User talk:Drmies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


That's right y'all.
Arbitration Committe Motto Recriminate a bit.gif

Holiday card[edit]

Russell Xmas 1926.jpg
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
Drmies!
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Garrick's Temple to Shakespeare 20.JPG
Ananuri in Jan 2013 02.jpg

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Your Opinion Please[edit]

Hello there

Hope you're doing well?!

I would like to know your opinion on this edit, where User:Esszet insists to delete the whole content of a section due to non-neutral. But I've read NPOV a few times and can't see a reason for an act like that. Can you help and guide me please, as you did before? Thanks a lot! MetalS-W (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, I thought I was doing OK but then I read this and now I'm asking myself all kinds of questions. Rainbow! Sure, I'll have a look, unless that's too masculine and patronizing. I've always had a problem with "Starstruck", by the way. I'm certainly not ordering coffee for Ritchie Blackmore. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm OK--the sourcing is pretty poor, and the opening sentence is not neutral enough... The last bit, about that Iranian band, that's not well-sourced enough to prove any kind of relevance; if a more notable/reliable magazine had published on it maybe, but a Deep Purple fan site, no. This Schmier guy is (encyclopedically speaking) nobody, but Rob Halford is somebody and we appreciate his opinion. So, Byff and Halford's comments are relevant, if the whole thing is phrased much more neutrally. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And now I got "Man on a Silver Mountain" stuck in my head--thanks a lot! Drmies (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I've learned something new today. I am sorry if you don't have a good taste in music but that's alright, we are all different ;)

Thanks again anyway, may I suggest you this or this and hopefully you will feel better?! Peace! MetalS-W (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Wait--you like Starstruck but not Man on a Silver Mountain? Come on! :) Drmies (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh! I adore them both, I thought you were sarcastic! I take my word back, Sir. You have a very good taste in music! :)
    • BTW I've Googled and I found an article about that Iranian band on Bravewords but I can see it is already there, maybe I added it previously but I can't remember atm.I think Bravewords can be considered as a reliable source. MetalS-W (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
See WP:MOS-ALBUM. It doesn't say anything about including other musicians' opinions on the album at all. The entire section just seems like an attempt to make the album look good; what does it add to the article? Esszet (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It is about the 40th anniversary, which came with that SHOCKING tour. I think we should find a way bring that back into the article. Just check out the poster and you can see what I mean. MetalS-W (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Esszet, if the people commenting on the album are notable, and the comments are relevant and reliably sourced, then I see no reason to exclude them--it becomes a matter of editorial judgment. An Iranian band, maybe not, but that depends on the quality of Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles and the depth of coverage--not to mention the importance of that one band. The singers of Saxon and Judas Priest, yeah, their opinions are likely to be notable, but there also it depends on the source and the depth. No one cares for a passing comment, of course, but if it's more than that, perhaps. I'm not going to draw many conclusions from the poster, and some coverage from Blabbermouth is also not enough (too much NOT a WP:RS), but if the Byff and Halford references are valid, then why not? Or we could ask Blackmetalbaz (who knows metal and Wikipedia like few other people), or more generally Dan56 (who is likely, I think, to take a more conservative approach, and has wrote up more FAs than Blackmore had keyboard players). Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Quite simply because you don't need a 40th anniversary reflection section, even if the people commenting are notable. Look at articles for other famous albums from the 60's and 70's: Revolver, The Doors, Led Zeppelin IV, and why not even [[Machine Head (album}|Machine Head]]. You might find some retrospective commentary, but a) it's generally from professional critics b) it's not for a specific event like the album's 40th anniversary. And MetalS-W, I looked at the poster, and I don't see what you mean. Even if you personally found the tour "shocking", you'd have to find a lot of other people saying the same thing if you want it to be included here. Esszet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Esszet, I find it very refreshing to see an obvious fan who is not eager to put such information in. However, if notable people find it relevant to comment on the occasion of the 40th anniversary (if that's what's going on), then, simply put, that 40th anniversary has become notable. BTW I do not base anything I said here on a poster. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really, simply because they're not critics and it's critical opinion that matters here. Reducing it to a single sentence in the "Reception" section would be fine, but you certainly don't need an entire section for it. Esszet (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
And by the way, I don't know much about Rainbow at all. I was led to the page from Sad Wings of Destiny, and I haven't heard much of their music at all (if any). Esszet (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, those early albums are really good, and the live album, On Stage, is excellent--a bit noodly for some, maybe. Anyway, we are not limited by policy to "critics only"; that would also beg the question of what a critic is. Musicians can be critics as well. I've said already, I think, that I would suggest limited space. But if some terrifically notable person says such glowing things, yeah that's important enough. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The thing is that these people are notable, but not for their opinions on other people's music. Their opinions thus generally aren't notable. Esszet (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Esszet, you're repeating yourself, and so I shall too: this makes no sense. To some extent they are experts in their fields, and it is prima facie ludicrous to not have a musician talk about which other musicians have been important to their music. Have a little common sense. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
What? You certainly wouldn't put "Rob Halford" in the ratings box, and if they're talking about influence, then fine, but reduce it to a sentence like "Musicians such as [blank and blank] have cited it as an influence" and move it to the "Release and reception" section. You don't need a "40th Anniversary" section just for other musicians' appraisals of it; it would fit in just fine in the "Release and reception" section. Esszet (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, sometimes my judgment is a bit clouded. What I was getting at is that such comments are notable, but not notable enough to warrant an entire section dedicated exclusively to them. I reduced it to a single sentence and kept Snowy Shaw's comments in; that should get the point across without sounding too biased in favor of it. Esszet (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, ß--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Seth Andrews[edit]

