Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

User Talk:Drmies

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.

September music

story · music · places

Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about a man who played jazz when it was banned by the Nazis, - you can listen to how they played it later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for help with my talk page! - My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tipping off

Good evening, top of the same to you!

Per this warning here you made here (https://en.wikipedia.org/key/User_talk:Correctinformer007), just another useless "user" as far as i'm concerned. Have seen them do this time and time again; as you know, sometimes clubs change names, not just in football but in all sorts of sports. This "user" is having none of that and they'll change everything and then some to accommodate their preferred version, even in SOURCES (!) where the title of a newspiece is what it is (have a look at here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiri_(footballer)&diff=next&oldid=1245380833 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_(footballer,_born_1957)&diff=prev&oldid=1245386145).

You have been briefed, attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they all lead there because that's the CURRENT name of the club. Before, it was called ATK and then ATK Mohun Bagan. But the user has no business misleading readers writing a given club was called something it was not (i repeat, they change ALL instances to Mohun Bagan SG, even in SOURCES!

Attentively --RevampedEditor (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I swear this is going somewhere

The Original Barnstar
I swear this story is going somewhere: We buried my uncle this summer. When cleaning out his house and the two-story house he had built in his backyard (after filling his own home floor-to-ceiling with stuff), we found an encyclopedia/atlas well over a hundred years old. I was showing the out-of-date medical articles to a friend of mine, and he brought up how he wrote a Wikipedia article decades ago about a dope band, googled the band and was pleased and surprised to find the article was still there, still contained some of his writing, and had been expanded. He said that he received much assistance in navigating the complexities of the encyclopedia from an OG, and upon looking at the history, I see that OG is you. So thanks! Acorns become trees, Rjj (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKB Plot

I didn't just copy amd paste, I was the one who wrote it in the first place after editing it months ago. Readers and other users didn't have a problem with it for months let the plot remain with a few changes every now and then. Also, removing the whole plot is not your job either, yet here you are. Thank you. Grammer Plot (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you mind explaining, Grammer Plot, under which account you made those edits? Thanks. Also, I just nominated an article for deletion that had been crappy for fifteen years, so that argument of "didn't have a problem with" doesn't really mean much. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made an edit under a different account, Meigh 2005, which I created 2 years ago. Instead of nominating articles to be removed because it is "crappy" why don't you fix it and make it to your liking so that you don't inconvenience others who are okay with a "crappy" article ? Or better yet, leave it. You're the second person to remove the main section of a page just because the details are excessive. It's really selfish, stupid and ignorant. Stop. Grammer Plot (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure you don't mind that I blocked that other account--it's for security reasons, so it can't be usurped. The things you are saying here are not just uncollegial but also show a bit of a disconnect with what we are trying to do here. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • i really don't give two hoots about you blocking that other account and for what reason. i literally – couldn't care less. all i ask of you is to stop removing plots, especially if they are well detailed with time tracks throughout the film or series. Grammer Plot (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • You really should have a look at Wikipedia:Civility. Yelling at me is not going to convince me that that poorly written and totally excessive plot is of any encyclopedic value at all. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • please don't refer to wikipedia's code of conduct to try and threaten me. it's not going to work. i'm not yelling at you. i'm just telling you that what you're doing is selfish and ignorant. if you really find articles bogus then why don't you fix it ? removing the whole thing is unnecessary and honestly, frustrating. and please don't tell me that it's not your job. aree of course not, yaar. it's not mine either, yet here i am, correcting spelling, grammar and other errors that need fixing. thank you, have a nice day. Grammer Plot (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not responsible for fixing your copyright violations, or your poor writing--either one. You did not fix any of the things in that plot summary; you simply edit warred over it. If you're going to correct "spelling, grammar and other errors", start with what you wrote here. Now go away: I do not want you in my happy place again. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I see now that it was removed as a copyvio--User:Nthep, thank you: I had looked but couldn't easily navigate IMDB, I think, or maybe I started looking and then became otherwise occupied. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evading IP vandal at 'Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics'

The same previously-banned IP is persistently continuing their personal attacks towards me in Romanized Persian on both my talk page and Talk:Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics as 77.237.190.180, 77.237.191.125, 77.237.185.111, and 77.237.186.182, while also continuing to vandalize the article. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock?

