[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

August music

story · music · places

Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! - There are several work places in the Netherlands, - could you perhaps check if there are more links to them? I did it for German (the list was there before I looked), but was tired enough afterwards to not try in a language I don't speak. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

today's story is about education, 10 years OTD after lecturing our founder). Music for today's feast is Monteverdi's, the best concert we ever did (so pictured again on my talk), but it wasn't recorded, substituted with a "Pacific" one that comes with subtitles line by line in Latin and English: I learned something! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP at Warren Gulley, Adin Ross, etc.

Regarding your interactions at User talk:61.68.141.56#August 2024, you may want to look at the current listing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vpha (which had other IPs you’ve previously blocked). — MarkH21talk 15:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ban-evading IP has continued editing and reverting the same articles straight after the 31-hour block expired, FYI. — MarkH21talk 13:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOUT question

Hi Drmies, I have come across an account I suspect is WP:LOUTSOCKing which I first noticed at Draft:Cepia LLC (account created the draft and a couple minutes later the IP submitted it) so I left the account a warning few days ago but noticed they are continuing so ran an EIA (which oddly does not include the referenced draft?). The IP's history goes back some time and they have been blocked, last time back in January but the account was not created until July. SPI is so backlogged I hate to file one and I am not sure if LOUT is appropriate for SPI anyway given CUs can't comment on IPs but should I file one? S0091 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the named user for socking and the IP for one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Bbb23. I will bug you next time. :) S0091 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosha Yacht Club

This article that you proded was deleted at AFD in 2010 and re created shortly after so may qualify for G4. However the AFD was a long time ago. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need a bit of help...

I guess i am doing something wrong in User:The Banner/Workpage6. Is my use of "anchor" for the sources in correct? If so, what is the correct way to do it? The Banner talk 11:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney

The article is definitely better now but still, by scattering what I wrote about his relationship with Trump throughout the article, you defeat the purpose, which was to show the inconsistency of that relationship. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, but precisely that purpose was the problem. Highlighting their relationship in that way, in a separate section called "Criticism", is NPOV--particularly since there really wasn't much criticism: you reported some facts, and "criticism" ("inconsistency") was your conclusion. I'm no fan of Romney, and I'm no fan of Trump, but when I'm on Wikipedia I'm a fan of the BLP first. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we could keep the section but change the name. Original it was Possible hypocrisy but that does not seem neutral. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: I also believe in FA. This is not a huge thing, but please hear me out. I thought I saw a numerical date in one of your references earlier, and the article uses the "August 10, 2024" format. I went through the article: there are 277 "accessdates", and four of them were numerical; two of those were yours. When you edit any article, but especially an FA, please keep the formatting consistent--it's one of the factors in FA review. So just check very quickly and adjust your citation (which I think was probably done in an automated fashion) accordingly--thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina Slater

So I encounter you once again on a random "jesus christ, who wrote all this" situation for a TV show from many years ago (MI High was the last one IIRC).

I think the article should still be redirected. I understand the actress won awards for the performance but I believe that would make her notable rather than the character, though willing to hear your thoughts. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah--who wrote all that? I tried to look for the villain award, but someone just stuck that shit in without verification, and the link for the other thing is that. Sorry, my revert was a bit reflexive and based on the lead--afterward, as you can see in my summaries, I started agreeing with you more and more. Go with the redirect, if that's what your heart tells you. Me, I'm wondering if I should buy a book on knitting with dog hair, which is probably more useful than trying to improve that article. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies I think a better use of your time would be writing a book of various idioms you've used while smashing your face into the wall that is utter dogshit Wikipedia articles.
    • I swear, there should be a guild for what I call "cutters" on this site, because boy do we need more of them given how much "fandom" crap that seems to be every briefly popular but now dead TV show on this site. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Years ago I was at a Wikipedia Education thing in Boston. Cullen328 was there. (Right Jim? You remember this?) At some point there was a ceremony of sorts, where they rode a dolly full of boxes of copy paper onto the stage, and said that some project of theirs that they ran in India had produced THAT many additional content for Wikipedia. I looked at that and thought, well, I probably deleted that much cruft from Wikipedia. I don't think I announced that to anyone; I'm not necessarily proud of it. Anyway, couple months (?) later the shit hit the fan, and I wish I could remember where and how I heard this--an overwhelming amount of that material was plagiarized and had to be removed. ;) Drmies (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That sounds about right for what I've seen on Wikipedia. It's quite funny because I've just done a quick run and gun on the Ugly Betty main article and it's ridiculous how it hit its max size in 2010 and then has basically been largely untouched since, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a pattern where shows that had their popularity before the popularisation of wikia are likely to have far more fan shite on them than those post-wikia given there's now a nice creche for all the fans to go and have their hyper-specific needs met in. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I remember that Boston conference back when we were young and everybody thought that Jimbo had all the answers and that professors could assign students to write Wikipedia articles and since students want A grades, the articles would all be great and the students would love editing Wikipedia so much that they would keep editing on their own initiative. The education in India initiative was a fiasco and most of the content that wasn't plagiarized was very poor for a variety of other reasons. So it goes. Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Hi. Could you please protect my user page for a month? JacktheBrown (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John Ebnezar

