User talk:Drmies

Thanks

Voila. I bet Ritchie333 laughs when he sees this.

It has been rumoured by some that receiving a thanks from you is equivalent to roughly 9 barnstars. Just letting you know. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Really? Sounds like serious inflation. There's a counter for thankspam, so you can total up the barnstars I've given out...Can I just add that I wish IP editors could be thanked? Drmies (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Apparently you've thanked people 4,448 times. That's 40,032 barnstars. Really spreading the WikiLove. Also, yes, we should be able to thank IPs. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• I'm actually in a foul mood: I just got a brand new old CD player, only to discover that the first song of Inner Mounting Flame is skipping. I won't stand for that. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• CD player? Giggle. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Tascam CD-RW750, buddy. Goes well with the record player I got from the same invaluable friend--A FRIEND WITH A (terrible) WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE! Drmies (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies, you really need to update your phone. Cool stereo though :D TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't want to, though I wish that it hadn't slowed down to a damn crawl after the latest "update". Drmies (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not to butt in... yes, precisely to butt in. I have 78rpm records from the 1930s with better fidelity than these phones, you can only do so much with MP3 format. I'm so proud of you, Drmies! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, exactly. It's the insistance on compression that ****'s them over (and rightly so). A lossless format: I'm out of touch, but some my old bootlegs, which—when I recorded em sounded like they were inside a sarcophagus!—with a good lossless format (.flac, I think almost to a man), can still sound like I was in the Mouth of the beast, MSG  :) .Mp3 is a product of the "Can we have it LOUDER and can we have it smaller generation. And with the price of terabytal storage going south, there's no excuse to hitch on to it anymore. Not knocking the hard formats: my blue vinyl Nevermind still gets an outing occasionally. Cambridge A&R set-up. The Old Gods Live Amongst Us Still. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You fancy, Cambridge boy. User:78.26, the turntable is above all that--a simple, lightweight modern thing, but it plays. As long as we have car payments and braces it won't get any fancier. I don't recall ever having owned a 78, though I did at one time have a huge stack of 45s out of some R&B jukebox--Little Richard, Fats Domino, James Brown--in the late 1970s. I wish I still had all my Miles Davis albums... Drmies (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Lightweight is good. Vintage (contemporaneous) equipment for 78s is fun and all, but I only play very common or junked records on these machines, they're murder on the records! Just as long as it isn't one of the Walmart Philco specials, whose non-compliant tonearms will damage your records (LPs, they can't hurt a 78) and can't track anything with heavy bass anyway. Whatever your preferred format, be it cylinders, MP3, reel-to-reel, etc. happy listening everyone! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Keith Abbis

He's notable. GiantSnowman 19:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks dude. I closed it. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Public School

You know as well as I do that this is a no consensus, leaning keep. It is not really acceptable discount so many opinions as you seem to have done; if this carries on, we may as well just abandon AfD discussion altogether as outdated. Please reconsider or we will take this to DRV. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Necrothesp, I don't know that at all, and your conclusion is unwarranted. Feel free to take it anywhere you like. For the audience, I'll just state that this was not some automated, boilerplate close: these are decided on a case by case basis. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've tried to explain to you in the past that !votes such as your Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. should be discounted because they are effectively an invocation of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It looks like some other admin has finally had the guts to call you out on it. In that AfD, the same applies to, for example, Doncram's !vote. I'm not sure about him but you definitely took part in the recent SCHOOLOUTCOMES discussion and are aware of the consensus. My mind is boggled that you persist in invoking it and it makes me wonder whether you are fit to be an admin given such a failure to either understand or abide by consensus. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher)Hmm..Echo Sitush.And, Necrothesp, since AfDs aren't ballot counts and weighing of policy/guideline based arguments matter, the closure was perfectly valid.Winged Blades^Godric 12:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• It is amazing how often Necrothesp and friends try to ignore the RfC and claim a consensus that does not exist any more. Recently, more schools have been removed as administrators ignored the long standing shouting and roaring about schooloutcomes that were not policy and/or content based... It becomes time that you start to face the music. The Banner talk 13:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

