Open main menu

Q re 1932

Dr, Q for you: do you have the auth to lift a 1932– sanction? (Background. I was "naughty" intentionally re political articles to make some contrarian points. I used to edit Donald Trump; however, since he won in 2016, I have zero interest to edit or add or subtract content in not only that article, but any article re politics or politicians. Ever! With the single exception of making MoS-type punctuation like MOS:LQ or MOS:NDASH corrections [as a "thank you" when I read such articles for self-education/curiosity/etc.].) Thx for consideration and/or guidance, whatever the Dr orders. Sincere, --IHTS (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • IHTS, not by myself, no--can you link to the discussion/topic ban notice/etc? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Thx for reply. [1]
      (I remember thinking when it was applied, it was permanent. Now for first time am noticing this: "is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics [...] until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier." (Does mean it expired & am under no restriction!? Am so confused! [If I've overlooked something, don't know what it is.]) --IHTS (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I *am* geninely confused. Apparently I have an outstanding topic ban!? I rec'd this warning, but it's May 2017 well after the expiration described. (What am I missing or not understanding?) --IHTS (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • MrX, I assume this was a minor brain fart. Yes, IHTS, your topic ban should be vacated (I mean, "be in a state of vacatedness"--there's nothing that needs to be done to vacate it)--Lankiveil, I think you made that close?--and this should not restrict you in any way. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks Dr.
          Without looking or checking, & from my own memory & MrX's warning too, it seemed a fair assumption the expiration had been added later, not only to my acct but assumedly a swath of 1932- sanctions as some sort of modification. But apparently not! More than two have been fooled by this (e.g. also Bishonen [2]; also GoldenRing [3]; also TParis [4]; also Anythingyouwant [5]; also EvergreenFir [6]; and more!), so it is a small perplexing [psychological!?] phenomenon.) --IHTS (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Hmm, yes. OK, strange. But they're all from 2017, so that's the good part, I suppose. Lankiveil, is there's something I'm missing? Drmies (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Um, at first I thought you're right (i.e. isolated to 2017), then I looked & discovered I was blocked in 2018 twice for 1932- violations: on Jan 22 by admin MastCell [7], and on Jan 30 by admin GoldenRing [8].
              Wouldn't it be standard protocol for an admin to check first that a sanction is outstanding, before blocking for it?! And, if the blocks are truly out-of-bounds, can they be scratched from my blocklog? (Some users, e.g. most recently users Softlavender and Iridescent, love to ridicule or attack me based on "length of his block log". I care not so much about that [Eric has a long block log and in my dreams could I be as good a WP editor & outstanding decent/ethical person as he], but it seems like all items in any user's block log s/b at least technically legit. Are they?) --IHTS (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
              in my dreams could I be as good a WP editor & outstanding decent/ethical person as he – Pardon me while I vomit. In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. A line from the conclusion of Wells’s story seems strangely apt, actually: “[He] lay quite still there, smiling as if he were content now merely to have escaped from the valley of the Blind, in which he had thought to be King.” EEng 12:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
              Hmm the fine points probably escape me, but I love Eric as a human being. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
              Since you and Arid Desiccant aren’t fools, I can only conclude that we should add Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde to the canon of Eric Corbett literary allusions. EEng 23:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
