Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Hi. Here are additional sources supporting the subsection that you deleted:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/police-brutality-victim-dies-of-fentanyl-overdose/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sonoma-county-jail-yard-counseling-case-settles-for-1-7-million/ https://kpfa.org/episode/flashpoints-june-8-2020/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-to-pay-1-9-million-to-people-injured-during-george-floyd-protes/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-police-fired-unauthorized-rounds-at-black-lives-matter-protester/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/anger-concern-mount-over-santa-rosa-police-use-of-rubber-bullets-other-le/ Isonomia01 (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, please link the article next time? Drmies (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• OK. I don't need extra sources, but thanks. I see that sourcing wasn't the only problem. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be collaborative, assume good faith (this is a collaborative project and assuming good faith is important), and productive. Please don't just randomly delete content without any notes or attempt at discussion. While I appreciate being challenged, the way you're going about it is inefficient, and is making extra work for me. Your challenge is not nearly as productive as fixing the "Cities by population and crime rates" tables in the article for example. Please participate in discussion. Please support your assertions or conclusions with arguments/logic and examples (i.e. your assertion in the edit summary of "non-neutral", and your assertion here: "sourcing wasn't the only problem", both of which are conclusory, controversial, and probably incorrect). Sourcing isn't a problem in the way you're saying it is. Thanks. I am familiar with the situation, and the statements I made were objective. However, I can appreciate you double-checking that the statements I make are clearly and indisputably supported by the sources that I've listed because (although I am being diligent about limiting my edits to those supported by sources that I list) I am writing (in part) based on my knowledge of the situation after years of research, including sources from the lawsuits, and statements made by public officials. I still need to learn how to list those sources correctly per Wikipedia protocols, but your proof-reading is appreciated. If you'd like to provide any specific examples of statements I made that were non-neutral, I'm happy to listen to feedback and take it into consideration. Ultimately, the fact that the victim of the 2015 torture ring victim being shot in the face with a crowd control "stingball" grenade while peacefully protesting on video is notable, and is properly sourced at this point.Isonomia01 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Teaching grandma how to suck eggs comes to mind. Just sayin'... Geoff | 18:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic and irrelevant. Isonomia01 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Allow me to elucidate: In one corner we have Drmies, an autopatrolled user, checkuser, oversighter, and administrator, 17 years 3 months old, with 405,385 edits and in the other corner we have Isonomia01, a registered user, 7 months old, with 173 edits. Maybe you could have started the conversation by avoiding the newby lecture, which really isn't too useful even with newbys. Thus, the proverbial grandma and eggs reference. Geoff | 18:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, you should include the edits of Isonomia09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They were condescending and long-winded then, and they haven't changed in the interim.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bbb23, I understand your removal of the section on my userpage. I'm not sure if the edits I made and re-added are agreeable to you, but please feel welcome to discuss, or make productive and polite suggestions. If you have personal criticism for me, I will take it into consideration if you (1) provide me with specific examples for reference, and (2) are polite about it. For the record, I just don't want my content deleted (1) without prior discussion, (2) in violation of Wikipedia's rules (I'm not saying this happened all the time, not trying to get into an argument, I think that all the past issues have been settled and resolved, and I'm also not saying that anyone acted in bad faith), or (3) remove content without adequate explanation or a note on the talk page. Isonomia01 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I thought you were calling me a talk page stalker, in conjunction with the grandma sucking eggs reference. My bad. Isonomia01 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Isonomia01, lawsuits can be cited with {{cite court}}, but are considered Primary sources and must be used with caution. Statements from public officials can be cited with {{cite news}} or {{cite press release}}, depending on whether the statements were reported by the news media or simply originated from the public office in question. Folly Mox (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Bbb23: Wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the "newbie lecture" is interesting, you should see the redacted versions of their post to this talk page. Just sayin' -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Are you sure you mean me? You didn't indent this properly, so not sure. If you did, I have no idea how to answer. Maybe a little less pithy?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Just pointing out the versions of OP's posts here that they removed. The wut was in reference to the prior account you references. That intrigued me. Thanks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I prefer "talk page watcher." It's less alarming. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Good point and thank you. I hadn't looked at the TPS article in a while and missed the use of TPW. Learn something every day, especially around our good friend Drmies' Talk page. It's never a dull moment around here. Geoff | 20:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isonomia01, allow me a few notes. First of all, please use "Preview" before you hit "Publish edit" so that I don't get 25 talk page notifications instead of 6 or 7. Second, you dropped a bunch of URLs here without telling me what specifically you wanted me to do with that--well, I'm not going to do anything with them, because we're not on the article talk page, which is where you probably should have started this, and again, there are no specific statements here about things in the article and sources for it.

