me immediately? This would be to protect all parties involved... ;o) Jim1138 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• What do you need, Jim? A hug? A shot of whiskey? You can become an admin instantly by bribing Writ Keeper. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyanide would likely be as effective and less painful. I shall endeavor to avoid both! Jim1138 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

CU Requested

Hey Dianna, could you run a CU for me on Evolver53, Bbeard53, and 100.6.59.71. All three have made "perfered version"-edits to the WXDB-LP page over the past couple days. I believe this is a single user, using multiple accounts (and now an IP) to add his/her perfered version to the page. User:Diannaa already semi-protected the page for a week. I actually asked her for the CU, goofing the "D" names due to insomnia and too many yummy pain meds. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I'll bite and call myself Diannaa. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry, but while I think that they're probably the same editor, I'm hesitant to use my newly acquired superpowers, considering it's a minor issue (I mean in the grand scheme of things). You could ask a "real" CU--since I don't have that much experience, I don't know what a real CU, like Bbb23, would say to such a request. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 (just in case it didn't work) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Will the real CU please stand up? So, this is beneath you, Drmies? What would I say to such a request? I'm still empathizing with Neutralhomer about insomnia. The two named accounts are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I'm not blocking, though, just 'cause. Drmies or Diannaa is welcome to block based on the technical and the behavioral evidence. If they don't block now, I would recommend a block if the disruption continues elsewhere. Now back to my real work, trying to stay awake while I block other socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I just asked Neutralhomer if he mistook Diannaa for DeltaQuad. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Guess I was wrong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Who knows who I meant, I'm on the loopy pills after my carpal tunnel surgery. It's getting colder (blizzard tomorrow) and my hand is killin' me. So I could have meant The Pope, who knows. :) This is why I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak until the 28th, but disruptive editing (not ready to call this vandalism...yet) brought me back. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Well, "possilikely" is good enough and will help later if he/she keeps it up. Diannaa semi-protected the page, so hopefully that keeps them at bay for a couple. I recommend some coffee for the sock blocking snoozes. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Come on, kick the tires a little! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Homer, I am not sure what you want me to kick, but I'll be glad to. Bbb, it's not below me--it's just that I'm saving my magic powers. Plus, I take the whole business of privacy seriously, and want to know exactly what I'm doing and why. That's why, Homer, I suggested you ask one of the "regular" CUs, because they have more experience than I do. Plus, if I see something I don't understand, I have to ask Bbb again, and I think Bbb is getting tired of me. The honeymoon is over I think. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You'd better believe it. First, you wouldn't let my mother come with us. Second, when I made a reasonable request for a few flower arrangements in the room, you said I could have no more than two. Finally, you criticized that pretty pink umbrella in my cocktail. You said it was silly. At that point I packed up, took a plane, and went back to live with my mother where I'm treated with the respect and deference I deserve. She certainly had you pegged.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I was meaning "kick the tires" of your new found CU powers. I guess (I really don't know) you could "test drive" it on your account, so you don't get into an "accident". When you're ready, you can take the training wheels off and CU (drive, to keep withe puns) like a pro. :)

I promise to never use really bad puns again. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Advice needed

