Open main menu
"Drmies is the only rational editor here."

Contents

Note to self

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

Merry Christmas !!!

  CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rollback permission

Hi - you might remember the issues with AryanTheArticleArtist, and the discussion here? I've been going through the CVUA course with Aryan here - they appear to be in a bit of a hurry, and don't always read everything as closely as I'd like, but they do seem able to learn and have been making progress. They were eager to start using Huggle, which I wouldn't be happy with because I find that the 'real time' nature of can lead to an urge to rush decisions, which wouldn't be good for Aryan; however, I believe they could be trusted with Stiki, which lets you take your time. They applied for rollback a few days ago, but there's a bit of a backlog at WP:PERM and the request hasn't been addressed - as someone who knows the backstory, would you be willing to consider the application? Thanks in advance, GirthSummit (blether) 16:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, I'm sorry--obviously I'm catching up. Is this still something I need to have a look at? I'll be glad to. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi - the request is still open, so if you could take a look at it that would be good. I'm assuming that it's been open so long because it's a bit of a close call, which is why I came to you - if you think Aryan's not there yet, I'll be quite comfortable with continuing through the course using Twinkle only, happy to abide by your judgment. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Girth Summit, holy moly--you put in a lot of work. Thank you; I appreciate it. Your candidate seems to be doing OK, and by know probably knows a lot more than a lot of patrollers. The question remains whether they have learned much from their experience with the IP (often referred to as "99", in reference and deference to his age); in particular, I'm curious to see if they realize now that this comment was patronizing and avoided the real issue: it wasn't the IP that made a mistake, so "Lets all become friends and learn from our mistakes" is a cop-out. That, however, doesn't mean that now they're not qualified for rollback--it does mean that perhaps they aren't ready to do the collaborative thing (this kind of blanking doesn't help either]).

Anyway, I granted rollback with the parameters you indicated at PERM--and again, thank you for taking the time to help tutor editors. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW I revdeleted one of the vandal edits they spotted. I didn't read all of the training, but it bothers me sometimes that patrollers don't immediately report the obvious BLP issues that warrant deletion. And an experienced patroller, someone who actually knows and understands the policies and has experience in actual editing, should in some cases escalate warnings immediately, like in obvious racist vandalism. I've read the riot act to more than one such patroller (you know who the regulars are) but that seems to fall on deaf ears. Frequently, if the first editor/patroller doesn't signal obvious racist/sexist/etc. stuff, it remains in the history. OK, rant over. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that in so much depth. I agree with you that the response over the incident with 99 was totally inappropriate, and I hope I made it clear that in future, should anyone highlight a mistake they've made when reverting, an immediate fulsome apology is what's called for - so far, that hasn't been put to the test, but I'll work with them on that should it happen.
Apologies if I missed something that should have been revdelled. I have been trying to get attuned to what is and is not perceived as being over the threshold for it myself since I started patrolling. I think I get it right most of the time, but I have been surprised by one or two requests that were declined - once, I reported an instance where a head teacher's surname had been changed to a slang term for a peadophile - I was told that was vandalism, but not worthy of revision deletion. That kind of stuck in the craw - as a teacher myself, I would find that grossly insulting.
Similarly with escalating warnings on the first instance - I once gave a vandal a level 3 warning for inserting 'I fucked your mom' (with spelling mistake to evade the filter) into an article; as they continued doing it, I gave them a Level 4, and ultimately reported to AIV, but my report was declined because 'the user had been insufficiently warned'. Since then, I rarely start past a level 1 unless it's massively egregious.
I don't really know where I'm going with this - I suppose I'm saying that the guidelines for how to respond to vandalism are open to a certain amount of interpretation, and we don't all seem to agree on what's appropriate. Perhaps we should review the guidelines and make sure everyone (patrollers and admins) are singing from the same hymn sheet. So that's my rant over - thanks again for looking at this. GirthSummit (blether) 19:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It is true that different admins deal with things differently. It is also true that frequently not enough warnings have been given. But "I fucked your mom" is, in my book, enough for an immediate block--though it's also true that I've become less tolerant over the years, since I've seen so many cases where vandals were allowed to go on for too long. Another problem is that often vandal edits get reverted but warnings aren't given out, so that the next person starts with level 1. As for level 1, are you ready for a rant? Triggering Mandarax... Anyway, if I'm around, and you run into things you think need some quick attention, don't hesitate to ping me. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
<Rant protocol engaged.> Sorry, too tired to be very ranty right now. Check the archives for highlights of previous rants. I will say that, yes, it's frustrating to report a vandal who got exactly the levels of warnings they deserved, only to have some moron say that they've been insufficiently warned. (I find that often a more reasonable admin will later come along and take care of the well-deserved block.) That's why, when I revert a series of vandalistic edits, I sometimes issue a separate warning for each individual edit rather than just a single one as is generally done. Or, if I issue a higher level warning, then check their contribs and see that they have unwarned edits, I'll issue lower level warnings for those edits above my first warning. Oh, did this turn into a rant anyways? I don't think so, but maybe ... too tired to tell. Rants are relative. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 08:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Rants are relative, and my relatives are ranty - particularly if I'm spending too much time editing Wikipedia...
Thanks for the comments Mandarax, I'm in agreement. Thanks too Drmies for the invitation to ping you in future instances - I might take you up on that one day! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