—and dance, presumably  ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice when he first started listening to it instead of completely ignoring the inconvenient truth. The Banner talk 14:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is the case we may as well completely abandon the whole AfD procedure, because AfD has always been about discussion and opinion on a case-by-case basis. If opinions are disallowed and the minority are allowed to override the majority then I see little point in the whole process continuing. It's a very sad state of affairs that Wikipedia has come to this and that certain editors think it's an improvement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not the "minority". Why on earth are you suggesting that AfD is a vote? Honestly, the more you dig your heels in here, the more it seems that you have no right to hold the tools. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You, frankly, should be ashamed of your comments and personal attacks. Because I express an opinion that you don't agree with you don't think I have a right to be an administrator? Appalling. I restate what I said above about it being a sad state of affairs. What has Wikipedia come to? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You will also note that I was talking to Drmies on their talkpage. Not sure why you stuck your oar in in any case. If I take it to DRV you can have your say there where everyone can see your incivility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And where every one can see the flimsiness of your arguments... The Banner talk 14:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Honestly, if your skin is that thin then it is another reason why you should perhaps consider resigning the tools. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The sad state of affairs is in fact that a minority is fighting a losing battle to keep a non-existing consensus based on pov-non-policy-non-content-related arguments alive. The Banner talk 14:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This thread has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_invoking_SCHOOLOUTCOMES_at_AfD. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So here's a funny thing: a different "Evergreen Public School" at AfD, a different admin (DGG), and a same-but-different argument, "on the basis of the schools compromise". In this case the argument isn't relevant because it's an obviously non-notable primary school. But what is this "schools compromise"? Isn't this just the same as arguing "per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES"? Seems like déjà vu all over again... --IamNotU (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• I guess the thing was that it was not clear what Northamerica meant with "per SCHOOLOUTCOMES"? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify to anyone seeing it, it was my argument to delete/merge a primary school article (& the RfC closing did not even mention primary schools) , not and argument to keep a high school, and the consensus at the AfD closing was to do just that; I often specifically look for opportunities at AfD to try to find some common ground with people who disagree with me on a general issue. I did not quote anything, but I explained the compromise in my posting, and gave the reasons for it. The reasons remain a valid argument. Some people still follow it, & I've included in my comments on school afds yesterday that some people think otherwise.

People at AfD are allowed to argue their own interpretation of guidelines, like the notability guideline. (some of the earlier comments here and elsewhere seem to be under the impression WP:N is policy, but attempts to change it to policy have been repeatedly rejected by the community.

It is my consistent practice as an admin -- and I think required of all admins -- to make decisions in accord with consensus interpretations, and to give advice based on conservative interpretations. (accordingly, I frequently close afds against my own opinions, and my advice to anyone trying to write a school article would be to make sure to have excellent 3rd party independent substantial references.)

It is my consistent practice at AfDs to present what I think to be the correct interpretation . The latest schools RfC in essence amounts to two findings of non consensus--no consensus to use the school outcomes argument by itself, and no consensus not to routinely keep high schools. I consider that in practice contradictory, and a contradictory proposition logically implies anything. More specifically, it permits a wide range of interpretations. Any editor may argue for whatever interpretation they think appropriate--and, if anything, an admin has and should have a certain freedom to safely take unpopular positions, which is the basic reason given for our not requiring confirming RfAs.

It is also true I consider the first part of the closing wrong on its face. It was based on WP:Arguments not to use , which says at the top "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." To use that to imply a guideline or policy is an error. People too often quote things without reading them. To say, as I do, that WP, being an encyclopedia, should have a certain amount of consistency, and this is best done by keeping (or deleting) all of a certain class of articles is a perfectly valid argument. To say it is good practice to go on as we have been doing is the sort of conservative position I support.