I have a suspicion, based both on the username and the edit history, that editor Fix.It [1] is a sock of blocked editor Fix.bkl [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwegmann (talk • contribs)

And 3...2...1...they're at it again with Fix.ab ([3]). Anwegmann (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long hold

You placed an unblock request at User talk:Rootbeerlc on hold on 4 June. The ensuing discussion didn't come to any clear conclusion, but maybe it's time to take it off hold, one way or the other. JBW (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John McEntee

Hi - why was the edit for John McEntee reversed? There are multiple sources within the article itself that detail that he is a known conspiracy theorist, so why would that not be important to include on his description? This reeks of political favoritism. Jimmyjohn117 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Jill Stein's biography

I notice that you have recently taken issue with User:DMH223344's edits to Jill Stein, particularly with regard to the ample use of primary sources to deliver laudatory information. There is a disagreement between them and me, and I don't want to begin a revert war. If you take interest in helping to reach a concensus — Talk:Jill Stein § "Political positions" section seems like self-promotion. Thanks! Y. Dongchen (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I was just about to bring Draft:James Holzier to MFD for the BLP issues when you deleted the draft. I appreciate the diligence. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • JeffSpaceman, no, thank you--I saw your edit go by and was reminded of the craziness. Then I looked at the French and Italian source (the latter actually mentions him, so it's not utter bullshit, but it does not verify the claims), and decided to nuke it. Lo and behold, I go to their talk page and find them blocked already by the ever-alert Cullen328. One day we'll learn what the "328" part is. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies please do not post this shocking revelation on the Twitter/X cesspool. My 15 year old cover is now completely blown. "Cullen" is a tribute to my grandfather who was born in 1881 and died a year or so before I was born. We share middle names. His casual day-to-day name with his buddies was "Cullen". Nobody calls me Cullen off Wikipedia, though I use and enjoy that name here. As for "328", I regret that I was stupid enough to impulsively include my birth date in my username back in 2009, when dinosaurs still roamed the earth. Yes, my admirers worldwide send me inedible virtual images of birthday cakes every March 28. Please fly to California with your delightful wife and splendid children next March, and I will give all of you a highly personalized tour. Just buy me a birthday cake, if you can afford it. Were you aware that my son and granddaughter visited the Netherlands recently? Turns out that is the preferred name as opposed to "Holland", which English speakers have been using for pretty much forever. Times can change. Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha thanks for clearing that up. At home, our preferred name for you is Jim, and yes, "the Netherlands" is preferred. Strictly speaking I'm (also) from Holland, and more precisely, I'm West-Frisian, which is not a subset of Frisian. ;) I hope your family members had a good time. As for the cesspool: I think I have one follower, someone I don't know but who was posting the right things. I get followed regularly by New Jersey boys who live in their mom's basement and pretend to be beautiful women, and I block those immediately, so your secret is safe with me. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boniface award

I was looking up an author, and came across Association of Classical Christian Schools#Boniface Award. I wondered if it were something of which you were aware. LadyofShalott 19:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MassimoGiordano1970

On reflection, I think this is probably the moment for us to stop replying to this guy. Either he calms down and follows the repeated instructions he's been given, or he doesn't and he stays blocked. Either way... AntiDionysius (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

Hi, the person you reverted here is most likely a sock of User:Bikrampuri. They have this habit of POV pushing Bangladeshi/Bengali Muslim as you can see here, here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent work

Hello. Thank you for your copy edits on Neil Hartigan. I noticed that there is some grammatical errors that could lead to factual misinterpretations. For example, Pelosi was a friend per source not a classmate, he oversaw Freddie Mac not Fannie Mae per source, and it is Loyola University Chicago not just Loyola University (which is a common college name). Thanks. SevenUp7up (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about User:Bbb23's actions re:me, User:Keleperkins and Whittier High School

Hello DrMies.

I'm concerned about User:Bbb23's actions.