New type of fancruft in K-pop

Im sorry to bother you with K-pop related fancruft (no animals or favourite colours this time), but apparently the Hong Kong fancrufters are now finding dance practice sessions extremely important, so they keep re-adding some crap at Gugudan#2019: 9 person performance version of "Not That Type" – this should be removed, right? That random HK actress just visited their dance practice as a segment of the TV variety show or some shit, and now the fancrufters even added her as a "one-day member of the group", even though she didnt record any music or anything with them, they just danced to a song together because of a TV variety show purposes; oh, and there are also 3 youtube dance practice videos used as a "source" in that section, like this, seem like a very important thing to fancrufters. I dont know if someone would already removed it by the time you would read it, here is a dif how it looked like – and that account is constantly adding it back during the last 3 days despite being reverted by three people, even with IP socks. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey

I need to get back into editing. What've you been up to that is fun (i.e. not the vandal-fighting or super controversial stuff)? LadyofShalott 03:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Yeah, LadyofShalott, not much, really... I seem to lack the interest/concentration. We should run into something exciting. I enjoyed working on those articles about Southern educators; I'm sure there's more to be done. Also I've been reading Alfred Andersch, and those articles need work. And Marlon James (novelist)--someone wrote up the article for his new novel (it's on my nightstand--thank you MainlyTwelve), but A Brief History of Seven Killings, which is a whale of a book, has just a very bare-bones article. There are so many poetry collections to write up as well... Drmies (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Lady, so nice to see you. Also you, Doc. Take a look at Draft:Kristle Murden which is being discussed at the Teahouse and on my talk page. It is an autobiography by a black woman who may well be notable. At least I think she is. What do you two think? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Drmies I hope you enjoy the book!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's very heavy, MainlyTwelve. Do you know I met Marlon James? I have a picture on my door of the two of us. I felt so proud. I'm finishing up On the Natural History of Destruction, then I gotta review a book on "excessive saints", and then it's James. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Drmies I didn't know that! Enjoy the Sebald in the meantime.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Cullen328. I have not looked at the references at all, but assuming the accolades listed in that draft are true, I'd say, yes, she is certainly notable. LadyofShalott 16:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nerf hammer on a new user?

I'm looking for advice on handing a small but irksome content dispute in a way that won't lead to formal drama. I've been away from WP for a while, so maybe I'm just missing something obvious on how to deal with this.

At Military, I and another editor made reverts involving the flow of the lede in defining the subject, and I started discussion at Talk:Military#BRD: primary purpose of military is warfare. The editor has twice reverted during the BRD, against consensus (me and another editor against). Most troublesome to me, in the BRD discussion, the editor has stated "This discussion is meaningless" I have opened a thread on the editor's talk page, without meaningful effect.

Though new, the editor has made many good edits on several other articles, and will, I think, be of value to Wikipedia. So I'm not looking to escalate this (DRN, AN/EW, etc.), or to take up a lot of many editors' time (formal RFC), except as a last resort. Can someone (Drmies or stalker) spend some of your valuable time to look over this in enough detail to offer some considered opinion? The editor insists I am in the wrong. If so, I'll be glad to learn that without aggravating the editor by pinging.Otherwise, what should I do next?