What happens when some sources say an obviously false thing (like claiming "they were all killed" when actually only about a third of them are known to have been killed and another third are definitely known to have survived) and there are editors wanting to use those faulty sources to insert the false claim into an article. The issue concerns content in the lead of the Armenian Genocide article, which is currently stating "24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and sent to their deaths some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople". There have been earlier versions stating they were "all massacred" or similar, and it is a long running issue. It contradicts the sourced material in the main article Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915 and every editor (there have been at least 4 of them) who has inserted the content has declined to address the contradiction issue. The latter article also has a section listing 222 named individuals who were part of that 24 April 1915 deportation which consisted of some 235 to 270 persons. 77 are listed as having been killed, 81 are listed as having survived, with 44 having unknown fates and 20 dying of natural causes or random accidents. There is another connected issue, that the later 2,345 individuals mentioned in the AG article never actually existed and that this number originated as a misprint in an 1950s Turkish book - a typo error of the 24th April 235 persons figure that was then reproduced without question in scores of later sources, but this part is probably even more intractable and I'll leave it for now because I want to pursue it off Misplaced Pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm. I worked on some related articles (a list of massacres of some kind, I think) a while back. One of the problems frequently is paucity of sourcing, and almost just as frequently poor sourcing. It's in cases like this that, frequently, we do not accept newspapers as sources, since those reporters often report what they hear but what they hear is usually snapshots, hearsay, etc. We had discussions in gun-related articles (Gun legislation in Germany or something like that) and discredited articles from the NYT, if I remember correctly. But if we have sourcing that explicitly denies "all were killed", and no good sources saying "all were killed", then the answer should be easy, no? Drmies (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• I see that my old partner in crime, Dr.K., is involved with this. So here three sources are added; there are more sources later on. IMO, the Congressional Record is not acceptable as a source since it's a record of someone giving evidence; that person may or may not be right. I also have doubts about HuffPo, and not just because of their irritating video ads--HuffPo, if they're decent journalists, would repeat what the good sources say, and we need to cite the good sources. But this book ought to be pretty reliable; ABC-CLIO is a reputable outfit. Really, all this should be discussed on the talk page; I haven't looked there yet and I may not. The next step, if no agreement is found, is to take them (individually) to RSN--individually because it makes for easier discussion; I certainly wouldn't bring a dozen sources up there in one single post. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This book is not reliable. It is already suspect because it is an AG recognition tract published in 2015. As a source I don't think the book is acceptable anyway on Misplaced Pages since it is calling itself a "reference guide". The "mostly later murdered en mass" claim is unreferenced, and the author of the section containing the claim, one Paul G Pierpaoli is not a known academic working in the field of Armenian Studies (he is a professor of history at the Virginia Military Institute and seems to be a specialist in the Korean war). And of course the claim is obviously false, not even those who were killed were killed "en mass", they were killed separately or in small groups over the course of several years Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see why something called "reference guide" should be unacceptable because it calls itself "reference guide". Or that it should be unacceptable because it was published in 2015, or because it is "an AG recognition tract"--and that latter phrase sounds like the kind of put-down that has more rhetorical value than veracity. I also don't know that the claim is "obviously false". I don't know Pierpaoli, but apparently he's a historian, and probably more so than you or me. So, sorry, I don't think these arguments will stand up to scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