Hi friend, Your deletion tag on the article John Ebnezar refers. It appears that a few pieces of infrmation have been added to the article without citations. I have contested your speedy deletion tag and have copy edited the article, removing unreferenced awards and information. Please check. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur

Hello Drmies, just noticed that you have been working away on the article for the Minotaur. I want to give you a heads up cause I was working on expanding it (in sfn formatted citations) via a separate userspace for convenience. I had a different layout in mind when expanding the article and how it could get up to GA and FA. if you are interested in its continued expansion feel free to check it out. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds great--I think I was just screwing around a bit. I don't know anything about sfn, except that I copy and paste the format if need be. What I would suggest is that I don't see the need for three sections of references. Primary texts, sure, maybe, but I wouldn't not distinguish between "Modern" and "Scholarly" sources--you got a book from Johns Hopkins in the Modern section, and that's plenty scholarly. More sections also make it more complicated for readers to find them (if they're the reading kind, not the clicking kind--that's older readers). I know historians are fond of doing that, but I think it just adds complexity. Hey, good luck with it--I'll be happy to help, even if I'm no expert on the subject matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali clans

Can I ask why you reverted the Somali clans page? I mentioned in ES that I was restoring "good content". Most of the contributions you erased weren't made by the sockpuppet. I've already discussed with CFA. Solanif (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Somali city-states

Hello, there is a high amount of IP block evasion sockpuppetry at Ancient Somali city-states with @2a00:23ee:1c00:1cb3:2a7:3df9:aa6b:dc6b and the same other shifted IP restoring content please block them indefinitely. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator seems to have taken personal offense that I deleted a comment he left on my talk page

Hi Drmies, sorry to bother you with this, but perhaps you can provide some perspective. I should say that I've already posted this to Liz's talk page, but she may be busy, or possibly just doesn't want to deal with it. It's eating at me.

SilkTork, an administrator you may know, has taken exception to an edit summary I used for an edit to the Captain Beefheart article. He came to my talk page and left this comment. He finished, as you can see, by saying, "If Beefheart were alive, I'd be giving you a formal warning for that. Best not do anything like that again!". Which is fine. I then deleted his comment with the edsum "read".

That seems to have angered him, and he responded with this edit, which included the words "I now feel obliged to keep an eye on you. Sigh. I hope I don't have to start searching through your contributions to see if there are other examples of inappropriate behaviour." This sounds like a threat to me. I understand that if I called a fellow editor "an egomaniacal dictatorial raging asshole", it would certainly be uncivil and a personal attack, but I said it about an article subject who has been dead for 14 years. Is that really a sanctionable offense? His response seems out of proportion to what I said, at least it does to me.

Seeing he had taken umbrage that I deleted his comment, I replied on my talk page with this edit. He has responded, and now I feel that I am being subjected to the same sort of bullying used by college students and others to extract apologies and promises to do better from persons who have offended their sensibilities. He seems determined to pursue this, and it appears that my nearly 13 years of editing WP count for nothing in his view, and all that matters is that I admit the error of my ways and promise not to leave such edit summaries in the future, or else. What do you think? Carlstak (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm I don't really know what to think, as I'm about to start making vegetable lasagna, something I'm not necessarily proud of. I don't really understand SilkTork's response, but I also don't really understand why you wrote that edit summary (that just looks bad in a history as one scrolls through edits) and I don't quite understand the long and somewhat personal response you wrote, but that's just me. What I do know is that, as the Dutch say, the soup is rarely eaten at the temperature at which it is served, and I don't think that SilkTork (whom, by the way, I haven't had many interactions with, but I also never heard anything bad about them) is about to start hounding you; indeed, now that I read their last comment on your talk page, I get a slightly fuller picture. As with so many things we have options: pursue or let go, and I know which one I would choose--it's more fulfilling in the long run, though it doesn't feel so in the present. I mean, you could just blank that section and say "I understand" or something like that in an edit summary. That's not an apology, I suppose, and maybe that's a thing you can do. Take care, and good luck to you-- Drmies (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your taking the time to reply. My long and overly personal response was probably a result of being in a bad state of mind, in other words, a sleep-deprived wreck. Maybe the edit summary I left on Beefheart's page was too, it just popped out. I don't think he wants to hear that, though. I believe that if I blanked the whole section, he'd really get mad. I'll come up with something. Thanks again. Carlstak (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Again, take care. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Winky Hicks

Notice

The article Winky Hicks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Winky Hicks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Winky Hicks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winky Hicks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a rangeblock...

Should this be anon-only? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I made it so. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, Jpgordon; JBW, FYI. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. JBW (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rana P Singh

I have made change as per your suggestions and would request you to kindly have a look before final publishingKr.saurabh10 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:HumbleWise

Hi, Drmies, the above user picked up right where they left off: edit warring, using original research, refusing to follow policy or engage in compromise, dismissing reliable sources and record labels as "incorrect" or "mistakes", etc. Thank you for any advice. Caro7200 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1242473185"