If you don't have time for such a minor issue, that's understandable. The drama paths are always available. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Whoa. That's a lot of text. Can I speak as an editor before I speak as an admin? That's a lot of wikilinks, a lot of overlinking, in both versions. OK. Yes, that editor is editing against consensus, even if it's a small group he's going against singlehandedly. But there's something else: their references simply aren't OK--they aren't reliable secondary sources. Worse, at least some of them are primary and reflect the opinion of the military of itself. It's like those ads for the Marines or whatever where they're all holding babies and delivering food from helicopters in ravaged areas. They may do that also, but that's not the whole truth. I wonder if Nick-D is still around--I think Nick was with the French Foreign Legion before he started churning out FAs on Wikipedia, and he may have either advice or a plan of action. And I agree with you on that dismissive comment. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Lol! FFL! hehehe JarrahTree 00:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, those references are not suitable. It's not a good idea to do things like reference "The main functions of the militaries maintained by sovereign states are usually defined as defence of the state, its territory and population, deterrence" to the website of the Singapore Ministry of Defence - it obviously doesn't support such a broad-ranging statement. There are tons of readily available reliable sources which describe the roles of militaries which should be used instead. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all, for taking the time to look over this! You've confirmed that I'm not somehow mistaken about my view. I agree on the lede being overlinked throughout this; the conflict stopped the work in progress of trying to sort out that rather poor article. I also agree on the poor primary sources being added that don't support the text being cited; I couldn't get any response when I pointed that out. Mainly, thanks for the support in dealing with this editor, hopefully allowing me to avoid drama resolution. --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Biff Rose

Hi, I noticed that you had semi-protected Biff Rose's entry. Someone has blanked part of the page and it looks like it might be Biff Rose himself. Could you give it a once over? Star*pust (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I posted about it on WP:BLPN, that's about the best I can do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I super appreciate it.Star*pust (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Air raids on Japanese cities

Hi, Please let me know if you need sources for any other articles about air raids on Japanese cities. I have a range of sources on the topic, including a book which briefly describes literally every B-29 bomber operation of the war. The Craven and Cate book you referenced is probably the single most comprehensive and useful work though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Nick-D, I was very impressed by that book--and thanks, US government, for making all that material available. I'm going to show off my new knowledge to my colleague across the hall, the history dude and veteran of the US Army. No, I think this is about all I need for that particular article, though more is always better (esp. number of casualties). As I mentioned elsewhere I'm reading On the Natural History of Destruction and it's chilling. I see that you haven't edited much on Bombing of Hamburg in World War II, which is a shame, because you seem to leave many good articles in your wake. Right now the number of victims--over 42,000 dead, inconceivable--is buried in the middle of a sentence in the middle of a paragraph surrounded by bold print and blue links; if anyone can make this better it's you and I hope you can find the time for it (you know the conventions for those articles...). Thank you again for your help, for your making so many of our important articles so much better. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I have been considering working on the bombing of Hamburg, having visited the city and the main memorial to the bombing there. The lack of an article on the firebombing is a significant omission, and I'll try to knock out a B-class article or similar to fill the gap over coming months (we didn't have an article focused on the massive March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo until last year, so this suggests a broader issue). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You were right

I was wrong. --valereee (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies is always right. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
...and the only rational editor here to boot. Lectonar (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Bit unfair that, booting Drmies just because he's rational... ——SerialNumber54129 16:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
...wouldn't that have been..."and the only rational editor, here to boot..." Lectonar (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
No. ——SerialNumber54129 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • valereee, I assume this had something to do with someone on YouTube. No, I don't think you were wrong: someone should always try to take the other side and advocate for blocked users, even if in most cases it comes back to bite you on the ass. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    consider me bitten lol valereee (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2019 (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I HAVE MAIL WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    • And now you have mail too AND A PING
  • Just REPLIED. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    • STOP YELLING AT M IM NOT DEAF

Biff Rose 2

At one point you had semi-protected Biff Rose's page. Now that there are several racism and anti-semitic allegations as well as a photo with Rose posing with David Duke, another editor is blanking those citations and mentions. Star*pust (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Biff Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) here is a link to the article D. Star*pust this looks like a content dispute. It would be a good idea to start a conversation on the articles talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 22:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Other people think so too -- [1]. Drmies, I plunged into this after I saw your post at WP:BLPN and thought it looked in need of some tidy-up. From your comments above, it's no longer in your sphere of interest, but if you do need any further comments from me, just let me know. (I am in the UK still, and right now they have sawed their country in half and are trying to feed one half of it up the other half's rear -- or so it appeared from the politics news this evening.) MPS1992 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Ugh what a mess. Thanks MPS--that website link was useless. Starpust, I don't know what to say--the stuff is poorly sourced, indeed, which seems to be symptomatic for the article. And the separate Bowie section, I'm going to tweak that seriously, since Rick Wakeman buying an album hardly verifies that this guy was that influential. MPS, BLPN used to be more frequently visited by a greater number of editors... Drmies (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding BLPN, don't worry, I think it goes up and down. There's sometimes an influx of stupid that needs dealing with, then there's an influx of nothing happening for quite some time, then people get less involved. There's one extra item largely unanswered there that I ought to deal with, but it won't be tonight so I might forget it. As for the Bowie things, I tried to ignore it since I basically don't care -- sorry -- but any blanking you've had to do is probably wise, because there's a long-standing allegation for more than five years now that there is or was some major WP:COI nonsense occurring on that article. MPS1992 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Dowbiggin