But I am arguing for the "sensible choice of sources" by editors who want articles to be accurate. Anyone who knows the literature on the AG and honestly looks at that work will recognize it is just 100th anniversary stuff: low grade, simplified, discardable, for the mass market. We have proper sources, some written just after the event, that actually give the names of those who died, and the names of those who survived. Those sources disprove the sound-bite one line version of history peddled in that book. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, this page shouldn't field the discussion over sources, but I simply cannot agree with the basic concept that sources written right after the event would be more reliable than stuff written 100 years later--and published by reliable sources. ABC-CLIO, until I hear otherwise, isn't just reliable, it's pretty much unimpeachable. A "sensible choice of sources" should begin with the best possible sources. So no HuffPo--but discarding a book by ABC-CLIO because it's called "reference guide" or because it supports the statement that the genocide happened or because it's published so many years after the event, that just won't do. Now, I'll agree that the lead doesn't necessarily need sourcing, and that some of the sources are less than great (I'm trying to be diplomatic), and it is entirely possible that some sources are wrong or whatever--but I haven't seen evidence of that. And, again, that's really a matter for RSN, and that some statement is factually untrue, yeah, you'll just have to get consensus for that on the talk page, probably via an RfC. If you get a consensus for your claim there, then you can move on. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• But, my dear Tiptoethrutheminefield, with "I wonder why some editors like them so much?" you're not tiptoeing through the minefield--you're either stepping on one, or setting one up... I understand editorial frustration (believe me--I've edited K-pop articles), but it's probably not a good way to begin the discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm frustrated because I have repeatedly brought up this issue, removed the offending content, seen no argument from any editor to justify retaining the removed content or address the contradiction between that content and that found in sources from the immediate post-genocide period, yet I am repeatedly seeing the same wording being returned. I think the editors involved have been acting badly because they are setting aside the requirement to use sources sensibly. If some sources are saying something that other sources, sources closer to the subject (as well as common sense), indicate to be incorrect, you do not use the faulty sources, even if your pov aim happens to like what the faulty sources claim (for Genocide Recognition some think it is neater to claim they were all killed rather than explain how 1/3rd survived, a lot of AG literature is little more than a series of easy sound bites to give to politicians or journalists engaged in issues involved with political recognition of the AG). About the sources issue - is a possible route to require use of specialist sources, sources that have been written specifically about this particular event rather than general sources on the AG that merely mention this event in passing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example from the same article showing the sensible use of sources . An otherwise acceptable source, a US newspaper, was claiming something that was actually obviously untrue. So a correct source was eventually found and used , resulting in a correctly identified and captioned photo. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc. Thanks for the ping. I fully agree that the congressional record may not be reliable but that's why I added 7 sources so as to insure the info from source reliability questions. This is a list of all the sources I added. I checked many of them and some are written by experts on the subject who have articles on Misplaced Pages and are published by university presses including Cambridge. I am definitely amenable to discussion but I will not discuss anything until the interested party voluntarily retracts the PA you so aptly mentioned for reasons I already explained multiple times already in other places. Thank you again, Happy New Year and happy Arbcomming! Dr. K. 21:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is of course almost invariably true that the more sources cited to support a piece of lead content, the less valid that content is likely to be. I note your continued refusal to address the issue of how wording like "250 sent to their death" can be justified when sources (like Teotik) published in the immediate aftermath of the genocide and issued to commemorate and mourn those who were killed indicate that at least a third of the April 24 deportees survived, and actually name the survivors. A fabricated big silent sulk in the corner over some words you construe as a personal insult does not remove from you the obligation to discuss content you are adding. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I will not deal with the rest of the nonsense you wrote about the number of sources and what it means but your comment: A fabricated big silent sulk ... is another vicious personal attack. Doing it in any other talkpage would be bad enough but coming on an arb's talkpage to attack me is a measure of your inability to have any semblance of civil discourse in this collaborative project. Your block log is a clear indicator of your continuing problems with personal attacks and harassment. I think you should be blocked for violating NPA repeatedly to the point of harassment. Leave your shaming tactics to yourself and don't expect me to address you again. Dr. K. 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Doc, perhaps as part of your advice, to the above advice-seeker, you could add that adding a section titled "Old Lies" and then asking the rhetorical question "Seems they never die. I wonder why some editors like them so much? ." is a bad-faith insult against other editors. Doc, this method of debating is a crude shaming tactic and an attempt to put intellectual pressure and a stigma on his perceived opponents through verbal violence. Discussing under such a section title is like debating under an advertising banner automatically declaring his perceived opponents as liars. This is not befitting our beautiful project, to borrow a phrase from someone I greatly respect. To add insult to injury TTTTM then goes on to accuse his opponents because they don't engage with him/her. Dr. K. 19:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been better titled as "That old lie". The best known Old Lie could be changed for keyboard warriors ardent for pov glory on Misplaced Pages to "It is sweet and glorious to lie for one's country". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dr.K., I don't approve of that wording but I don't think it's something I'm going to get all adminny about. What I find is that starting with a title like that is likely to antagonize the opposition rather then win them, so it's very counterproductive. I've probably been guilty of producing not-so diplomatic subject headings myself. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you Doc for your perspective. But there is no "opposition" and you cannot "win over the opposition". There are only reliable sources and reliable sources win all the time through verification. Putting advertising banners attempting to shame one's perceived opposition into submission is not only counterproductive or kindly put "undiplomatic"; it is also disruptive and silly. Because one cannot shame the reliable sources. One can attempt to shame their perceived opponents because one does not have the sources required to rebut the sources other editors present to them. It is an obvious attempt at intimidation. Telling someone that they "like lies" because they brought multiple world-class reliable sources to support their edit shows a total disregard for WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPA. It is also a crude attempt at silencing their opponents while pushing the POV and OR that lurk in the shadows of their intimidating tactics. I object to this kind of editing environment which utterly besmirches the beauty of this project. Dr. K. 02:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages "experiments"