              • @Ihardlythinkso: A cursory examination of WP:DSLOG shows that you have an outstanding, indefinite ban from all post-1932 American politics, which was imposed (by me) on 10 May, 2017. See this AE discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                • That explains it, thank u. (How can I request that it be lifted? I have no interest to edit content or Talks on any political bio.) --IHTS (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • @Ihardlythinkso: You can appeal to me, to AE, to AN or to the committee at ARCA. The standard in any of these venues is going to be that you can convince those to whom you are appealing that the sanction is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. I'm not particularly opposed to lifting it, but "I'm not interested in the topic any more" is not enough. Appeals saying that the ban is unnecessary because you'll abide by it anyway aren't usually successful and I wouldn't support one. GoldenRing (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • "Abide by it anyway"?! (I don't know what that means. It certainly doesn't apply to me.) Not sure what your standard is or what you are looking for. (Can you specify?) This is irritating, because it seems you want or are looking for public self-humiliation, which I'm not going to "give", and even if I did, I have no idea specifically about what. (Please specify if you think that's helpful.) All I can tell you is that I purposely created disruption at Donald Trump to make a WP:POINT, and that I have no interest to edit any political biography including that one, except for punctuation fixes (MOS:DASH; MOS:HYPHEN; MOS:LQ; etc.) I find when reading for my own education, as "thank u" to the article contributors. Regarding an article that is not a political bio like Shooting of Kate Steinle, I possibly created some disruption-type dispute there; however, that won't be possible going forward. (Why? Because, to be honest, I've given up on the Wikipedia re politcal left-leaning bias. The whole world knows that WP is a biased source of info re political articles. If I would ever make a change to such an article [for example, changing "undocumented immigrant" to "illegal alien", which I have done in the past], I'd only state my basis for it with WP:RS justification, but I have no appetite to fight the tide of reversion that would ensue due to said indisputable WP liberal bias. It simply is a lost cause. Wikipedia will have to find someway, somehow, to repair it's image over time, over years, however I am not interested to participate or subject myself to such endeavor, since it is fraught with stress, an ocean of editor push-back, which if contended, leads to ANI or AN or ARfAR, and I have no interest to be involved in such deck-stacked skirmishes & disputes, not now or ever going forward. Life is too short, and I accept WP's limitations re articles falling under 1932- politics, it is simply not my interest, and the skirmishes to evolve WP to more neutrality re them is further no longer my interest beyond the couple protests I did levy back then which resulted in the 1932- restrictions. I'd like to be able to read articles & improve punctuation etc as mentioned as thank you as mentioned, w/o being under sanction.) Sincerely submitted, --IHTS (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • GoldenRing, if the above isn't sufficient, w/ like to know what specifically you're looking for. (Because I may not be able to give it beyond what I've already messaged above.) Sincere, --IHTS (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • Should also point out, that it won't be possible that I any longer make insulting messages to editors (like MrX) whom I perceive as aggressive liberal editors responsible for biasing articles to left-leaning, as I know I have done in the past (which may or may not have contributed to my ban, am not sure). (For the same reasons as already stated: It's pointless & futile, creates only disruption, and is not my responsibility, "job", or interest beyond the already-levied remarks made in the 2016/17 timeframe.) Sincere, --IHTS (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • GoldenRing, curious to know ... If my 1932- ban expired in 2016, on what basis did you re-apply it (indefinite) in May 2017?! (The conversation I had with Doc on my Talk? On what basis? Did I violate WP:BLP? Which bio, and how? Did I participate in disallowed political chit-chat? Before you anwswer, please familiarize w/ EEng's user page, searching on 'Trump' for what numerous political & personal disparaging things are recorded there.) --IHTS (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • Re my reference above re self-humilation, your edit here to Eric Corbett was the type of thing I had in mind. (That kind of "parenting" is deameaning to anybody, especially the likes of someone the likes of EC. And especially in context of his rich writing & editing background & contributions to WP over many years to recently & well before my time on WP. He did not respond to your unnecessary and out-of-line "parenting" post, but perhaps you can figure his position re it from this post from 2012:

                      The blocking policy, or more precisely what has become the practice for blocking, treats non-admin editors like naughty children. Which is quite simply insulting, and in itself a violation of the civility policy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

                      Frankly, this is the type of imbalance that drives a divide between admins & reg editors, as well as part of the toxic environment that drives longstanding content contributors away permanent. You scolded him for "not learning", which was simultaneously unnecessary & insulting, I am sure, forcing me to question whether it was you not him needing to learn a different approach.) Thanks for consider. --IHTS (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, do you actually have any diffs for Some users, e.g. most recently users Softlavender and Iridescent, love to ridicule or attack me based on "length of his block log" or are you just making shit up? There isn't some special exemption from WP:NPA that means you can make up whatever crap you like about someone else, provided you post it on a page where you don't think they'll see it. As far as I can tell, other than your 2018 block—for which I drew the short straw precisely because I'd never had any previous interaction with you—the only comment I've ever made to you in any context other than three comments at the time of your block (the block notice, a clarification that there were no time limits and that you could appeal immediately, and an explanation that I didn't feel it was appropriate to review your appeal myself and that it was better that a neutral party judge it) was this single comment in relation to your bizarre assertion that police officers never swear at the public (I've spent the better part of 20 years working closely with police officers in a wide range of locations and branches; I can assure you that they do), which made no mention of your—or anyone else's—block log. ‑ Iridescent 16:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Don't know what you're talking about. I'm no enemy of yours in any way. You did however attempt to humiliate me at the public RfA, didn't you, with ref to my block log after I criticized Softlavender for doing the same thing? (And why is it you admins always reach for the blocking bat as threat-leverage for discussion re comments you disliked?) p.s. I made no "bizarre assertion", apparently you like to use Drmies Talk page to attack me here on off-topic issue, it's not appropriate here. Iridescent, please get a life! --IHTS (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
      • IHTS, for the second time, if you think I "humiliated you at the public RfA with ref to your block log" you can damn well point out what I said and where I said it. I've just provided you above with what—as far as I know—is every comment I have ever made to or about you, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. If you can find me making any comment that could even be remotely considered "ridiculing and attacking me based on the length of his block log", feel free to point it out and I'll duly apologise. If you can't—which you won't—you can knock off this martyr routine and apologise for making shit up. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Iridescent, your attack here didn't deserve reply, I don't ever "make shit up", ever. (Ever!) That's insulting, calling me dishonest. p.s. I have not read you in full here after that, w/ exception I noticed you try to attack my "police" post again, which just tells me you're itching for a catfight here. Not appropriate. Please calm down. (BTW you're making me hate this place, i.e. WP. Attitudes re you & Goldenring. Enjoy!) --IHTS (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
          • At risk of further sullying Drmies' talk page, I think IHTS is taking exception to this, but better to sort this out in other venues. Choess (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I think we are already well past the point where I or my talk page can be useful here. IHTS, any further requests in regards to your topic ban should be made at AE (right?); good luck with them. As for Iridescent: I do not see where Iridescent is attacking you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Bridge over the River … Parrots?

 
This is not even like a bridge over troubled water.
  • Dos Papagaios River (AfD discussion)
  • Ponte dos Papagaios [pt]
  • "PONTE DO RIO DOS PAPAGAIOS" (in Portuguese). SECRETARIA DA CULTURA PATRIMÔNIO CULTURAL.

Lurkers bored of all of the K-Pop and other Northern stuff might enjoy some Brazilian history. Uncle G (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

For the norteamericanos

M. Callan 425 will enjoy more missing California history that AFD has turned up. There are no nearby freeways, but there used to be a railway. Uncle G (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for my new username, Uncle G. Humboldt County is a bit far away from me, especially since it is a two lane highway about 90% of the way. It is a 4-1/2 hour drive for me to Eureka, the county seat, when traffic is good. I only get there every couple of years. My brother lived there about 35 years ago, when he was "in the business", and one of my nieces was born and raised there. Yes, there is the two-lane US highway, 101, which is the main route there, and then there is a very, very remote road that follows the Lost Coast. I drove that road once, and once was enough for me. And then there are the roads and trails that lead east from 101, into wild, semi-wilderness areas, where the pot growers control all the tiny hippie towns and hamlets. It is another world. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd say take the railway instead, but the AFD discussion is so far all about things that do not exist any more. I notice that you haven't re-visited that Fat's thing. Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Talking

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Mutt Lunker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your comment on my talk page

im not sure what revert I did that was wrong. An interesting comparison perhaps between [9] and [10] at Wordpress.com. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The IP was correct with this edit. I don't think you ever reinstated that edit, but others did. BTW I just dropped a week-long block on the other IP, whose edits are indeed remarkably similar, for a smear. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Have you folks never heard of WP:PINGs or WP:TALKBACK? Or does Doug simply want to be with the popular kids? Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Erm. Doug *is* the popular kid here, the rest of us are just his groupies. :-) Risker (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hey Drmies! This was copied in large part from this. Noticing you reverted the edit, could you revision delete it as well? Best regards, Vermont (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