Hey Drmies, I hope I'm not interupting something important you just happen to be who I saw online. This was very silly of me, I'm aware, but I moved Bruce Dowbiggin from my sandbox and wanted to know if the history (which includes everything I've done in the sandbox) could be removed? I don't know why I didn't think to blank my sandbox and move from there...been a long day. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • No problem--hope you don't mind my having ridden my little hobby-horse in the first line... Drmies (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the speedy reply but I don't think it worked. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Wait, I see now you wanted everything removed? I removed everything before that other editor dropped you that suggestion. All those edits are toward that article, including some from that other editor, so I can't really delete that part... Drmies (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
        •   Self-trout Oh my goodness, I'm sorry. I guess I didn't realize I made that many edits in my sandbox and thought the line of edits should be shorter. Okay, time for a short Wiki-break I guess. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Oh you're fine--but I need coffee. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
              • gawd dont we all JarrahTree 01:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

About some editing issues on Phoebe Man's wikipedia page

Hi Drmies!

I am now working on Phoebe Man's wiki page. Thank you so much for your advices and guide! That's help a lot.

This is my first article on Wikipedia; therefore, I have some questions about editing. I would be grateful if you can help! You delete the section of "Work" because of inappropriate citation. However, the source is the official site of Phoebe Man. Why it is an invalid source? By the way, some artists don't put their works in the gallery. How could I find the gallery no.?

Thx again!

Suy sunny (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

How about the information from City University of Hong Kong? May I use this source to show Man's artwork on wiki page? Suy sunny (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Suy sunny, thank you for your note. Wikipedia works by way of secondary sources. What you link is a primary source--it is, essentially, the resume, which would then be used to source what is essentially another resume. It's the kind of thing we can link, possibly, in the External links section, but it is not something that could possibly be considered a secondary source verifying actual content. The question of a possible conflict of interest remains open, by the way. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thank you so much for explanation! I will try to find some other secondary sources for citation.Suy sunny (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2019 (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think you have anything to worry about. Oh, I'm working on the photos, but I need Mrs. Drmies to help me with that. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Self-reverts

Thank you for your assistance. Am I able to now revert the edits under contention (@ Lori Loughlin?Dogru144 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, you reverted three times, so you do the math. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • So, even more than 3 self-reverts are wrong? [2]Dogru144 (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • "Self-revert" is when you revert yourself. Not when you revert someone else to return the article to the version that you created yourself. No, three self-reverts aren't wrong, they're just tirritating--but you did not revert yourself. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
        • OK, I'm confused as to how someone reverts themself --it's as though they are confused as to what they want to write & reverses themself? So, may I now safely revert the edit in question? i.e., back to this state? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lori_Loughlin&oldid=887811281 Dogru144 (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Yes. A self-revert is when you make an edit, publish it, and then click "undo" to undo your own edit. Sorry, this is the English Wikipedia. If you're going to report another editor and duke it out with them and cite policy against them, you should know what policy is. So your "so, may I..." points at a non sequitur: in fact, it should follow that you may not revert back to your state. If you do, I will block you for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

But how...?