I'm not sure where to bring this up so I'm parking it here. Two years ago this article was AfDed and deleted, when it looked like this: [1]. It received a DRV which endorsed the deletion. Now it's back again with some slightly better notability, but it's bloated (and some of it is sourced to things on the order of Wordpress and GoodReads) and needs a trim, as well as extra eyes. (For instance one editor is militating for a restoration of a clearly inappropriate and non-useful Criticism section which was merely soapboxing in disguise.) I'd do the trimming myself but the subject bores me. Could some of your lovely (I notice 99 gets a lot of traction when he calls your TP stalkers "lovely") talkpage watchers take a look at it and excise the excess? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • 99 is an old sexist. Don't think those 19th-century tactics work on me, Smartlavender. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That is not a good article. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I know, it's pretty sloppy and promotional. And still self-cited for much of the text. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, but I gotta get off this couch. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks much better now. If anyone else wants to give it a gander, fine. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, one of the sections you deleted has been reinstated. It seems the main author of the article is very insistent (see his talk-page comment about the removal). Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: DGG tagged the article as a news release; I re-removed the section you had deleted and removed DGG's tag. If the article's editors have gotten the message, it's OK now I think, but if they haven't this article should have a few more eyes, especially admin eyes, on it. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A pair of doozies[edit]

Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, any thoughts about or assistance you may render at Frank Spotnitz and related article Big Light Productions will be appreciated. They're both press releases, largely tended to by a WP:SPA. A lot of unsourced and gratuitous tables of credits, and possible copyright violation content; the net result is puffery. They do appear to be identical, so once the dust settles one can probably be redirected to the other. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I did some bold work at Frank Spotnitz - let's see how the editor responds! Garchy (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I still think that "doozie" means something simple, cause that's what it sounds like. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Garchy. I'll have another look at the bio within the next few days--I think the tone of the prose may still be an issue, and now we know that it's been an autobiography for a long time, an online resume. As for you, Dr, I like to drop an archaic word your way from time to time. Can't imagine anyone uses 'doozy' anymore. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I've marked the first for WP:RD1 and the second for WP:G12. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
No, 99, it's not that archaic; I know it's being used, though I don't agree with it. But then there are a lot of things I don't agree with, and at least this one doesn't single out one specific religion to persecute. Anyway, JJMC89, I think I mostly followed your lead--thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Dr, you completely lost me if you're serious. I'm not familiar with the term being used in an offensive manner, and can't find any such reference. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Huh. I always thought "doozy" was a shortening of Duesenberg (sp?). Back in the old days the "Doozy" was known as a really high-end car, so that the word took on the sense of a general superlative. (Where I'm from "the Cadillac of [something]" has a similar meaning.) I'm curious about any religious connotations. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. And thank you, JJMC89. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Not dooziness ;)

O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Webster says it predates the manufacture of Duesenberg vehicles but might come from "daisy," as used in the 19th century to mean "the best." Or Beowulf. Maybe. Geoff | Who, me? 15:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not what you meant, I'm guessing[edit]

You know as well as I do that CIVIL is difficult to endorse. EEng 05:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

American Name Society[edit]