Re . I don't mean to do anything that even resembles grave dancing but that comment did bring something up which I've thought about before. Taking their claims at face value, what it means it that the user essentially engaged in conducting a non-consensual experiment on unwilling participants. Obviously that raises a whole host of ethical issues (there's a reason why studies on human subjects require IRB approval). I was wondering if there is actually anything in any Misplaced Pages policy which addresses this. Maybe because it sort of hits close to home (for a number of reasons) but to me it seems that these kinds of actions should be up there with WP:LEGAL and WP:COPYVIO as grounds for immediate indef blocking. I do realize that there may be some shades of gray here but it seems like there ought to be a specific policy which addresses this very possibility. Know of anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think we're talking about a possibility here--a remote one. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Conducting an experiment on Misplaced Pages without expressed permission from either Misplaced Pages or the subjects is a blatant example of WP:POINT.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Vic Kohring

Why is it that every time I see Twinkle in an edit summary, the summary itself reads like some random bullshit which completely misses the mark on explaning the problem? To wit:

Reverted to revision 695000958 by MB298 (talk): Rv: huge revert of unverified, non-neutral BLP information.

"Even Ray Charles can see" that the problem here is WP:AUTOBIO. Putting aside those edits, how can anyone claim that this article is neutral? First, it's long been a massive WP:COATRACK to Alaska political corruption probe instead of a biographical article. Second, it's yet another example of prose backing sources instead of the other way around, in and of itself a coatrack, albeit to other websites. The earliest source is dated January 2006, by which time he had been a state legislator for over a decade. All this assumes we're taking the stance that readers don't need to know anything about his life apart from the political corruption probe. Why would anyone in their right mind take an article which barely avoids violating WP:BLP1E and actively try to maintain it at that level? It makes me wonder what part of "Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper" people feel entitled to exercise veto power over. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Help, Wilbur Scoville

Mass vandalizing Wilbur Scoville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You beat me by two minutes! Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• That was fun. Ah, glory be to God for dappled things. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Touchy problem ...

To the good doctor and their many talk page stalkers - I thought I'd done a sensitive and encyclopaedic job at Maria Britneva (and one more book is waiting for me at the library in case it adds anything), but I have apparently stirred up a hornet's nest. See recent edits self-identified as by one of the sources. It's possible that I was less than ideally neutral despite my best efforts, so I'd like to ask for some fresh eyes on the article. I put Google Books links on the page numbers as I usually do. Thanks in advance. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I looked it over, and restored your version. The IP had broken some formatting and had, in general, made a muck of the article. In my edit summary, I invited the IP to talkpage discussion about what issues they might have with the article. Hallward's Ghost 15:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Nice job, Yngvadottir; thank you. I'll keep that last sentence in mind for when I meet with my lawyers. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks to both of you, and also Gerda Arendt. I see he has now registered an account, so I was able to ping him in the talk page section I started. I've now also finally got my hands on MacNiven's 2014 bio of Laughlin, where I see a ton of pages under her name in the index, so that will provide an additional source (and unlike my expansion of Víga-Glúms saga, I may be able to do that at work). I really hope I haven't been unfair to the lady. But now I must go back to bed. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion?

hi Kathrynwilliamscaw (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC) you recently deleted work off my wiki page. I don't know why you did that, what authority you have and what reasons . My rikishi page has been written/ changed by someone and I am trying to undo the clumsy layout/ writing... So it is actually a factual and interesting page

• Hello Kathrynwilliamscaw, and thank you for your question. Your edits may have improved the page from your perspective, but not from that of the Misplaced Pages editor who has a copy of our Manual of Style on their nightstand. I assure you that my edits were as conventional as can be. In addition, I'm sorry to say it's not really "your" page, and if you claim it as such, you obviously have a conflict of interest. My interest here is to have a decent and neutral article; if you can help with that, great--the first thing to do is not to drop names and genres and whatnot in the infobox, but to add reliable sources that verify information in the article. Please see WP:RS. Thank you, and please let me know if I can help. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) - Kathrynwilliamscaw, people with conflicts of interest are strongly discouraged from editing articles they are closely tied to. Not surprisingly, people sometimes have difficulty writing objectively about themselves, which often results in fluffy articles that come across as self-promotional. We all want to avoid that here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Goddamned parentheticals!