What's going on here? Why did he do that? BOOMERANG for what? YOU at least are aware that I'm not a vandal or anything like that, but it feels like Bbb23 is assuming bad faith here. I know I should probably try to talk it out with him, but he seems to have his mind made up about Keleperkins and me. I get that he's an experienced editor, but I got well over 30K edits myself, and he shouldn't be treating me like a vandal. And I'm afraid if I discuss this with BBB any further, he'll impulsively block me...can you make sure he doesn't do that? pbp 01:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Purplebackpack89, Wikipedia:Appealing a block says that Third party appeals of blocks are allowed, but generally discouraged. I am curious why you are going to bat for this particular editor? Most recently, they have tried to add an list of non-notable red-linked alumni to the high school article, based on the unreferenced claim that they had gone on to prestigious universities, an obvious violation of WP:BLP policy, and flat out bad editing. They also created three obviously inappropriate templates that had to be reviewed and deleted. They made a series of incompetent edits to Irving Thalberg Jr. that had to be reverted. In 2019, they tried to write an article about Patty Caretto despite the fact that an article about her has existed since 2019. They misspelled her name and created a worthless draft that had to be deleted. So, we have an editor who appears to be a net negative, and we all know that competence is required. What is your substantive basis for challenging this block? As for your final request, what can one administrator do to prevent another administrator from blocking someone? Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if third-party appeals are generally discouraged, they're not VANDALISM...
I do not consider Keleperkins incompetent and I think he should be given more chances. When I look at him, I see somebody who has potential, but needs to be made more aware of Wikipedia's policies.
I will provide more info in an email pbp 02:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89, as for your restoration of content in the history section, you have left eleven paragraphs unreferenced. Certainly you know that the onus is on you to comply with Verifiability when you restore contested content. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the paragraphs can be sourced from the citations I provided. I also believe that BBB acted in error deleting the entire section rather than tagging it. pbp 02:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you have not done so, Purplebackpack89, even though the burden on you to do that before or simultaneous with restoring the content. Why should readers be forced to rummage around in the references in unrelated paragraphs hoping to stumble on verification? You earlier reminded Drmies that you are very experienced. Act like it then, instead of pursuing grudges against administrators trying to protect the encyclopedia from incompetence. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the article lately?
Also, IDK why you've turned this into hammering me about sourcing. The problem here is a bad block by BBB, and erroneously referring to contesting that block as vandalism and issuing an inappropriate warning. Guy should lose his mop.
Finally, I do NOT, and will NEVER, consider Keleperkins to be incompetent, so stop calling him that. pbp 03:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89, so the number of unreferenced paragraphs has declined from eleven to nine since this conversation started. You should have taken that content to your sandbox, trimmed the trivia, and referenced all of it before restoring it. Instead you want to defend an editor who has, as far as I can see, not made any good edits for many years. I pointed put six specific examples of bad editing by this largely inactive editor in the last five years, which took me only about ten minutes to find, and you have provided zero evidence of any good edits from that account. And you get all indignant about me hinting at their possible incompetence when evidence of that is is glaringly obvious and unrefuted. Your call for Bbb23 to lose his mop is both bizarre and unsupported by any evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328:, neither you nor @Drmies: nor @Bbb23: has answered the questions I posed...
  1. Why was it appropriate to tag a block contest as vandalism, and
  2. Why would I get hit with a BOOMERANG?
pbp 15:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can assume that "vandalism" here didn't mean "writing dumb stuff in an article" or lying about a date or something--it probably meant "disruption of a serious kind", and I think Cullen has outlined how a. the editor was seriously disruptive and b. your particular response was also disruptive. If you want to question a block, fine, but this isn't really questioning a block. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) PBP, I'll answer these two questions for you:
1. First and foremost, Cullen has addressed that the editor has not made any good edits for years. Even though I don't know much about the editor, I'll go along with what he said and agree that the editor did not make any good edits for years (I hope Cullen gives me the benefit of the doubt). I can probably agree that it's not vandalism, but as it says, it's generally discouraged to write a block appeal for someone else even if you are trying to act in good faith.
2. Bbb23 is really experienced as an admin, and considering how long he's been on here for years (long before I even started editing), people would say that you are considering the block by Bbb23 to be a "bad block" when it really isn't. Because of that, they'd be calling you out for this and say that you should be blocked per WP:BOOMERANG.
I'd rather not interact anymore on here, so I better get back to writing my theatre paper due on Friday. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'll keep this simple. Your unblock request for the user was absolutely wrong and deserved to be reverted. I should not have called it vandalism, and I apologize for that (I do agree with Drmies that your edit was "seriously disruptive"). I should have told you on your Talk page that you are not permitted to create unblock requests for other users. It is true that in very limited circumstances you can challenge an administrator's block of a user based on the change to WP:AAB in 2021, but that does not mean you can do so by posting a formal unblock request. In addition, those limited circumstances do not apply here. They are not intended for "bad blocks" but for egregiously out-of-process blocks, and, even then, you are supposed to first discuss your concerns with the blocking administrator before bringing it to the attention of the community, usually at a noticeboard like WP:AN. I hope this makes some sense to you, and we can put this unpleasant matter to rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: @Drmies: almost there, but not quite...
  1. It wasn't disruptive (or in bad faith) on my part, and it's inappropriate for either of you to claim it was
  2. Nobody has explained this whole BOOMERANG claim
  3. Are either of you contending that Keleperkins added inaccurate information to articles, or just that what he created didn't really meet our inclusion standards? Did you really try to explain what does and doesn't belong on the project before indeffing him? When I look at their edits, I see a guy who IS legitimately trying to improve the encyclopedia (therefore I question the NOTHERE rationale for an indef), but doesn't understand the inclusion policy, in part because I'm not seeing enough effort to train him in it.
pbp 16:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can be disruptive without editing in bad faith. I am not going to discuss the merits of the block of another user. If they wish to make an unblock request, they can do so. I blocked the user on September 3. On September 29, over 3 weeks later, you challenged the block on behalf of the user. Why? Were you in touch with the user through e-mail? I have nothing more to say on this issue with you. I strongly suggest you go find something else to do that is more constructive than this protracted conversation about an incompetent, disruptive user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, the boomerang thing. That's standard. It doesn't mean that I would block you for taking me to ANI. It means that your conduct would be scrutinized and that you might be sanctioned by another administrator. I'm surprised you think otherwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PBP--I'm sorry, but you are wrong in item 1: it was disruptive, for reasons outlined in various places above, and the rest follows from that. There are things you could have done that could have led to a block review in a non-disruptive way; I can imagine a "help" request or whatever from the user on their talk page, followed by some chatter back and forth with the experienced editor offering advice, etc etc. Or the experienced editor could have asked the blocking administrator, perhaps on that administrator's own talk page, about the block, and taken it from there. That's not what happened here, not at all, and as a result we're here--or, you're here, now in the company of three or four other administrators and editors, none of whom seem to really agree with you. You can accept this and we all move along, or you don't, and then I guess we don't. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Sprey edits