I believe you cited my edit summaries, so it should be clear that I didn't remove information randomly. This edit has only one possibly acceptable source, from KPFA--but it's an announcement/link for a radio show, so there is no actual information on that website to verify--plus, it's an interview with the person who got shot in the face, so that's hardly the same as a news report. The other two sources are just not acceptable for BLP information on a politically loaded topic. The whole thing looked very much not neutral to me. But again, this is what you should hash out on the talk page, with specific proposals for sections and sentences and their sources, not here.

Oh, I see now what you posted on the talk page, but it's not very clear to me: it's a lot of text and a lot of other...well, stuff, and it's not very organized to me. But what I also see is that both User:Willondon and User:Magnolia677 pointed out problems, and there is no consensus on anything--perhaps if you'd let the other editors know, they might have given their advice: both are very experienced editors. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is six months old (correction: it started a year and six months ago, and ended six months ago). Magnolia removed my section on the talk page where I originally neglected to cite sources. It's my impression that consensus was reached, because discussion ended when I provided sources. There were no disagreements after I provided sources. I will be more careful about proofreading before I hit submit. I will also try to start with sources, and then add proposed wording after I provide the sources, rather than start with proposed edits and wording first. In the future, if someone deletes my content without making any notes on the talk page, I will plan on tagging them on the talk page, rather than on their user talk page. Marqus Martinez (the man who was shot with the grenade) is no longer living. To reiterate what I said above, it is notable that the victim of the 2015 torture ring incident who organized the lawsuit was shot in the face with a crowd control grenade while filming himself peacefully protesting in 2020. The sources I provided above here meet Wikipedia's standards. Isonomia01 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is a discussion where two editors briefly commented on what you were saying followed by a lengthy section that no one responded to, and I think it's because that was added a lot later, without anyone being pinged. So no, you can't call that consensus: it's likely that neither knew there was something there. As for talk page/article talk page--if you want to call someone an asshole, their talk page is the place for it. If you want to propose text and sourcing, the article talk page is the way to go--but if you want consensus, you have to present things in a easily digestible method, with clear proposals for text and their sourcing, and in manageable chunks, not those long paragraphs. And you gotta let them know! I have no interest in covering up police brutality, and if the sources you linked above are good, go for it--but you gotta go about it somewhat carefully, with solid sources and neutral writing. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the very sad story of Marqus Martinez. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow--that's tragic. Thank you Cullen. Perhaps you can help with that article? Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is too emotional for me, Drmies. My parents lived in Sonoma County in the years before their deaths and owned a small apartment building there. I have visited there and worked there hundreds of times. I have many friends there. I would have trouble being neutral about this topic. By the way, we had a very well referenced article about Dominic Foppoli for 4-1/2 years until it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Foppoli. One of the criticisms was "local coverage" although the Los Angeles Times covered Foppoli in detail and LA is 435 miles from Windsor. I did not learn about the AfD until the article was gone. Sad, really. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that AfD was close, Cullen. I have no doubt about your capability of staying neutral, though. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that Administrator Cullen also chimed in on Drmies' talk page, during the consensus discussion that I started there, regarding this edit specifically, and also indicated that he was also unsatisfied with the deletion of content without adequate discussion on this particular subject and stated specifically that he and others had spent a lot of work on content that had been permanently deleted without adequate discussion (other people I know personally are also shocked at the same deletion Cullen was talking about). Cullen328, that is a quote by Isonomia01 from their Talk page. I blocked them for one week on December 16, and they have been ranting about it ever since. I finally revoked TPA today because they refactored the last unblock request decline. They also have a bad habit of distorting what other editors have done and/or said. I don't see any support for the quote in this discussion; am I missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bbb23, I did comment and explained my reluctance to get involved as well as my disagreement with the deletion of one particular article. But I am not interested in lengthy screeds by editors who want to right great wrongs by devoting undue weight to some admittedly bad incidents in a county of half a million people that was established 175 years ago. The article is not called Bad things that happened in Sonoma County in recent years and I am not interested in such fruitless debates. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cullen328, I had noticed your comments about the AfD, but I hadn't looked closely at it - you're talking about the deletion of Dominic Foppoli, right? So, apparently Isonomia01 is trying to connect the deletion of an article about a "bad" mayor of a city in Sonoma County with the content they want to add to the Sonoma County article. And they're using you as "support" for that proposition. I suppose it's not a complete distortion of what you said, more an insidious and misleading representation to suit their agenda, which, in a way, is worse. Oh well, we'll see what they do after their block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, yes, I was referring to the Foppoli article which I think ought to have been kept. Cullen328 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was the Magnolia removed my section from the *talk page* with, what I view as, wanton contumacy for Wikipedia's rules, and then arbitrarily threatened me with a block, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which I view as crazy. I wasn't going to mention it, but now it has come up. I also don't think adding a section on objective and notable section about what I would call government corruption to an article that otherwise reads like a tourist brochure is anywhere near risking turning the entire article page into an attack page, so I really can't take that warning without a grain of salt either. In any case, I disagree that I should be asked to invite Magnolia to participate in a consensus discussion. The discussion was there. I responded to him multiple times, informing him precisely what I was going to do, and in response I got radio silence. Magnolia did not respond for 6 months. You didn't tag me in a discussion and seek consensus before you reverted my edits. I add sections on the talk pages regarding edits I intend to make, to create a forum for discussion. Again, I do that *before* I make the edits. I then allow time for people to discuss the topic. Then I make the edits. I expect people to participate, to the same standard that I am being held to, in consensus discussion. My time should be respected. People should not randomly delete content without participating in consensus discussion. Consensus is more than voting. It is more than whoever has more edits in their history wins the debate. It should be based on (1) Wikipedia's Rules, and (2) logic. Arguments that have neither basis in Wikipedia's Rules, or in Logic, should be discarded. Again, I don't believe that I should be the *only one* burdened with participating in consensus discussion, although I understand your suggestion because I am (relatively) new (even though I've been editing Wikipedia for multiple decades, off and on, but lost access to my old accounts). Likewise, though, if other people are not going to respect Wikipedia's rules, or are going to make arguments that are obviously illogical or false, I do not think I should be burdened with inviting them to participate in consensus discussion, and that they should just be able to randomly delete my edits, make obviously false arguments as to why, and instruct ME to participate in consensus discussion, when I already have topics on the talk page that they are deliberately ignoring. It's nonsensical, and disrespectful of my time. Especially after they removed my topic from the *talk page* with clear contumacy for Wikipedia's Rules, and then threatened me with a block, again with open contumacy for Wikipedia's Rules. Again, I wasn't going to say anything, but Magnolia removed the content, made an obviously nonsensical argument, and told me to participate in consensus, when I have sections on the talk page that they have not participated in. Please have the same standards for all people. This is a new issue, because Magnolia deleted content from the article, and did not participate in discussion on the talk page, and is trying to be deceptive in his edit remarks. With reference to (a) arbitrarily removing content from the talk page, (b) arbitrarily threatening me with a block, and (c) telling me to seek consensus when I already have sections on the talk page that they are simultaneously deliberately ignoring, it is logical to conclude that Magnolia is deliberately instigating conflict without a rational basis.Isonomia01 (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a gesture toward good coverage of policing in Sonoma County somewhere on Wikipedia, whether it's the county's article or somewhere else, may I proffer some photos of the sheriff's department and Santa Rosa Police Department staging to intercept protestors during the George Floyd protests? Not exact World Press Photo of the Year material, but they're what I've got. Wish I had some photos of when they started firing teargas, but I was too busy, well, being teargassed. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. My. God. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: The photos look like they were taken from several floors up a building. Did they shoot the teargas up there? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third floor. We weren't their direct target, I don't think, just caught in the cloud. I think we received a relatively low concentration. Hit the deck, slammed the window shut, and rinsed our eyes out, and that worked. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Tamzin I'm glad you're OK. I'm trying to focus on all the good that happened after the murder of George Floyd, thanks to so many active citizens. All these awful statues and memorabilia that have come down. How does one thank a dead person? There's no thanking, I guess, but there's honoring. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Powerful scenes of the rioting in The Fall of Minneapolis. --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's Piermark JayCubby 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've indeffed, so no further action may be necessary. JayCubby 02:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes I saw that after I blocked, and I blocked because there was another IP making the same bullshit edits. User:JayCubby, sorry, but please make your signature MOS:COLOR compliant? I can't see your name, that blue on black, or black on blue, I can't read it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. I initially couldn't figure out how to get the link color to change, but thanks to another user I've figured out what went wrong. JayCubby 02:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT couldn't figure it out, so I had to think for myself. Trying times in which we live! JayCubby 02:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now there's a whole bunch of such socks. How irritating, and sad. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)I love high res signatures. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure why you took away legitimate references that detail the history of the interpretation of the two witnesses. These are not "silly" but scholarly published works. Malachirobertson (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. "Silly" was for this edit--please look carefully. I explained why I removed your addition of apparently random titles to the "References" in my edit summaries. I just did that again, and I explained it on your talk page. And no, a master's thesis is not a "scholarly published work", not even my own thesis, although it is a fine piece of work. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry but I do not know how to locate the edit summaries. As for the titles, these are not random titles. They all deal in varying levels of detail with the history of the two witnesses. Yes, dissertations and thesis are not published, but they are nevertheless scholarly in that they are reviewed by an academic committee. I can understand perhaps leaving out Stanton and Miesel, the BD thesis and Master's thesis, but I would definitely include the dissertations by Min, O'Brien, and Tan. Tan's dissertation was published as a series of articles, but it is tedious to refer to four different articles rather than one dissertation. Malachirobertson (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand. When you make an edit you can leave an edit summary: look down when you're typing. You can see these summaries by clicking on "History" on any page in Wikipedia. I'm sure to you these titles are not random, but as long as they are not actually cited in the text they are random in regard to the article, because they are not used. Write text that uses those sources, add the sources as you're adding the text, and if you are using a thesis or whatever and you think it's worth citing anyway, you can make that case on the talk page. As for Tan--sure that may be tedious, but the fact is that it looks better to cite four peer-reviewed academic articles than one dissertation. Plus, knowing the industry, I am sure that those chapters were revised before they were accepted for publication in a journal.
      So, again, write text using those titles and then add the titles, okay? I saw you posted on the talk page, and have been posting there, but this is not a high-traffic article and the only editor I know who was active, User:Ian.thomson, seems to have retired. So just go for it. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not explaining well some of the edits that I made. The past page on the two witnesses was biased towards dispensationalism as the discussions noted. My edits were also fielded in the talk page many months ago, without any responses. My area of study is the two witnesses, and I was trying to create a page that was more neutral to various views and include some of the history of interpretation and resources for individuals to do further research on their own. The old page did not allow for that. Malachirobertson (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment above--it's all good, but keep in mind that this project is collaborative, and communication (starting with edit summaries) is really a must. Maybe a good thing to do is to drop a note on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I will try to create better edit summaries in the future. And I see now about the reference list. Malachirobertson (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Bit of a fishing expedition, but: last month you filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neo the Enlightened One and CU-blocked Further Than Beyond. What do you make of the new(ish) user Apprentix? Similar editing style and interest area. (Also now involved in a brewing edit war at Sabean colonization of Africa, but that's just by-the-by.) If you don't think there's anything to it, that's fine, just thought I'd run it by you rather than rushing to reopen the SPI. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks--a colleague already took care of it, and I closed that AfD. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The anon is rather knowledgeable about Wiki policy and such. Two edits on 17 Dec 2024 On M. O. Mathai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The content seems to have been there a while. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, good for them, I suppose--but there isn't much to do about it. If you disagree with the edit, revert them, with a good reason. If you suspect this is a sock, or someone editing without logging in, you'll have to find the other suspected accounts or IPs. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha Ealdgyth, thank you--productive, maybe. Same to you! Drmies (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure what to tag this as Wikipedia:Founder (user level). Can you or any talk page stalkers advise? Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, someone has caught it. Sorry to bother you. Knitsey (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No bother--but I was MIA all day, doing Very Exciting Things. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Exciting Things hmmm. Knitsey (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those Things was trying to call the man who runs the Sons of Confederate Veterans. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a group you're part of? Or am I seriously missing a point here? It's een a long day for me. Knitsey (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha no. NO! I'm tracing a minor point related to a minor figure, so minor that he doesn't even (yet) have an article here. I'm just struck by the irony that someone like me would try to get in touch with someone like them. If he ever answers I'll have to play it straight, in all kinds of ways. Like a very neutral Wikipedia editor, haha. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. I was trying to think of something constructive to say...came up blank. It sounds interesting though. Knitsey (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on that. I find myself with less and less patience for that sort of work as I get older, but I have faith in your ability to see it through. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brit, I find the history of the USA really interesting. It's not something we are generally taught in school in the UK. Over here, we usually just tut and roll our eyes at the very mention of civil war then have a cuppa and a sarnie. Knitsey (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't fault the UK education for not teaching about it, but the fact that there are still adults over here thinking that some nebulous concept of "states rights" was the root cause of it really rankles anyone with a decent knowledge of our own history. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Knitsey, this is still ongoing, for some. The SCV webpage runs a charming little video on how history should not be erased and etcetera, when of course their whitewashing the Civil War (starting with calling it War Between the States) is an ongoing project. These organizations (Daughters of the Confederacy is another one) have a number of goals, one of which is to influence education toward accepting the Lost Cause. One of the outcomes of the horrific murder of George Floyd has been the re-evaluation of all these memorials dedicated to Confederate heroes and their cause; the guy I'm looking into played a small part in that, at least here in Montgomery. What I'm hoping to find on the other end of the line is someone who actually cares about history and knows the history of the organization they're running and the documentation of that history. It's a big ask. (User:MjolnirPants, nice to see you again--I hope you're well. And yes, "nebulous" is appropriate--thanks.) Drmies (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants@Drmies I've heard about the Lost Cause before. Back in the day, near the start of Facebook I used to 'bump into' proponents of the cause on some of the anti-fascist pages.

The removal of monuments (especially to slave owners) gained momentum over here of course. Knitsey (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the way Brits and EU citizens could comprehend the Lost Cause would be relating it to the post WW1 stab in the back story spread by the nascent Nazi party in the 1920s & 1930s. Perhaps the Lost Cause is yet another lesson those early Nazis learned from the US, along with applied eugenics and Jim Crow. Geoff | 18:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all revisionism in some form

I must admit, I find the Jim Crow era really fascinating (probably not the right word, but you get the gist). Knitsey (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote up so many lynching articles I got sick of it for a while. The cross in the frontyard of Juliette Hampton Morgan? We just walked past it with the dogs: it's the street behind our house. Unfortunately it's now owned by some douche who's renting it out as an AirBnB, so my proposal for a historic marker in the frontyard went nowhere. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's honestly a shame. I'm of the opinion that the stains of the past should be preserved, lest we forget how readily the fabric of society absorbs fresh blood. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's very sad. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I spoke to you recently regarding a reversion I made following an edit by this user. User:लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक Checking their list of contributions, I find many similar entries where swathes of information were removed from various articles under similar reasons. Checking these edits, I find the removed content often doesn't seem to violate the given reasons. I am at a loss as to whether these edits are in good faith or not. It at least appears they realise the damaging effect of griefing, having written an extensive paragraph another user's talk page. UntrustWasTaken (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but I don't follow. That paragraph is a standard COI warning, and judging from edits like this one it was a proper warning. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting. This addition seems to be an outlier. UntrustWasTaken (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	1911 Australian penny
	Here's a donation for dealing with that one IP. Thank you for your work. Tarlby 18:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, wow--we only get $5 for blocks, and probably a fraction of that for a partial block, so this is very welcome. No, thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Haha, cheers. Tarlby 18:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, this post is about the IPv6 range 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:0:0:0:0/64 that you partially blocked for 1 week from editing AN/I. A little less than an hour later, User:Cullen328 actually site-blocked the singular IP in that range 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B for a couple of days with no talk page access. Since then, like happens with many IPv6 connections, the user's IP address switched over to 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:9541:B21:E7F0:1D7F very shortly after, which allowed them to continue posting on that previous IP's talk page in spite of the previous IP's block with no talk page access. Given that this is technically block evasion, I'm thinking maybe the /64 rangeblock should be updated to a full one?