I've just spotted you reverted a BLP issue on my talk page. Just wondering if you can say it was at me or about a page I have edited in the past. If you can't say, I understand. Red Jay (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • No, it really had nothing to do with you. Thanks, 21:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon

[11] I don't know what more could have been said, short of "this is about his sister, not him, and doesn't belong in an article about him". I thought we'd been clear enough. I'm worried that we have several editors who believe that everything ever said on a news report belongs on Wikipedia, and if it's not important enough for an article of its own, they'll find another article to shoehorn it in. I suppose, though, that the real tragedy is that the murder is completely not notable, and if not for the salacious gossipy bit, wouldn't have even rated more than a paragraph in the local paper. Risker (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • It just boggles the mind. You get reverted, you get warned by two administrators at least one of whom is Methusalem's age, and you go do it again. I wonder if they'll ever challenge this. Thanks Risker, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

relax

i was just trying to be helpful, other people have their bio pages with info on their siblings, and since it was recent big news that his sister's crime showed up i added to the wiki page. so no need for you to be powertripping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YipB (talkcontribs) 01:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Sign your messages, YipB. Risker, this person added the same inappropriate information as the editor I just blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Drmies. I've left him a pretty detailed message about the serious nature of the BLP violation on his talk page. Risker (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Just noting here...both of the accounts involved in this stuff have very low edit counts. While the other (now-blocked) account had received a lot of warnings specific to BLP issues, YipB (with fewer than 200 edits) didn't seem to have crossed the same threshold. Thus, I've left a pretty detailed explanation on his talk page about why adding this sort of stuff is a problem. I'm doing that out of the goodness of my old heart, and hoping that it has a net positive effect, but I'm not quite sure if I'd be doing the same thing for an account with 500+ edits. Speaking of which, given that the article in question is a BLP and thus covered under discretionary sanctions, it might be worth considering whether extended confirmed protection should be applied; it has been in the past, for more or less similar reasons (i.e., BLP violations by autoconfirmed accounts). Risker (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you Risker. I'm not a big fan of this confirmed protection, but if this kind of stuff (this TMZ editing) continues, something will need to be done. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Petro Kilekwa

 On 9 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Petro Kilekwa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Petro Kilekwa from Zambia was enslaved because his mother could not pay the ransom – eight yards (7.3 m) of calico cloth? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Petro Kilekwa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Petro Kilekwa), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you one of the better editors that criticize me so much?

User talk:Doug Weller#Wikilawyering is Bad Editing. Hm, looking at his talk page he's had a thing about the need for sources for years. :-) Doug Weller talk 17:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ernst Dammann

  Hello! Your submission of Ernst Dammann at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the reminder! Drmies (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

AfriForum

The edit war at AfriForum continues. Bishonen | talk 18:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

Sweet Home … er …

If M. Callan 425 can take the non-existent train to South Fork without stopping off to eat along the way, then you can nip over to Tennessee during your lunch hour to look for sources about a very recently dead person. No cheating and using all of that JSTORerry and stuff, now. Uncle G (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Hmm I'd love to but we got a new puppy. (Its name is Porter.) Drmies (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I will steer clear of the gendering or possibly misgendering of the animal, but, once there are enough independent reliable sources that discuss it in detail, the best article title will probably be Porter (dog). MPS1992 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He has a little penis, which he uses to pee on the rug. He's really kind of cute, but cocker spaniels have a tendency to look kind of dumb. My standards for dogs are high, because Sadie. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bad revert?