Do you explain that I found the Dutch ArbCom page that is linked directly on the sidebar from our ArbCom page if Reddit isn't right that I am you and you are half of nl.wiki's ArbCom?!?!?!? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Shoot, who am I this time? A Dutch editor also? Wait--I vaguely remember... seriously these LTA sockers, how do they keep their shit straight? I saw today or yesterday that another longtime editor had been socking--crazy. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I think you/me/we are also natuur12? I don't know. Crazy is difficult to translate regardless of the language. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Rrrrright...natuur12...thanks! Yeah I should write down all my socks. Better, I'll write them down in a sandbox, that's a lot easier. On a happier note, I remember Pi Day in time, and we had chocolate tort for dessert. Look for Tyler Florence's recipe, if you got nothing better to do. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

victim list at Aurora, Illinois shooting

You are pointing to a percentage "by edits" as opposed to "by added text". Nevertheless I've added a lot of text so I'll respond to you here rather than add to my participation at "Aurora, Illinois shooting". Perhaps you will find this difficult to understand—a large number of victims should be treated differently in our articles than a small number of victims, both for logistical reasons—too much space taken up—and for emotional reasons—the mind goes numb when numbers of casualties increase. As to some of your other points—yes, these are gritty articles, especially "Aurora, Illinois shooting". (Less so, 2017 Las Vegas shooting.) With 5 victims in the "Aurora, Illinois shooting" article, they should be listed. Contrary to your assertions, their names do have significance. That is entirely obvious. Their names are not dispensable information.

I don't think you and others understand the precedent set by most other similar articles at Wikipedia. 90% provide information on the identities of victims including their names. Check out University of Texas tower shooting if you want to see what "gritty" means. I call your attention to the photograph with the caption reading "Whitman dead on the observation deck". This article contains in-depth information on how each victim died. And it mentions their names.

I would argue for good taste in these sorts of articles—but not at the cost of sacrificing information. I favor lists, not prose. The list of names at 2016 Oakland warehouse fire is lengthy, including the names and ages of 36 people. But I think the presentation is as tasteful as can be given the gruesomeness of the information. I don't think I am ghoulish for wanting to include this information. I think editors are being namby-pamby by not recognizing relevant information when they see it. Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but there's nothing here. The only reason you give for including short lists but not long lists is that a long list makes the mind go numb? You're determining article content based on reader-response? And because the reader's mind goes numb in a long list, the names are dispensable in a long list but not in a short list? Your argument to keep the names would make more sense without that blatant contradiction. So yes, I find that difficult to understand, and apparently I am not the only one. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Bus stop, I haven't yet seen where you stand on including the names for Christchurch mosque shootings. Where's your cut-off point? How many people--when does the list become tedious for the reader? If the victims' names are such an integral part of the event's meaning, as you argued elsewhere, how exactly does that transfer of meaning work? What kind of names are we looking for? But mostly, how many? Drmies (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I've made my position clear. You asked me on the "Aurora, Illinois shooting" Talk page if I would argue for a victim list at the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, involving almost 300 deaths. I responded "I would never argue that the 300 victims of the plane crash should be included in that article." I take a laissez-faire approach to article-writing. I don't know what the upper limit is for number of listed victim names. I have never created a victim list or contributed to the creation of a victim list. I have just restored a victim list in the midst of an editorial tussle over this. I say just let editors write articles. This is a created drama, an excuse for a bull session, hardly unusual. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • No, you have not made your position clear--you've thrown out a bunch of weird arguments, some of them contradictory. You restored contested content and filled up half the talk page with your musings: you are clearly invested, and yet unwilling to respond if you are called out on it. You say it's meaningful with 6 but not with 300; I'm simply asking you if 49 is still within your "meaningful" range. The rest is hot air. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, 49 is acceptable to me. If another editor creates a succinct list—containing say only names and ages—I would voice no objection. But this would be considered hypothetical, wouldn't it? I'm not even aware of the existence of the Christchurch mosque shootings article. I am only linking to it for the first time from your above post. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
          • BS (sorry, but you picked the initials), I won’t insult you by providing a link to bludgeon; but consider letting this go to closure and bringing it up as a general policy guideline elsewhere. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
        • You shouldn't be encouraging ridiculous comments like this—"BS (sorry, but you picked the initials)", but you are, by making comments like "If somehow the names of the victims are that interesting to you, I really wonder about you".[3] If you can tell me how omitting the names of the 5 decedents benefits the reader, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Bus Stop, I would not have stated the obvious joke sorry, but you picked the initials if I didn’t respect you as an editor. I also don’t understand the inclusionist concept of adding non-notables. Now, as an example, look at the efforts to include entirely irrelevant nonsense at Talk:Al Noor Mosque, Christchurch . Would you agree that it makes sense that someone that once worked for three months at a mosque per a court ordered community service program who then became a suspect in a terrorist cult should be mentioned as, what could be taken as a possible rationale for a mass murder? (Pardon if this looks like canvassing, but I’m trying to make a point.) What I am saying is that we are not here to create collateral damage. Privacy seems a bygone expectation. The EU is handling it better, IMHO. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
            • I pose the same question to you—can you tell me how omitting the names of the 5 decedents in Aurora, Illinois shooting benefits the reader? Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
              • It's not about "the reader" as some abstract entity. The reader in general, I have no idea how they would benefit from knowing the names. The reader who's related to one of the victims, for instance, I do not think that they want to see their loved one's name. I know, that's maybe just me, but I prefer to play it safe. I still have not seen how having the names helps anything--you've made all kinds of statements, none of which prove the point, and some of which making little sense. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
                • You have argued that WP:MEMORIAL precludes inclusion of the victim names. Now you are arguing "The reader who's related to one of the victims, for instance, I do not think that they want to see their loved one's name." Shouldn't you make up your mind? These are contradictory purposes. Either we are memorializing or we a violating rights to privacy. You say "The reader in general, I have no idea how they would benefit from knowing the names." You are conceding that omitting the victim names does not benefit the reader in any possible way. This mini-battleground is all about editors. It is in no way about readers. And if precedent has any bearing on this mini-battleground, bear in mind that 90% of similar articles contain victim names. Not in articles with multitudinous deaths. But where the number of decedents is manageable, we include their names. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
                  • "Shouldn't you make up your mind?"--Bus stop, you're one of my most favorite Wikipedia editors, but don't fucking patronize me on my own talk page. "Either we are memorializing"--no we are not memorializing, hence NOTMEMORIAL. No, I'm not conceding that "omitting blah blah". Please read more carefully: I am saying that including the names is of no benefit to the reader. These are two very different statements. This is getting tedious: good night. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked users User:Thumb boy 3 and User:Brexit Bob