My way of dealing with persistent disputes is to try to compromise them, not exacerbate them. I see posting this here as an attempt to do just the opposite. I have of course no need to respond here, but I don't like to miss a chance to explain how I see things. I don't expect to convert my opponents, but I do hope to convince the audience. And perhaps then I can persuade even my opponents to compromise. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I may be misreading this but it looks like you are basically doing exactly what Necrothesp has been doing and which he has been told to stop? And you are trying to justify it even now? Why are you different? - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am just going to answer your question,not argue general issues: I was suggesting how to deal with a particular article on a subject that was not covered by the relevant RfC: the close did not discuss primary schools. My recommendation was exactly how the AfD closed. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause stress, nor to make an accusation of wrongdoing at AfD. I posted here because I'd been here for a totally unrelated reason (the section just below this one), and I saw this, and I thought it was all sort of a funny coincidence, with the identically-named "Evergreen Public School", just a couple of days later. Just idle chat really, and also wanting to understand the issue better. If there's any difference between arguing "on the basis of the schools compromise" (whatever that is) and "on the basis of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES", I can't see what it is. So I asked some people who obviously know more about it than I do. To be honest, I find calling me your opponent and accusing me of attempting to exacerbate disputes (if you were talking to me), just because I asked a question on someone's talk page, seems a bit ironic. One other thing, there's now an example in "arguments to avoid" that specifically says not to use WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in connection with primary schools, so it's not accurate in general to say that the RfC said nothing about primary schools. In any case, I didn't come here to participate in a dispute, I was just curious to hear what people thought. It's interesting to see how things get worked out and to hear the different opinions. Thanks DGG for taking the time to explain your point of view. --IamNotU (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

{{U|IamNotU}. I apologize--}I'm sorry if I implied you have been principally involved in pushing the viewpoint. You have not been. I wrote my response thinking more generally. Controversies tend to overgeneralize, and this is an example. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Checkpoint Charlie redaction

Hi, thanks for taking care of the redaction on the Checkpoint Charlie Museum article. However, the original revision that introduced the copyrighted material is still there, 727198500 from 10:04, 27 June 2016. Also revision 822257239 from 09:20, 25 January 2018 has the material, because someone reverted the removal I'd done. I did put in the template the range of 727198500 to 822202065 inclusive when I added it. I updated it a couple of days later to also include 822257239, after the revert. I've never used this template before, did I make a mistake? --IamNotU (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• No you didn't, but I didn't go by way of the template. I deleted two more; check me, if you don't mind, to see if that covers everything. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are the two I meant, thanks. Looks like one got marked RD2 instead of RD1, but I guess it's not important. I did make a mistake though, because there was some additional material from another source that I didn't find until later, and I forgot to update the request. Maybe you could also do everything from rev 822220035 at 02:44, 25 January 2018 to 822528839 22:09 26 January 2018, inclusive? I think that should cover it. --IamNotU (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Almost there! I asked for the above range, because when I did the first removal, I left in some text that was from a different source, which I only found later. It's just a short paragraph, the description of the "From Gandhi to Walesa" exhibition, but it's a direct copypaste from the Museum's website, http://www.mauermuseum.de/en/index.html section "Further Exhibitions". Sorry about the multiple requests... --IamNotU (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologize: I'm always trying to not delete too much. I just did the one I think you meant--it had some material in the lead, no? Drmies (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember there being anything in the lead, and not quite sure which one you just did there. Revisions 822220035, 822257991, 822257991, and 822528839, still have the text about the "Gandhi to Walesa" exhibition. Basically, every version from 08:19, 28 June 2016 to 22:09, 26 January 2018, inclusive, contains some copyrighted text from the Museum's website or pdf flyer. It seems like a lot of history to be hidden, but I guess that's the policy? As I said I'm new to this redacting thing... --IamNotU (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead (still) has hot-air balloons, which I saw in one of the sources--please check if that material crosses the line. I don't do well with those diff numbers, BTW--I'm not that fancy. And of course I try to keep as much as I can. I just RD1ed another two including the 22:09 edit--part of my problem here was I was doing this in between doing other things, haha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The two remaining ones, from 02:44 and 09:30 on 25 January 2018, still have text copypasted from the museum's website. It's just three sentences, the description of the Gandhi exhibit. I should have removed it but I hadn't realized it at the time. I think the lead is ok, the information is taken from the web site but it's not too close of a paraphrase. I'll try to edit it a little anyway. --IamNotU (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

02:44 and 09:30 are already gone. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I can still see them, here and here. --IamNotU (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

All done now, thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Massimo Negrotti

Just as an FYI, I made similar edits to this page trying to trim out the fluff, when I finally decided to put it up for AfD. However, soonafter, an IP claiming to be the subject of the article started adding everything back. Since it was going through AfD, I decided not to edit war over it. Just thought you should be prepared in case User:2.234.169.168 comes back and reverts everything. Angryapathy (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• I see that that IP has indeed visited; fortunately User:Justlettersandnumbers seems to think we were on the right track. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I do, and thanks to both – I merely carried on with more of the same. However, I seem to be on the wrong track myself, as the lone voice maintaining at AfD that a senior professor in one of the most respected universities in the country is notable per WP:PROF. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia

I've found more disruptive material from IP 175.158.211.146 which looks exactly the same as what you've removed from the latest two vandalism edits. In addition, we should also remove the edit summary timed at 20:08 and 20:09 (UTC). Iggy (Swan) 20:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm out the door--Zzuuzz can also see what I've done blockwise and may have a suggestion if this comes back. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've also seen this "Lorem ipsum" vandal at 121.54.44.0/24, which has been blocked for four months. They've been behind the vandalism at Dragon Quest Heroes: The World Tree's Woe and the Blight Below as well and behavior suggests that they belong to sockmaster My Royal Young. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a joy. Thanks. Maybe you can add my recent range block to the list; maybe Zzuuzz or someone else should consider lengthening it. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a list of pre-prepared ranges at the LTA page. It's really just a case of picking the appropriate range and hitting the button. Though I'd also recommend disabling talk and using one of the more useful ACC/CU block messages. Today's vandalism seems fairly limited, so I won't block the larger range at this time, but probably next time.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't use CU. Sure, I'll disable talk next time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Did some more looking around and found an almost definite association with My Royal Young. [1] –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

You are receiving this message because you thanked me for this edit [2]. Per Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know, there is to be no alluding, joking, thanking, thinking, winking, blinking, nodding, or interpretive dance relating to Donald Trump and "the country of Russia". Seriously, can you remove this bizarre notice, please? EEng 17:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I thought you were joking. I mean, with this template. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I was joking of course. What's gobsmacking is that Coffee wasn't joking. It's incredible, stunning, fantastic that he thought he could do something like that. I'm reminded of [3]. We truly live in dangerous times. EEng 17:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to be of service, though I hope you know I'm more sympathetic to Coffee than you are. Then again, I am probably also more sympathetic to you than Coffee is. Don't know about this strange Serial Number, below--what a character. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A is more sympathetic to B than C is to A, C is more sympathetic to A than B is to B... Is this one of these problems where I'm now supposed to specify the remaining Fascist? EEng 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What a coincidence--someone (a "liberal progressive") called me a fascist on Facebook this morning. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

<stops practicing his interpretive dance routine and walks away in a huff> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

At least I can have a rational discussion with someone about fair and legitimate arguments for Britain to leave the EU - I have yet to see a Trump supporter (as very distinct from a GOP despite Trump supporter) who doesn't throw around words like "libtard" and "snowflake" like they get paid by the bucketload for them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

<stops nodding in time to MPants at work's interpretative dance>... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you, but this needs attending to as well: [4]. Notice the edit summary says "will also add to BLP log" so maybe that's some additional nonsense that needs undoing. EEng 18:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No bother, was just heating up lunch. Will you steer clear of the DYK? Drmies (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A bit late for that [5]. Why should I steer clear of the DYK? Maybe (and I wouldn't blame you) you didn't read the two threads -- one at the DYK nom page and one at T:DYK -- but I'm just one of the many discussants, just the one who stood up to Mr. Big Man Sheriff In Town. Tell Ritchie333 to steer clear -- he's the one that started this whole thing by making the original nomination with the original hook. He's a bad influence. EEng 18:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

He is, but he's a decent keyboard player. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but he's only got one record... :p >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody merge this notice with that one on Mr Pants' talk page, so we can have "You may NOT tell other editors to go swivel?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do. Please, god, I'm begging you, use my talk page edit notice for something official. It will restore my faith in humanity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• On an actual serious note (for a change), Coffee is also running for Steward [6]. I find this odd and concerning given the multiple instances of very heavy-handed and controversial behavior since his return to Wikipedia two months ago. Pinging NeilN, Winkelvi, and Cullen328. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: There's a sitewide notice about elections due to go up on February 8th. The notice does not mention candidate names so editors will have to be interested enough to click through to the election page and see who's running. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of folks who have a problem with Coffee. If they want to make their opinions known, there's a vote for that. There's no need to run a campaign for or against them before that time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I had noticed this too. As recent events IRL have shown us, it's a danger much closer to possibility than anyone ever dreamed that someone would be elected to a powerful office of trust and responsibility having no concept at all of the principles he's supposed to be uphold via that office. I think we should neutrally encourage others to vote (when voting opens Feb 8) -- no need to mention names, as I have little doubt people will know what to do when they see the ballot. Scary thought, though. EEng 19:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Saylor requests