Drmies, I know this [[12]] is content you support but doesn't Consensus say in the case of a dispute the material stays out until there is a new consensus? I think there is a consensus for exclusion but even if I'm wrong, is there a consensus for inclusion? Aren't we at best/worst just at no consensus? Springee (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Maybe, but there is no BLP exemption and the content is well verified--and I don't see any clear consensus. I looked over Azerty82's edit, and it is a good set of edits. I just left a note on the talk page providing even more sourcing for why this particular speech was deemed, by the Dutch and Belgian press for instance, to be of great importance. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • But NOCON doesn't address just BLP. It says In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.. If we both agree there is no consensus for inclusion (you saying no consensus either way and me saying consensus against) then we should default to removal until consensus is achieved. BTW, I am here because I remembered something that you said. "Finally I'll break a lance for Springee, an editor with whom I frequently disagree (because foolishly they disagree with me)..." I cut it off there because the rest was effusive complements :D [[13]] I'm only half kidding, I'm here because your comment really reinforced the idea that we need to respect others and follow the rules even when we don't like the outcomes. I think the "rules" are clear in this case, new material, no consensus for inclusion, remove until a new consensus is reached. Part of my frustration has been BMK clearly ignoring such rules with claims like "we need consensus to remove". Springee (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I know it doesn't address the BLP--that's not my point. There is no consensus to exclude, it is well-verified, it is argued to be relevant--so whether it should stay or go is, to some extent, a flip of the coin. However, you will have noted, I think, that I did not support (by commenting or edit-warring) BMK's earlier version, since I thought that was going too far. This revised text, however, is significantly different, and does not, for instance, say the pep talk has "some of the primary characteristics of right-wing populism", a phrase that can be construed as synth/OR. Plus, after having read the German, French, Belgian, and Dutch coverage of the speech, I think some editors just don't realize the importance of Bannon's speech to European r-w populism. It's huge: it is the first time, as far as I know, that an American ideologue comes to Europe to school a party congress on how to do their thing, and the European press covered it so much because it is such a unique thing--an American who doesn't come to bring democracy or rock and roll, but something entirely different. And it was a turning point for the FN as well. Then, throw in Bannon's The Movement, which he planned to set up in Brussels (mentioned in one or two of the articles I linked), and you have something really important. Fighting over excluding that one short section which is so incredibly well supported seems silly to me. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That the speech was significant makes discussion of the speech due, not the inclusion of a specific quote. Also, again, policy is no consensus => return to previous stable text. It isn't add new material => no consensus => retain because no consensus to remove. I'm going to try to butter you up again... come on, you are an admin, you know you are supposed to set an example of how to strictly follow policy. ;) Springee (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If you look at a dozen different news articles from reputable sources in three or four different languages, and all of them or almost all of them include that particular quote, then that particular quote is worthy of inclusion. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Good Day Drmies, regarding David Dobrik's page i apologize if i end up adding too many tables in his page, i am still new to editing the wiki and i appreciate the help that you did, and the reason i added those tables is based on me just copying existing tables from various person's page like how in liza koshy or gabbie hanna's page they have a television table where it was listed that they either co-hosted a show, a contestant on another show or have their guest appearances listed too, so i thought since david co-hosted a show, became a judge and a guest judge that its ok to add them too. I guess i thought the wiki has a uniformed format that every page should be ok to have the same thing on their pages and not just nitpick which page deserves to have certain infos while the other doesnt even if they have the similar accomplishments.

In the future is it ok to use your edits to david dobrik's page as a basis me to also help clean up other existing pages with the same content? i already deleted the podcast table in jason nash and logan paul's page for the sake of uniformity since it only listed them guesting or hosting their own podcast or youtube channel and so on similar to david's page and when im free i can also help look around various pages and do the same things. Thank you for your time. Princeton294 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Princeton294, thanks for the note. The key is always WP:RS. Content needs to be sourced with reliable, independent, secondary sources--not just to verify accuracy, but also to indicate that something is worth remarking on. For instance, that someone is vegan, or Jewish, or a Marxist, or appeared in a TV commercial or a podcast isn't of encyclopedic interest until secondary sources make it so, by discussing it. A passing mention doesn't help much either. That is, an "accomplishment" isn't an accomplishment until secondary sources make it so. Now not all editors agree on exactly how this should be done--for instance, with musicians we typically list every album if we can prove that it was recorded and released. We should not, in my opinion, list every mixtape, or every time they played on someone else's album or tour, unless secondary sources comment on it, but others feel differently. But in this case, that seemed uncontroversial to me--and you noted, I'm sure, how many YouTube-related articles list dozens and dozens of YouTube links--that's not a healthy situation. In the end, it's also more rewarding to look for and use secondary sources, because they allow you to write stuff about stuff--not just summarizing it and saying it existed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing populism