You're not wrong that the Sprey article is a mess. However I think it may be overkill to simply blank an entire section of the article. The whole reason Sprey is a notable figure is because of his involvement (however significant or insignificant it may be) as an analyst aiding the conceptualization the what would become the F-16 and A-10, and his subsequent criticism of the F-15 and F-35. There is extraneous information in that section and I'm not sure of the right way to structure the article but his connections to the A-10 are necessary for a proper article about him.

As to the reason I made my edit, I think it's fair you reverted it; my wording was bad. To explain better, the section is about Sprey's favor of the F-16 over the F-15 as a fighter and states the the F-16 is "highly successful". It then mentions that Sprey has continued to criticize the F-15. This wording therefor lightly implies the F-16 as more successful than the F-15 and that his criticisms are therefore valid. However Sprey's criticisms are commonly deflected by pointing out that the F-15 is the most successful active fighter jet with 105 kills to 0 losses. I should have worded the section in that manner, wording it as something like

"Sprey continued to be critical of the F-15 fighter, though proponents of the F-15 have argued it is also a highly successful design, commonly referencing it's aerial combat record of one hundred victories to zero losses."

Though I think that wording could still be improved. TaqPCR (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The whole article is written in a fairly convoluted way, and "entire section" is incorrect: the part that was properly sourced is moved up. What's deleted is two passages: one sourced to what appears to be a chat at a conference, and the other unverified. Also, we can't really deal with implications or suggestions, only with what is positively stated in a reliable secondary source. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Yo Drmies I'm sorry for all my draft pages bro. I didn't even know it was vandalism so I hope you can forgive me. If you want you leave me a message on my talk page bro. Again, my bad for all the draft pages it was irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddellas (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1248790534"