Another article overseen by COI accounts--you'll love the edit summaries. Advice/assistance from the Dt or talk page stalkers much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No- but, we can do better than that, can't we...?  ;) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rodney felder[edit]

Thanks for getting rid of those pages by Rodney felder. Think you missed one... The Chute (2016). :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Odd--I used "delete all", a powerful tool. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what can come of this[edit]

Hoping you or some talk page stalkers can help with some advice on this. The discussion at Talk:Deflategate has become a massive assertion of point back and forth, and is taking over the talk page. I'm not sure any kind of consensus will come out of it or if it should continue on the talk or move to AfC? Any suggestions appreciated. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Eh...eh... Drmies (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. That's exciting. I suggest you let this go nowhere. There is editorial consensus against their "scientific" evidence, by I think four editors. If need be, if that person starts inserting it in the article again, I suggest you run a quick RfC just on the general question "should we include this kind of evidence", just to get it ironclad. If the editor does not stop clogging up that talk page, you can always ask for a topic ban, a very narrow one. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both for the comments - I'll keep an eye on it and hopefully it wraps up soon - at this point Rob Young is outlining points to himself, as no one else is really engaged in this conversation...hopefully he moves on to other articles soon. Garchy (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Adriatica McKinney, Texas[edit]

Regarding this diff... Are you sure??? They sure look like the same thing to me... :-\ --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Yep. This may still not be notable but it's better. But...how do you know? I have admin glasses... Drmies (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Not trying to argue with you. I just don't don't see anything different... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I know, but how can you see anything at all? Drmies (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Would it be possible to show a comparison of the two pages, to show the content and reference changes? Request here from Zackmann08. Btw Zack, I'm also a non-admin. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, alrighty then...[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patriotsontop#Leave_the_adminning_to_the_admins_please

Jeez, just trying to help. I'll try to respect your authority next time. Patriotsontop (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Patriotsontop

  • How were you trying to help? By falsely presenting the article as protected? Not a question of authority--it makes no sense to put a "protected" template on an unprotected page, or to pretend in an edit summary that you protected an article. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hsiung Feng III[edit]

An IP hopper who has been adamantly pushing the use of blogs and tabloids for an exceptional claim despite being repeatedly refuted has been laying siege to Talk:Hsiung Feng III for a few months now. But lo, it appears we've made progress; after realizing he stands no chance he has resorted to (incorrectly) pointing out spelling errors, as can be seen in the RfC section that's now in shambles. Just came to tattle because it's become annoying and disruptive. Lizard (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • You mean this one? That talk page is not fun to read. If all those letters and words and paragraphs led to a better article with better sourcing, fine--but if editors have to waste their time arguing that certain papers are tabloids and that that tabloids shouldn't be used, that's disruption. I appreciate editors' patience in dealing with that RfC, but it strikes me as needless, and if this continues, this time wasting, we should maybe consider other measures. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I mean this one, who I suspect is the same editor as most of the other IPs on the page. I should have specified that what's causing the RfC to be needless is the editor's inability to understand the concept of reliable sources. But I'd have no objections if you went and closed it right now. Lizard (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm well, it only just started. I think what you can consider is just pressing participants for a straight up or down vote because that discussion is going nowhere; there's not even real conversation about the second and third issues. And you can, if you like, hat the discussions about the tabloids, which is clearly off-topic. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

re: Nerds on Site[edit]

I'm not finding much on the internet regarding this company, other than their website, and the Wikipedia article. Maybe we should delete it? Boomer VialHolla 05:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know. It's been here a while, and typically admins don't speedily delete stuff that has some history. But the article history is mostly full of trash. I removed one or two of the tags (there's some claim of importance), but chose to edit it some rather than delete it. If you can't find anything, just leave the tag on and the next admin will judge it. If they decline, then you can choose to take it to AfD (the IP editor can't do that). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Would that be ...?[edit]

... an Auto-SPI when you list yourself? It's inre to vote stacking in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Dallas Dance (2nd nomination). — Sam Sailor 19:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sampaolesi line[edit]