You're the expert. Got anything you want to add to this? Apparently I'm still cleaning up after Rtkat3. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dude, please don't pull me into the Black Hole of your Teenage Ninja Mutant obsession. Being on ArbCom and having to watch my words is bad enough already. And you want me to add something to your remark? Like, add something in parentheses? Are you playing a meta mindfuck with me? :) No, you're fine--anything to combat the usual excess of detail. Gotta run--pizza is here. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You'll pay for your buck-passing, Drmies!! On a less sinister note, he says he didn't want to overuse commas. That is all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• So they're making choices based on grammar, punctuation, aesthetics--that means they're a keeper. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your handling of this case. Wish we had more like you at es.wiki.

Maragm (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurumayum Arvind

Hi Drmies. Not sure how to proceed, but I think LembaGuru may be another WP:DUCK. Same genre of articles being edited and similar uploading of copyrighted images as "own work". Please advice what I should do if you feel this is more than coincidental. Thanks in advance. PS: I posted here based upon comments at User talk:DeltaQuad#User:Gurumayum Arvind -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Marchjuly, if you think there's another sock you should add that to the SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning IPs after vandalism

Hello Drmies, maybe Someone Somewhere in Summertime or wintertime, has time for 2 questions I have:

(1) If I come across vandalism performed the day before (or earlier) by an IP, and I revert it, does it still make any sense to put a user warning message on such IP's User talkpage, since lots of IPs are not static? The next day, someone else might be assigned that previous IP number, visit WP and not understand what that warning message is about, whereas the actual vandal never sees that message?

(2) As (1), but for IP vandal edits that were tagged "(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)"? Or rather, does a mobile phone have the same IP the whole day, even when the owner travels between different cities (e.g. for school etc.)?

To dig up some mummified stuff :-), as to , @Cullen328: you spoke of malleability and reminded me of Sopor Aeternus, maybe you know her music?

And DrMies, as you said (also in the link above) "I came pretty close to blocking you on the spot for that name. :)", I'm glad you didn't, yet every once and a while people would ask me about my username, lately increasingly often, so I figured to put this to bed while I can still do so voluntarily would probably be the best option. I hope this one is more palatable (my old name is still in my archives) :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Horseless Headman, I have never before heard of Sopor Aeternus, although I was present at Alice Cooper's first successful, well-received public performance in the summer of 1969 in Saugatuck, Michigan. Quite remarkable, as I had never heard of him before. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Haha, it's Poepkop! So you dropped the head altogether. Alright, let's see. 1.: the day after, or maybe a few days, sure. If they're dynamic it makes a little less sense, but what it does do is leave a paper trail that suggests "we warned the user plenty of times". That they may not have read the messages left on previous IP talk pages, that's not your fault. Those warnings don't have to go 1, 2, 3, 4, block, of course. As an admin, I prefer if people leave warnings; it means, for instance, that you don't have to say "User has been insufficiently warned", which is one of the options at WP:AIV. BTW, you don't have to start at 1 (right, Mandarax?)--starting at 2 or 3 can be valid, and I've given plenty "only" warnings on a first or second edit, esp. if it's racist or sexist stuff, or if someone says something bad about Jim Kerr. 2. I don't know. I think they change when you travel but I'm not smart enough to really know that well.

  I looked at the Sopor Aeternus page--that is one creepy-ass cover. It's probably more up Cullen's alley than mine: he's quite a bit hipper than me. Thanks for the note. Glad no one else blocked you either. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• HH, if this user, 1.32.72.71, had been warned earlier I could have blocked them immediately. Now I really have to warn, then wait to see if they stay at it. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Which, predictably, they did. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• I checked IP, lol. I seem to do the same as you, if it is clear vandalism (sexist slur, racist slur, "replaced page content with 'poo'" (to remain a bit in excremental atmospheres, my old name will understand), and have not been warned yet, often level 1, then level 4, then to AIV; sometimes 4im directly (BLP). Otherwise a bit slower, depends on the case. Yes, Sopor is calm atmospheric music (mostly, it is not rock). Sometimes come across a vIP that made 3 or 4 reverted vandal edits, but noone warned IP! But that level 4 warning is crucial for AIV, and yes, as far as I understood myself, no need for all 4 consecutive levels of warning, especially for "blatant" continuing vandalism. PS What? People did bad things to Jim Kerr's page Grrrrr..... Horseless Headman (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

I am not hipper; I just happened to stumble into the right places at the right times occasionally. Here is a 2008 Detroit News quote from Mr. Alice Cooper: "We were too intense for L.A., so we said, the first place we play where we get a standing ovation, we’re going to stay there. We played the Saugatuck Pop Festival with Iggy and the MC5, and I said, ‘This is our audience right here!’ Where L.A. didn’t get it, Detroit totally got it."