You might want to keep an eye on this article, because I just added a quote from an historian saying that right-wing populism is "a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism." and it was immediately removed by Springee, on the grounds that the historian said it in a media source, and not in an academic one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK, you might mention that, one, you were edit warring rather than going to the talk page to discuss it. Two, that you have been casting aspersions and questioning my motives on the talk page which is a violation of CIVIL. Three, that you have ignored ONUS and CONSENSUS. When new material is challenged it is on you, the editor trying to add it to get consensus. If its just the two of us and your logic is better than mine then a third editor will side with you and consensus will be decided. If your reasoning isn't that strong then we will have no CONSENSUS and policy says restore the last stable version of the text. Also, your summary of my reasoning is not correct or at least is misleading. The entire section is sourced to scholarly articles except the redundant material you added which is sourced to a media article (written by a scholar) summarizing the rather shocking claims of another scholar. Springee (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Springee, but that is a really poor reason. The man is obviously notable (you could write his article--wouldn't take too long), and Politico is a reliable and notable source. That BMK questions your motives if you are trying to keep that one quote out isn't so strange--and that quote is not "rather shocking"--it is not shocking at all, and I don't know why you would think that. Has right-wing populism been so normalized that it is now the center? If you read the work of Hans-Georg Betz, esp. Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe (cited twice in the article), you will see that it is not a shocking quote at all. BTW there is much work to do here; you could start by writing a section on digital media (Schroeder, Ralph (2018). "Digital Media and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism". Social Theory after the Internet: Media, Technology, and Globalization. London: UCL Press. pp. 60–81.).

Indeed, if you were to read more scholarly material you might be really shocked, to learn that opinions such as this one, "Black Lives Matter (BLM) has effectively educated the nation about the cavalier use of racist deadly force (on and off the campus) and the real nature of undemocratic governance", are found in academic publications (Reitz, Charles (2018). "Opposing Authoritarian Populism: The Challenge and Necessity of a New World System". In Morelock, Jeremiah (ed.). Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism. University of Westminster Press.). But that's neither here nor there. In the end, I just wonder why you are shocked by the quote--xenophobia ("Mexicans are rapists"), racism ("shithole countries") and authoritarianism are simply part and parcel of right-wing populism. That this is deadly--you might could take objection to that, but for a lot of people this is clear. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, first, would you please let BMK know that Wiki policies DO apply to them? Even if they don't agree with me, ONUS and NOCON are applicable policies. As I said on the talk page, if my logic is poor then another editor, yourself included, can say as much and we would have a 2:1 consensus. Between BMK's accusations against anyone who doesn't agree with them, and in particular myself I think their behavior is becoming problematic. I would hope you will remind them to follow policy (and CIVIL as well).
OK, as for the specifics of your reason why you disagree with my objections. The "shocking" part isn't that an writer would say that but instead that we are talking a single quote and inserting it without the why context. I talk about this more on the talk page. BMK's edits are the sort of thing Masem was warning about here [[14]] (somewhat different context but similar idea). We should be saying why, not just quoting the juiciest bits any comment that sounds inflammatory. There is also the question of who is making the claim in the quoted article. Anyway, if you don't agree, please weigh in on the talk page then consensus will shift. As is BMK has once again shown that they consider themselves above policy. Springee (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll look at the talk page, but I don't know what you mean with "why context". You mean, why would a scholar say that? (Because it's true, or they believed/verified it to be true? Or because it's relevant?) And again--you can say it's "inflammatory", but I don't see that at all: seems like an observation of fact. We can make a lot of those observations. Nazism is evil. Pol Pot's regime relished in mass murder. Beria was a state-sanctioned butcher. Right-wing populism appeals to xenophobia and racism. The sky is blue.