Hi Drmies, just so I know, could you please tell me why the "Image of Sampaolesi line during Gonioscopy: [1]" is invalid? (Article: Sampaolesi_line). Cheers Jkokavec (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Jkokavec, hi--for two reasons: a. "See also" is for links to other Wikipedia articles; and b. even as an external link, we typically don't link to such external images--I see nothing in WP:EL that suggests we should include links to images (see the second paragraph of that guideline). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Can you then suggest how I might alert readers to this important image, without infringing upon Copyright? How else to I indicate that this is an important image for this topic? Thank you, Jkokavec (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, that's the thing--you really can't, because doing so (you, that is Wikipedia saying something is important) is original research. Things are important if secondary sources say they're important. That applies to images, theories, political statements, records, etc... Now, I didn't look at the link, but I assume there's some context there, that someone published it, someone who knows stuff, someone who provided context for it. That document can be a secondary source (if, of course, it's reliable, published, etc.), and then you have both an image and an explanation--an image by itself is nothing, just ask Cam Ward. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.odpalace.com/images/sampaolesi.jpg

Project[edit]

Hello. Can you please take a look around Wikipedia:WikiProject Validate credentials and help out if you want. I don't really mind but if you like the idea it would be good to have you endorsing it. Thank you. Wiki-Coffee Talk 00:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • After what you had to say to me yesterday? Drmies (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Drmies It was an opinion about how you engaged with one editor. I saw it by accident and just thought I would mention it because I felt that attitude could drive away people from Wikipedia, but I am prepared to accept that issue is resolved and move on. I would prefer to move on and it would be good if you would evaluate the merit of the project on the principles and concepts. If you felt that what I said to you yesterday was unmerited, I apologize, but I don’t usually notice something then keep down if I feel it is rude. Sometimes it’s good to get an uninvolved and outside perspective on things? If you don't want to engage with me that's fine but personally I have gone right past that. Wiki-Coffee Talk 03:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Drmies Additionally, I want you to understand that I am seeing things from your prospective. Probably along the lines of “who is this new guy who hardly has any edits coming along and speaking to me who has put so much hard work into this project… in fact it’s my life! Who does he think he is talking with!” The fact is however, that I can speak from the prospective of an outsider who is not as involved emotionally or otherwise with Wikipedia as you are. This is not a bad thing, as editors like you seem to me to be essential to how Wikipedia functions, however it can sometimes cloud vision. You do deserve respect – and some users like the one yesterday might not exemplify something worth showing much respect back for but I think you are one for being able to always take the higher ground. I love the whole idea of Wikipedia and what it does for people, and respect the work people like you do to keep it going. With that said however, edit counts and time spent on Wikipedia does reflect that you spend a huge portion of your life on here which means you might be very attached to it. When an outsider like me comes along and appears to be dictating or lecturing you – I understand how this could piss anyone off… but if you try to understand my vision. I am a Lawyer off Wikipedia and have a history of standing up with minority groups that are oppressed. It’s with this and my own personal background that I find it incredibly difficult not to openly object to something which appears to be wrong – no matter who I am standing up to. I hope that you appreciate that it could be you or anyone else and it does not mean that I disrespect you as a person. It just means that I hope you could do better, just like I hope I can do better and that if I was ever wrong just as I pointed out to you that you would address me all the same. Thank you for your understanding. Wiki-Coffee Talk 04:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is how I felt, and I thought I said so. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: You seem to be very intelligent and I respect that. I would love it if you could read my new essay and give me some feedback. Its here: WP:LOWEDITFEAR Wiki-Coffee Talk 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I'm sure he apppreciates that 'seem,' there... O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, just wait until he actually reads the essay... Primefac (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Dongargaon ek jannat[edit]

After the users last revert, I've started a thread at ANI, thought you may be interested. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmm thanks. Yeah, that was going nowhere. I hope they spend some time on the article we already had. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hilton Hotels & Resorts[edit]