Other bands there in Saugatuck that weekend included Procul Harum, Muddy Waters, Amboy Dukes, The Crazy World of Arthur Brown, Big Mama Thornton, Bob Seger and Brownsville Station. Also the Chicago blues rock band Rotary Connection featuring as lead singer Maya Rudolph's mother Minnie Riperton, who sadly died very young of breast cancer. That was a very heady weekend for a 17 year old kid from Detroit. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Cullen328:, Ah, I only know (some work of) Muddy Waters, Procul Harum, Alice Cooper, I'll have to check the others on youtube. Looks like you were the right age at the right concert, albeit "heady" :-) For me those are before my time, though. I would end up talking about 1980s music and late 1970s. I probably started to pay attention to music in this transition time from "mainly rock" to "synthesizer pop". David Bowie included, especially his "Let's Dance" album. Queen, Meatloaf, Toto, and guitars morphed partially or totally into synths with Pet Shop Boys, OMD, what was called "new wave". Sure liked Kate Bush. :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

• Geraldo and his Gaucho Tango Orchestra- I'll warrant those legs have never wrapped themselves around prime horseflesh. Geraldo was still playing on tv in the early 1970s, with his Octet. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hola Xanthomelanoussprog, nice music and video, but, no, what? No electronics? Amplifiers? ;-) Geraldo's discography starts at 1974, like after his death, he never recorded for making LPs during his lifetime? I like this one too What a Difference a Day Made (1934). Horseless Headman (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

  That guitarist is a total plant: he's an untenured English prof, moonlighting as a gaucho. Don't think I don't know the type. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hola Horseless Headman, very smooth! I remember seeing him on the telly, but I never thought to check him up until yesterday. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hmm, Sopor Aeternus. If you're not familiar, try Songs from the Inverted Womb from 2000. It will either entice you into looking for more or will turn you off completely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee one of my fav Sopor songs It is safe to sleep alone (music video), the video, however, is somewhat "gewöhnungsbedürftig", as the Germans say in a single word (~ 'requires getting used to'). Musically it is relatively light to digest imho, the video itself is very erm, heavy / different. Maybe it needs more cowbell  :-). Horseless Headman (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

Boing! said Zebedee, I am very disappointed in you. To make up for "this", you will close five RfCs of Cunard's choosing. Remember I'm an ArbCommie, and "conduct unbecoming of an administrator" is the sticky kind of spaghetti that will stick to almost any wall. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi thank you for your response... I'm do understand what you mean by my conflict of interest.... But wiki is often a first port of call for people finding out about me within my Career. In no way do I want it to be self promoting or fluffy. But at the moment... It is 7/8 years out of date regarding my life/career. Has no mention of writing songs for their artists ( which has become a big part of my career/ life) It has been written by someone who appears to have no idea iof sentence structure. It focuses on the crayon eyes Al um ( which I believe is someone involved I that record bringing it to the front of my career for their benefit) All in all I want FACTS on my page. Nothing more nothing less. It does not represent me/ my career/ or proper factual information in any way. Also it miss he brief biographical content that most of my favourite pages of other songwriters have. What do I do? How can it be changed? It doesn't have to be me.... Kathrynwilliamscaw (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Kathryn. I don't see any incorrect sentences in the current version. I'm not sure what you mean with the focus on Crayon Eyes--the word doesn't actually occur on the page. What this article needs, for starters, is more reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources that provide, for instance, biographical information, then our article can't have it. That's really what everything starts with. So if you have links to such articles with biographical information, you can add them or drop them on the talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