Hey, if BMK breaks 3R or whatever, report him at ANEW. If he violates ArbCom's guidelines, report him at AE. But here, you are not pointing at any violation of policy, no matter how much you want one version to be the "stable version" that you can revert to. Admins will not look at that unless there is certified edit warring (which takes at least two editors), lest all article progress be stifled. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee jumped straight from commenting on a topic ban for Jweiss11, to accusing me of being a sockpuppet on my own talk page, then on another user's (Slatersteven), and now to doing so at WP:ANI, when I know someone already "investigated" me. [15] I'm now convinced by Springee's similar conduct towards Beyond My Ken on Right-wing populism, and towards multiple users at Andy Ngo including trying to retaliate against me when Jweiss11 was topic-banned by Bishonen there, that the problem is conduct and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on Springee's end, expressed as a combination of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT along with a form of Sealioning. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, this is over the line by Springee. [16] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User talk:24.60.1.17

Drmies, would you be willing to take a look at some nonsense with an IP editor that's disrupting Chernobyl (TV series)? There's an edit war-let going on over a phrase, but that's the secondary issue. The primary issue is that User: 24.60.1.17 has adopted the posture that they (pronoun deliberate) have the right to make unilateral decisions about the article, having been more or less pushed to the talk page after the article was locked for a couple days last week. But here's the weird part: the IP claims to be a group editing as one; see the discussion Chernobyl (TV series) - FYI on Captainllama's talk page. (Apologies; I need to learn how to link discussions!)

What we've got is this putative group editing tendentiously over and over, and an article being disputed by an IP that refuses to abide by any WP policies. You're good at dealing with problem editors, so thought I'd draw you attention to this rather than raising it on a forum where it will be talked to death. Let's not give the IP that attention. Any help is appreciated! Thanks. ----Dr.Margi 05:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey, what you do is just add the section title, with a "#" sign: User_talk:Captainllama#Chernobyl_(miniseries)_-_FYI. Of course, that won't work the moment the talk page is archived, so a "final" diff is often helpful. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm Captainllama's clinic on "for dramatic purposes" fails to convince me--sure, the intent of straying from factual reality matters, but what matters more is how there was any straying, and to which extent. The IP is pretty condescending and Captainllama tries to respond in kind; that's not a happy mix. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If they're a group, they sound remarkably similar. Now, this edit war, I'm sorry, but I don't see the point in it. Y'all's phrase, "for dramatic purposes", is indeed well-worn and I wouldn't argue against it unless the alternative is an improvement. The IP linking "dramatic license" is useless, in my opinion, since it leads to an article about artistic creativity etc., which is beside the point. Plus, they're more wordy. On the other hand, their "for example" is something you should take from them--it's good.

    Anyway, the IP isn't being very helpful, that much is clear. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it all. It's the group thing that was my concern; I think it's far more likely some smart arse who thinks they're terribly clever doing this. The actual language isn't the hill I want to die on for much the same reason you cite. I just want the IP to find a new place to play. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of the jarheads from one of those Wikipedia critique sites playing games, or some such thing. I see you gave them a couple weeks' enforced vacation. Hopefully they'll get bored and move on. ----Dr.Margi 20:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Just had a look at the article talk page. The IP now claims they're using non-standard non-binary pronouns and never claimed to be a group. Somebody's really got issues. ----Dr.Margi 20:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I may borrow that blue giraffe, if it has a cup holder of course. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Happy to share. Thanks for shutting down the digression. It was going nowhere good. ----Dr.Margi 03:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Rajgangpur

hi Drmies btw any reason to revert my rajgangpur edit, terming them essentailly spam, why. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Ernst Dammann

 On 14 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ernst Dammann, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ernst Dammann, an early member of the Nazi Party, was a founding figure of African studies in East Germany – together with Walter Markov, a communist who spent much of the Nazi era in prison? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ernst Dammann. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ernst Dammann), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Email about alleged abuse of sysop permissions

Did you get one too? Seems to me to be a basic complaint of someone getting stuck in a range block and thinking it's directed at them, however this person sent me multiple emails (with a "go fuck yourself" in there as well as threats of legal action) and later came into multiple channels on IRC to complain, even after I explained the issue. I'm still not sure what range they're referring to. Best, Vermont (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Drmies".