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I left a note for Cullen cause I had to run, but I'll go ahead and stop that yapping. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sorry Drmies, my wife and I had to pick up some prescriptions (we're 72), go to the hardware store as part of our ongoing battle against the rats, and stop at Target. We just got home. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took care of it. Rats? Brrrr. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah they are creepy and filthy and befoul any accessible food, but that's the least of it. They have twice chewed partly through pex fresh water lines in the crawl space under our house, which soaked a lot of insulation too. Very expensive chaos. Second incident discovered today. It's an ongoing debacle and I have a grudge against all rodents at this point. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: You are not the subject of the AN/3 discussion. Your edits were mentioned in the discussion regarding another user, which is why you are receiving this notification. The exact discussion where your edits were mentioned is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Luffaloaf reported by User:WeatherWriter (Result: ) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was, Ozzie10aaaa?? I had no idea--I think that also shows that it would be good if more people got involved with it. I think the backlog is creeping towards 2,000 again. Anyway, thanks: I appreciate it! Drmies (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you should know considering you left a message on this user's talk page that I have reported User:Tomdav2747 to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism since the user in question is still doing the same things you warned the user not to do. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know--and thank you Bbb23. You know, my dad works for Wikipedia too! Drmies (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, but really the person who's done the most to make Wikipedia what it is today is your grandfather. A true enyclopedic pioneer! --Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bbb, I'm not sure I know his name. I'm terrible--the divorce, now maybe fifty years ago, really cut us off from that side of the family. I know I went over one time and we ate berries--aalbessen, so possibly early or mid-summer. I remember they were old, and we entered the house through the stable where the cows used to be kept, one of those old farmhouses that's more stable than home. I'm sure they could not have foreseen the Internet, and America, and a Ph.D. for one of their grandsons. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are very welcome, that user in paticular has been causing trouble for months and I'm glad to see,whatever that user was up too, taken care of but I hope his dad who works at Wikipedia doesn't ban any of us! That'd be a travesty. Lemonademan22 (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." (Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		Thanks for stopping the nonsense at Spore (2008 video game). C F A 14:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. That was pretty amazing, huh. Such determination, such foolishness. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025
	Hello Drmies, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creep 12:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Drmies, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave your wooden shoes out for him to fill with presents.

Have a good one, Doc, and thanks for filling our wiki-lives with cheer.

Love, Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh Softlavender, that is very nice of you--thank you very much. I assume you set your shoe too? Don't forget to put a carrot in there, right? That reminds me: I'll be making oliebollen for New Year's. All the best to you and yours, and thanks for sticking around and helping out on our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, oliebollen are a new one on me! Here in Hawaii, we have a doughnutty thing called malasadas, which are eaten all year round, just like Spam musubi! Have a great New Year! Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, quack.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm on it. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm currently engaged in an edit war with a user who believes that two films released in 2017 and 2019 are canon to an animated universe of TV shows from 1992-2006. I've provided multiple clear as day sources from the people who worked on these that show this isn't the case.

You can read it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Talk:DC_Animated_Universe#Article_Cleanup Walterwhitehartwell (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to read that: it's clear as mud. But yes you are in the middle of an edit war, and you really need to stop. If you want that talk page discussion, and your editing career, to go anywhere, you might could try making smaller edits and explaining them on the talk page--briefly, with sources. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Blanking your talk page is not a good idea. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Walterwhitehartwell, is this your only account? Drmies (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]