ŽENEVSKI DEKRET

I'm a designer and administartor of the band's website, and I wrote Biography for the band. So, that's my own words. Do you understand? --Selver88 (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• I understand that very well, but there's no proof of that and you would need to file some paperwork to be allowed to copy that. See Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. But, eh, Selver88, do you understand that this is the English wiki, and that we like our articles to be in English? And that we can't just run what someone put on someone's website, especially not if that person has a conflict of interest with the subject? As I said to someone else, just now (see section above), it all starts with verified information in reliable sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Alrighty then! Cheers. --Selver88 (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

a little help please

You closed my ANI case without punishing anyone and warning only me. I stayed off editing for a couple of days to cool off. The first cleanup I have done now is at Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi. I had nominated the page for deletion but it was kept and an editor left a message on my TP saying that I should be doing cleanups not nominating it for AFD so I went ahead and removed material that was sourced to unreliable sources. I created a TP section discussing my concerns about sources, coatrack, misrepresentation and other issues. Now instead of even talking about what I wrote two users have ganged up to put back the content. They will not even discuss the content on the TP. So what is a person supposed to do? two guys who edit with a pro Shia POV (they have yet to make any substantial edit outside Shia/Iran area) just get together and undo a legit cleanup with discussion started on TP, one of them is a person who himself told me that AFD is not cleanup, meaning that I should cleanup the article instead of nominating for AFD. Perhaps you can help. Kinda frustrating that you spend time looking through sources and people are not even up for a discussion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you please take a look again? The guy reverting me has agreed on all changes except 4. Now I am trying to make him understand but he seems to lack even basic Islamic knowledge. I am not talking about anything subtle or like that. I am talking about the basic knowledge that Shia guys ans Sunni guys have different books of hadith as is discussed in the Hadith article. Can you pop over to the article when you are online and comment on the new section. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• FreeatlastChitchat, you can't ask me to do this, to get so involved with article content. You really need to find other editors who know this subject matter. I am very loathe to get involved with this content more deeply than I already am. Maybe Doug Weller, who is a real scholar, can advise. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Negative energy.

Hi Drmies, is this (off-wiki) harassment? Seems to be pretty recent (last Dec)? Actually the entire blog seems to be anti. Horseless Headman (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

• Yeah, typical. One of those people with nothing better to do. Unless we figure out who this is there's little we can do, of course. Zzuuzz, you have a fan out on the internet. For the record, Zzuuzz is one of those cats who has done more to keep this website running than a lot of people I know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks both. My fan club. I must be improving - I've had entire blogs dedicated to me in the past. -- zzuuzz 07:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do kind of need to know if the fan club is official or not--I'm trying to figure out if I can add it to the EL section of your article. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Salted about 8 years ago :) Such is the level ... here's one for you: "What a nobody. Therefore, probably a sockpuppet account. Apparently at least 10% of all administrators are sockpuppets, and maybe more." -- zzuuzz 18:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow zzuuzz, please keep up the good work! Even if that means having fans out there :-( Horseless Headman (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

Alex1977-1

Krj373 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Need some help with Talk:Dolly Parton & Talk: Dolly Parton/Comments

I would like to archive Talk:Dolly Parton as it's starting to get unwieldy in size but there is a subpage Talk:Dolly Parton/Comments that makes it look like an Archive already exists. Well it doesn't. Not *really*. So I need to know, if I establish automatic archiving on the parent page, where will the to-be-archived content end up? Will having the Comments page mess up the archiving process? When I click on the Archive box on the parent talk page, I end up at this. I asked for help from another admin who had edited the Dolly Parton article in the past and they responded "...Comments is a test page; it is much easier to delete it as such or let it be than merge" but I can't delete it, I'm just a poor 'umble editor. I just need to know if leaving the Comments page alone will interfere with automatic archiving. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'd love to help but it's pick-up time; I won't be back on for a while. Anyone? Drmies (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply anyway. I just don't want to try to "fix" things and then leave it all in a bigger mess than it was...maybe another admin can lend a hand. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Shearonink, sorry, I forgot to get back to this. I just moved, deleted, and merged: have at it, archive way. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, everything is just lovely. I just didn't want to set up archiving and then somehow have that get mangled by the Comments page (heh, I don't even know if the mangling would have happened...) A move/delete/merge makes sense to me - Thanks again, Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there wasn't much to merge, but I take our mandate (of Preserving Every Single Edit) seriously, haha. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be impartial in assessing the impartiality of Manuel Pinho's page

Hi Drmies, You left me a message saying I was not impartial regarding my contributions to "Manuel Pinho's" page... Please reconsider after reading carefully how the page has been used for self-promotion by presumably the subject over the YEARS. I merely sought to restore REFERENCES that are verifiable, unlike Manuel Pinho (or his praisers) who write only positive stuff going to the point of omitting major facts like the circumstances of his resignation that made worldwide news, or who pays for him to be a professor in universities worldwide, which Manuel Pinho likes to show off in the Misplaced Pages page... If I was "partial" what do you have to say about the hagiography that the page has been over the years and the version he presented after deleting all the controversies information???