Hi Drmies, sometime in the near future I expect to have additional requests for the Michael Saylor article, and this message here is simply to ask: since you have become involved with this article, shall I continue pinging you, or not? If you've done quite enough already and would prefer to leave it behind, that's fine. If however you prefer to have oversight or feel responsibility, then I can. I'm always mindful of not appearing to canvass, but also not avoiding those with a vested interest. Figured it made sense to allow you to state your view. (And note, I'm leaving a similar message with TonyB.) Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I appreciate the note. I don't want to ascribe "oversight" to myself, but I know what you mean. Sure, go ahead and ping me, but I may not always be around--since, as you know, my labor here is unpaid (except for those 64,000 pounds of tungsten uranium or whatever it was, still clogging up my driveway; what are the odds Inlinetext would be driving by my house on the way it was delivered?). Drmies (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Totally fair, I'll give a courtesy ping on the next round, but don't feel obligated. And yes, please hang onto that uranium deposit for me—Mr. Manafort says he'll need it again once all the controversies are wiped from his page. ;) WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Would someone close...

Hey Drmies and any interested stalkers, would someone please complete the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Hester? The nominator withdrew the nomination, and partially closed it, but not completely. Since I am involved, I don't want to be the one to do it. Thanks, LadyofShalott 23:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

​ Done. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! LadyofShalott 23:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

User:OKAnotherAccount

I notice that a year-and-a-half ago, you deleted a bunch of subpages for OKAnotherAccount (talk · contribs). Are these pages (Special:PrefixIndex/User:OKAnotherAccount/) similar? --Calton | Talk 16:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just happened to see this, and took a look. It seems clear to me that this user is just messing around with no intentions of creating an article. So I've deleted a couple of the more egregious examples straight out, and have left them a warning. Hope you don't mind. Vanamonde (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks--gave me time to repair a fence. Now I just need to get my neighbor to pay for it. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Abbatai 11:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Alabama Land Change

DrMies, there was never a reference on the original land measurements for Alabama. I also got the information off of census.gov, an official website. I'm not the best with Wikipedia so I do apologize but it was a minor, but correct, change. 2013AtlantaBraves (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter, Braves fan--you made a change (actually, you keep making changes) without a. leaving an edit summary and b. providing a reference. See WP:CITE on how to do this. I blocked an editor today for making unverified and unexplained changes (indefinitely--it was a chronic problem), and an IP got blocked yesterday for the same thing. I don't like placing such blocks, and I did see you were warned for this before. I mean, you can at least just give an edit summary, can't you? And if you know the source, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to do this, and there's plenty of editors who can help you with this. Plus, you'll be an appreciated member of the community and if anyone reverts you, you have the high ground. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• I see you just reverted again--just don't do that. The next admin may not look very kindly on this, and your edit looks like, well it looks like it could be made by a vandal, since nothing signals that you're editing in good faith and with good sources. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Okay, I understand. I will learn how to cite better. My apologies for not being able to right now. I do appreciate you being kind to me, it will be remembered. You have a good day! Oh, and Roll Tide. I'm ready for the 2018 season with Najee Harris and Tua Tagovailoa :D Roll Tide again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2013AtlantaBraves (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Doc James, Doug Weller, what do you think? You two left notes on their talk page; certainly their heart is in the right place. Doc, how many downs on a final drive does it take Tua to win a national championship? Drmies (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe one more... But Yah references are needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @2013AtlantaBraves: yes, references are vital, and edit summaries are a key form of communication. You say you understand, so I think we will expect to see edit summaries and sourced edits. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case reminder

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Now! 52 (UK)

I created a new page for Now! 52 (UK), then it got redirected. I'm trying to know why the final decision was to redirect the page same thing with Now! 51 (UK). Please reply ASAP. Thanks! Dat!45 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• That doesn't exist. I don't know what you mean--what I do know is that those compilation albums are a waste of time and server space. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, you know this better than me, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything is a Hungarian invention!