Hello. Per this edit they're socks of long-time sockmaster Evlekis. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Cheers - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

the warning you left does not fit the description for that warning

could you please review the warning you left on my talk page? Verify references (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • If you review your use of language first. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Petecover.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Petecover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch attacks

What's your opinion on the use of the word "terrorist" in the lead? See talk page discussion at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • There's a discussion on that? Wow. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There exist worse problems on that article. In particular, repeated attempts to include a Daily Stormer conspiracy theory and rationales for the shooting based upon his manifesto. Some attempts at armchair psychoanalysis, that is determining his motivations according to his own writings, as if he himself knows why he did it. I was going to ask for more eyes -- but they're wandering in. Some side effects on Al_Noor_Mosque,_Christchurch. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • And now at AN too... Thank you O3000. I'm actually trying to stay away, from Facebook as well, since I get really sad and upset at the old a. both sides are at fault b. what about Nigeria (now picked up by Breitbart) c. fuck I don't care anymore what these conspiracy theorists, armchair psychologist, and unselfconscious racists are coming up with. I saw a collage of Dutch a-holes commenting on Facebook--it was like reading Nazis chatting about the Holocaust. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Hey, bigotry is so 2019s. Just wondering how broad AP2 and BLP DS sanctions can be applied. This type of thing has become political, and claiming a small mosque to be a terrorist recruitment center would appear to raise BLP issues. O3000 (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Fradio71

Sorry about that. I saw some useful edits from Fradio71, and generally got the impression we're seeing a very young editor. Certainly one who has problems with authority and has not yet figured out how to deal with conflicts. My bumbling attempts to get him to understand his position don't seem to have helped, if anything they gave him more rope to rant on. I'll stay out of such situations in the future. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Tarl, please do not apologize: I read your comments and appreciate them--that you advocate for a person who is in trouble speaks to your character. Please do not stay out of those discussions; we need editors like you. BTW I'm not looking at that page again--the anniversary of Trayvon Martin's murder was only a few weeks ago, and that user had no business drawing that comparison. It is hard to believe that it's been seven years, and look where we still are. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Te deum laudamus

  Te Deum laudamus
Sorry. Couldn't resist breaking the tedium. DlohCierekim 14:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I appreciate it. I need to get out of this place. Have a good day, Dlohcierekim. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Eric Burdon ? ...if its the last thing... [4] JarrahTree 14:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Isabel dos Santos POV/ SPA editor is back

Hi Drmies. Hope you are well. User XavierD75 has removed the same content for the fourth time, sanitsing the Isabel dos Santos page. Could you please look ibnto this? Thanks, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Done--we've had to deal with this for long enough now. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion

Hi. I want to ask you for an opinion since I believe you can solve problems in Wikipedia(as you did in Iran's article). Could you please give your opinion about this Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#POV_pusher? Also this edit which was made against the consensus that was made in the talk page see talk:Slavery--Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I'll try later. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SharabSalam, I find it very difficult to figure out what is going on in that talk page discussion. Comments etc. aren't clearly indented/separated/organized, and aren't there two conversations going on at the same time? Oh, I see now there's an ANI thread that I haven't looked at (got lost in the mobile diff). Anyway, it is probably a good idea to just start a little RfC on the image and settle it that way. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Your thoughts on a revdel call?