• The article is not a hagiography, and you want to start by reading WP:BLP and WP:RS, and that's all I have to say to you right now. You are welcome to share your concerns and seek a wider audience at, for instance, WP:BLPN. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Arbitratusrex, I reverted. Obviously. Please check your phrasing and try to write neutrally. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Parry Aftab

Thanks for the edits at Parry Aftab. There is a single purpose IP who wants the article to read like a resume and is attacking me (see talk page) for removing content per WP guidelines. I hope you can help out there from time to time to break the one-on-one tension. Peace!

RE: User talk:205.154.244.238

Okay, thanks for the note. Laberinto16 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dr!

I thought you might enjoy this edit history: . Required real restraint not to ask for a block, but even the benefit of the doubt fails me on this one. Best regards, 99. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hum1969

It's not a good idea to add anything to an archived case except to reopen it. It creates structural problems later. I therefore restored the version prior to all the disruption followed by your and MarnetteD's edits. That doesn't mean you have to reopen it, either. You may block outside of the SPI without noting it "for the record". I'm off to bed now, so if you have any questions, I won't be around to answer them until tomorrow or sometime in the middle of the night if I follow my usual insomniac habits.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wake up! Haha, only me. Oh, there was more disruption? That's exciting! Someone must have been sent home from school... I did want a record, of course. I actually tried to open a new case, but I got a weird message that said, if I remember correctly, that there was already an SPI open. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• No need to shout; I'm awake. :-) I'm not familiar with that message. Was it perhaps "You are about to add a second or subsequent request to the previous existing cases on:"? (This is when you're using the standard way of opening at WP:SPI.) No disruption after your edit. The disruption was before. My phrasing above was ambiguous and could be interpreted in two ways. You obviously chose the wrong one.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wakey wakey, eggs and bacey... I totally blame you. Can you believe they had the nerve to revert me? Hmm--maybe that was what I saw. Odd--it never struck me before as something worth paying attention to. But that was on a different computer, where somehow everything seems strange. I hope you have a great day, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History

Invitation
	Black Women's History online edit-a-thon 1 to 15 February 2016 Hosted by Women in Red Sponsored by AfroCrowd Supporting Black WikiHistory Month

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Shoot Ipigott, does this never end? I thought racism and sexism were over? Are you telling me Donald Trump is wrong?? (I'm sure he said that, cause that's what his constituency wants to hear.) Drmies (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's all part of our balancing act. No compulsion to join in every time. In this round, though, spades are trumps. Hearts again in March!--Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• DGG, is that you in there? Drmies (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

striped shirt in the center.

and this, like all the nyc editathons, is very much open to people working on other topics also. Having a theme helps people focus on articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You're such a cosmopolitan. Nice to see you again--I feel like we haven't talked in ages. I'm not counting our secret messages in our secret cabal, of course. I forwarded this information to a colleague professor, in sociology, to see if she can help me with some topics, and maybe get her whole class involved. Thanks David, Drmies (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Manfil

Thanks Drmies for helping :)49.150.146.60 (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sure thing! Drmies (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wormholes

Having figured out (I think) what you said at ANI about worms and the pores in their skins, I thought I would point out humorously that brittle stars take it a step further. Talk about not knowing one end from the other! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank goodness they don't have elbows. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ha, I knew there had to be an animal that had two in one. Thanks for that! BTW, I most certainly was not talking about you, Tryptofish. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I should hope not! (Although I did have a brief moment of pause. Then again, I had a brief moment of thinking that you were talking about WormthatTurned. So who knows where my head is stuck?) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Care to close an AN3 thread?

Drmies: Being that your name was recently mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dennis_Bratland_reported_by_User:Skyring_.28Result:_.29, and Dirtlawyer1 pinged both of us on that Mariota thread, I think that's my sign to invite you to close (or at least comment) at that AN3 thread :-) Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I really want to get in between those two. I'd rather camp out on the talk page of the ArbCom noticeboard to get yelled at. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)