​ Done. —  I do not edit the English wikipedia anymore because there are as strange minded peoples are here. By the way, I did not start off the offensive manifestation, but I said back to his insulting. I have just edited here, because I have categorized things with Hungarian relevance, but it is not possible, and because my mother tongue is not English, so I can not properly express myself. Thank you, goodbye.

Close on Racial views of Donald Trump

You had a few questions it looked like in your closing statement here that I was hoping to address.

He said she said. That was in reference to Durbin vs Kirstjen Nielsen (The she who was at the meeting), Tom Cotton, and David Perdue. Cotton and Perdue both confirming "sentiment [attributed to Trump] is totally phony"

With regards to Graham's statement, Graham refused to confirm or deny hearing Trump's words stating "[I] said my piece directly to [Trump]."

The denied vs recalled, Cotton and Perdue's first joint statement was did not hear him say that. Which they later clarified to it's totally phony.

All this information is currently in the racial views article in the "Shithole countries" countries section with appropriate sources to each. Does that clear some of that up? PackMecEng (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. If you have another go at it (obviously many editors had a problem of one kind or another with your phrasing, but that's easily handled) it would be a good idea to include relevant evidence when you make your case, yes. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User: Ehtech2000

I'm a relative newbie to the community, and I've read a lot of Wikipedia policy documentation recently, yet I admit I'm not cognizant of a lot of the 'community' based stuff. Forgive my ignorance of the norms of editors in this community. I am learning as I go.

I made an addition this evening to the Patchwork Man article, that I thought would benefit other users. The edit added note that a character called "patchwork man", having many similarities to the DC Comics Patchwork Man appears in the new Netflix series Altered Carbon. Within less than a minute -- in fact, it was probably less than 5 seconds -- my changes had disappeared, even though Wikipedia responded with a success message. I made the edit on my phone, I clearly explained in my comment the what and why of my edit. After about 2 minutes, I discovered that the edit had been reverted. This segment shows the pertinent revision history including my comment on what I contributed:

• (cur | prev) 02:01, 10 February 2018‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,662 bytes) (-41)‎ . . (→‎Plot: the usual verbosity) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 02:00, 10 February 2018‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,703 bytes) (-450)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 805533963 by Jtalledo (talk): Rv: unverified trivia. (TW)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
• (cur | prev) 01:59, 10 February 2018‎ Ehtech2000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,153 bytes) (+450)‎ . . (→‎Plot: Adds popular culture section and reference to patchwork man and Russian twins in Netflix series Altered Carbon.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)

So, now I have a few questions:

1. I have visited both user Talk pages for User:Drmies and User:Jtalledo and they both are very confusing in their structure. For instance, as I believe that my contribution should not have been removed, I am trying to find away to communicate with the user that removed it.
2. Where is the appropriate page to ask the user (in following the advice of this help post: https://ask.wikiedu.org/question/175/my-edits-got-deleted-what-do-i-do/) why they reverted my edit? In normal society I would try to communicate in private channels, but I can see no way to do that here (no 'message user' or any such thing).
3. It appears to say that Jtalledo reverted my contribution, but the comment left is very terse "'unverified trivia'". This requires clarification. It is not trivia because it IS important new information.
4. Based on the " TW link, I think some bot/software/app auto-reverted my change and left the 'unverified trivia' comment. How do I tell a software bot that it is wrong and that it may not be 'verified' information, but I'm watching it unfold in front of me??? Yes, that is frustration ... but, as long as Wiki has been around, I'm sure I'm not the first wiki editor to be frustrated because a robotic software zapped them.

If I did something wrong, please let me know clearly so that I can avoid that mistake in the future. Also, how do I cite a TV show I'm watching right in front of me? I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm not asking for pity. I'm just trying to understand.

Any help is appreciated. -- Ehtech2000 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not much to explain, it deserved to be removed

I've read too much crap lately and ran across yet another opinionated piece disguised as facts. I don't care enough to explain more and certainly don't want to waste more time on wikipedia, feel free to do whatever. Btw if you don't think NYT publishes some fake news, you are just ignorant. AnthonyCheng (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, thanks, I suppose, that you cared enough to leave me this. You don't seem to understand what "fake news" means. Errors or whatever aren't fake news--deliberate falsehoods, that's fake news. And the burden would be on you to prove that that particular article was incorrect, but I see you didn't care enough to make that case. If you change your mind, you can explain the matter on Talk:Hong Kong Canadians. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)