Hi - I wonder if you'd mind looking at this. I just had revdel declined on IRC, and I'm not looking to admin shop - I trust the person who declined implicitly, but in light of our previous conversation I wondered what your take on it would be, wrt the second revdel criterion. cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, from where I'm sitting that's a BLP violation. The phrasing is somewhat vague, and there's plenty of speculation--including by specialists who state it ([5], [6])--but I think that most editors and admins would agree that such sourcing isn't strong enough. And given that we're dealing with a BLP, and that I take a pretty strict view of it, you shopped at the right admin shop, haha. I don't mind if that other admin contacts me, and it is entirely possible that I might be convinced they're right if they explain. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Cheers. Yeah, I don't want to cause any ructions between admins - it was someone who definitely knows what they're doing with counter vandalism stuff - I'm just trying to get my sensors attuned to what is/is not revdel after our previous chat. I guess that one was close to the line. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Sure thing. I remember early on in my career as admin I was perhaps more hesitant to apply revdeletion--not so much anymore. You know, it can always be undone, and it's better to be safe than sorry. And if someone just adds that without any support, their intent is questionable too. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, yeah - mentioning Hitler and Saddam Hussein in the same breath doesn't fill you with good feelings aobut their intent...GirthSummit (blether) 22:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned you

I mentioned you in a request for community imposed Tban re user Bought the farm. Your input is not specifically needed or requested, but would be welcome if you wish to offer comment either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Ugh. I've laid off ANI for a while, but I appreciate you bringing that up there. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I understand NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

colons vs asterisks

Hi, could you please help me improve my posts in terms of "accessibility" issues? The emotive quality of the following question is one of genuine curiousity, not passive aggressive challenge.... What's the difference in this edit? Why does it matter? The first web page I ever made had a bunch of links that all said "click here", and then a friend had me close my eyes and drove their voice-assist software over the page. What a wake up call! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • RexxS, you are the master--please help us out. Thanks! BTW NewsAndEvents, what a good experiment. I was just on the elevator with a guy in a wheelchair, and he and his friend were talking about PowerPoint. I'm a business writing teacher also, so I sez, "Don't read your slides!" ... and the friend says, "he can't cause he's blind" and everyone had a good laugh. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'll start at the left margin to try to explain. The issue is that Wikipedia misuses lists to indent our comments. When ever we use a colon (:) to indent, we are using 'description lists' and this code produces the following html:

first reply

<dl><dd>first reply</dd></dl>

If we add another level of indentation we find the code produces an html list inside a list:

first reply
second reply

<dl><dd>first reply
<dl><dd>second reply</dd></dl></dd></dl>

Now a screen reader will read out those lists as lists including each closing and opening tag. It's not too bad, as our regular screen reader users get used to it. Every additional level of indentation simply adds another list inside the preceding one (and they all get closed at the end).

Similarly, a two level list using bullet points makes use of an 'unordered list' so the * code produces this html:

  • first reply
    • second reply

<ul><li>first reply
<ul><li>second reply</li></ul></li></ul>

A screen reader will cope with that as well.

But if we mix up the two different types of list, the wikiparser has to completely close the first list and then start again with a second one at the increased level, so we get this html

  • first reply
second reply

<ul><li>first reply</li></ul>
<dl><dd><dl><dd>second reply</dd></dl></dd></dl>

A screen reader has to hear the first list being "unwound" and then the second level being "wound up" again.

If the level is greater, then the problem gets increasingly worse:

  • first reply
    • second reply
      • third reply
        • fourth reply
          • fifth reply
sixth reply

<ul><li>first reply
<ul><li>second reply
<ul><li>third reply
<ul><li>fourth reply
<ul><li>fifth reply</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>sixth reply</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>

Just imagine you're listening to that with a screen reader, and see how much has to be read out between the fifth and sixth replies, even though it's not apparent to a sighted reader. That wouldn't happen if we kept the list style the same.

Does that mean we can never mix list styles in a thread? No, the simple rule is that you're fine as long as you copy the style of the preceding indent and then you are free to add your own type of indent to your reply, so both

***** fifth reply
****** sixth reply

and

***** fifth reply
*****: sixth reply

don't cause the "unwinding/rewinding" issues discussed above because they can start the next list inside the previous list. Of course, the seventh reply would have to copy the style of sixth one, and then add another level of choice, but any combination of : and * is fine as long as all but the last character matches the style of the comment being replied to.

I hope that makes sense. Perhaps somebody ought to write a short essay page on the topic and we could just point folks to it? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes--a short essay would be great. Rexx, thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thank you both! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC) ───────────────────────── I can't even pretend to understand all the screen reader issues. I just use ONE asterisk for a bullet, and colons for the necessary indents, with the colon(s) first, ending with an asterisk. That way, even if there are inserted blank lines between different comments, the bullets still appear properly indented. Does that make any sense, or does it create problems? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This is what I have been doing also NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @BullRangifer: Yes, that causes exactly the problem discussed above. It looks right to you, but is an unnecessary trial for a screen reader, who is going to hear something like "start unordered list"/"first list item"/"start definition list"/"first definition"/"end of list", etc. for every <ul>, <li>, <dl>, <dd>, </ul> that our markup produces.

* first reply
:* second reply
::* third reply
:::* fourth reply

produces

  • first reply
  • second reply
  • third reply
  • fourth reply

and this html:

<ul><li>first reply</li></ul>
<dd><ul><li>second reply</li></ul>
<dl><dd><ul><li>third reply</li></ul>
<dl><dd><ul><li>fourth reply</li></ul></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd>

Compare that with:

* first reply
** second reply
*** third reply
**** fourth reply

which produces:

  • first reply
    • second reply
      • third reply
        • fourth reply

and this html:

<ul><li>first reply
<ul><li>second reply
<ul><li>third reply
<ul><li>fourth reply</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul>

The first style adds increasingly more verbiage between replies at every stage, while the recommended style remains at just two tags to be read out each time. There is no excuse whatsoever for placing a blank line between replies, as that is even worse for a screen reader – see WP:LISTGAP. --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So are colons allowed at all, like here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Colons are fine when replying, as long as you don't want the bullet point. The following work fine:

* I'm making a !vote
*: I'm replying to that !vote
*:: I'm replying to that reply

which produces:

  • I'm making a !vote
    I'm replying to that !vote
    I'm replying to that reply

If you want a bullet point, the last indent character has to be *, which implies, by induction, that if everybody wants a bullet point, every indent character has to be an asterisk. Otherwise, you're free to use a colon as the last indent character, but the rest of your indent still has to match the one you're replying to. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks RexxS. That was really helpful. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, good stuff. It needs boiling down for non techy people to remember on the fly. Also, is Help:Talk_pages#Indentation up to date with these pointers? I would figure that out for myself if I had a firm grip on the simply how to rules-to-remember. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The bold Use the same indentation and list formatting as what you are replying to, plus one level at the end of the indent/list code. there is the fundamental (and simple) point. --Izno (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: Izno is absolutely right. And to answer your question explicitly, yes, Help:Talk_pages#Indentation is bang up to date. --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the good advice. Old habits die hard, but I'll try to keep this in mind and improve. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Every thread needs a contrarian, so here I am. RexxS is of course correct. However, if you follow the advice above your comments will soon look silly because someone will insert an improperly indented comment above yours and that will make your comment start with a row of asterisks. My opinion is that what we type is wikitext and if there is a problem with the way it renders, that problem should be solved by the developers fixing MediaWiki to do the right thing. Techo people often love WP:Flow because it is so cool and they might not care that comments on talk pages are not processed properly and that's why we have the present mess. BTW, if anyone is unaware, Flow is awful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • John, I find myself frequently going through talk page and RfA threads etc. to try and sort those things out. If we had a page written up so that "normal" editors can understand and follow, that would be very handy. What RexxS is explaining, above, I get it to the extent that I can sort of follow orders; I wish I could actually understand it. But I probably just need to take a bit of time to read it more carefully. I do agree that a lot of these matters are not made easy for us--but then, I've been waiting for YEARS for someone to help me regain the old citation tool. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Drmies".