Hello, Drmies - I just happened to see this edit to Hilton Hotels & Resorts, and wondering in what way the previous edit had been "bad", I looked at the previous edits and saw what looked like edit warring, adding, removing, adding, and removing what appears to be sourced content. I don't know who is right, but I thought it was possible, since the article is about a hotel chain, that someone does not want anything unfavorable about it to be there, and I thought an IP editor may not recognize edit warring or know what to do about it. I also thought "bad edit" was not a very informative edit summary. What do you think? I leave it up to you.  – Corinne (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I can't speak for YSSYguy, though I gladly acknowledge participating in the annual march of the fuck-knuckles (see their user page). I also saw this and I wonder if this is someone we/I know--then again, everyone seems to hate on Sro23 these days--except for me, Sro! and you have a friend in Jesus! And the IP has some history with YSSYguy. Anyway, I think the edit you pointed at is pretty bad--poorly written, bare URLs, incorrect code, poor references, and the content is trivial, as far as I'm concerned; it's the typical "hey this happened at this place"; yesterday I deleted a fight in a schoolyard or something like that. And typically that sort of trivia is negative, or it doesn't make the paper--I just saw this in the same article. BTW, let's hear it from Herman Brood, the godfather of Dutch rock and roll, who we always thought was more likely to jump off the Okura hotel (wonder if they still have a sushi restaurant at the top level). Sorry--got distracted. Yeah, I don't think YSSY is whitewashing the joint, and I don't think this IP editor is much of an asset. Thanks for the note--and now let's play some rock and roll. This is the Brood song, with Danny Lademacher on guitar--so cool, on the P90-equipped Les Paul, with some cool analog chorus, vintage 1978. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I couldn't give a hoot about the Hilton company. Secondly, in addition to the above, the event had nothing to do with the hotel company, which is the subject of the article, it was allegedly about a particular hotel; also the sources do not actually mention a Hilton hotel. One of the sources says, "Police will allege the man yelled profanities at passers-by and then claimed he was going to blow up a building. It’s unclear which building the man was referring to." One of the buildings at that location is a Hilton hotel, a fact which the IP has used to put two and two together to arrive at five. Yeah, I have been following the guy around WP for a couple of weeks, that's because his edits have been shit; plenty of others have undone his edits as well at various articles, but when I see a bad edit to an article on my watchlist by someone, I also check that person's other contributions as well. YSSYguy (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies, for your reply and the links. I had never heard of Herman Brood, but I like rock 'n roll, so I enjoyed listening to the song. I made a few copy-edits to Herman Brood. I notice there are a few "citation needed" tags there. YSSYguy, thank you for your comment, also. It sounds like you are perfectly correct in your assessments of both editor and edits. Even if you're fairly sure your edit summaries will be ignored by that editor, an edit summary that is slightly more specific than "bad edit" might help other editors figure out what's going on. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Corinne--it's been a while since I looked at the article and stuff has changed some. I worked on it many years ago trying to clean it up, but as so often I just half-assed it, even though I'm a heart and soul rock and roll junkie, just like Herman. Any help is appreciated. Glad we got this worked out, by the way. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit revert[edit]

Hi Drmies,

The edit you're talking about is not mine. The person who originally reverted the edit, reverted multiple edits, including mine, which didn't include anything about numbers (I didn't write anything about "30 000 ou 40 000"). My edit reorganized the "notable people" section and added details about various people. Whoever made the first revert, reverted my edit as well as someone else's. My edit was completely sourced. It linked to Wikipedia pages of the people concerned and is completely accurate. As far as I know, my edit was reverted for no valid reason, which is why I was perplexed by the revert, and the mention of a lack of sourcing, which definitely doesn't apply to my edit. Thanks. Gelkatn (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I am talking about this edit. I don't know what all happened before, and it is possible that stuff happened that became part of "your" edit--but you made this edit, and thus you own it. And the "30 or 40,000" edits, that's in the source. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not very hard to see which user made which edit. If you look at the history, you can see that my original edit (not the "re-reversion") did not contain any correction of any figures. It was strictly a textual addition to the people section. The edit you apparently have a problem with is not mine, and whoever (first Haybs and then you) made the first reversion did not do it properly, since my edit was reverted along with the "problematic" edit. The edit he, and subsequently you, wanted to revert was made before, long before, mine, and not by me. Again, it doesn't much effort to look at the history. The "re-reversion" you're linking to came after he reverted my edit along with the "numeral edit", hence my use of blanket reversion to describe it. It was improperly made. He could have re-edited the page, manually, without making use of a blanket reversion that completely reverts everything before it, including accurate contributions, albeit involuntarily. Again, it doesn't take much effort or time to look at the history before making brash editing mistakes. It's very lazy editing, if it can be called such, in my opinion. Gelkatn (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker)The issue appears to be on your end - the revert you reverted (of a revert) did not simply add back in your information - it added in unsubstantiated information that was removed during the first revert. You mention that "he could have re-edited the page, manually, without making use of a blanket reversion that completely reverts everything before it" - but I wonder why you didn't do the same thing - you could have simply added back in the information you had added that was subsequently removed. Garchy (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Gelkatn, it's simple. If you insert obviously unverified or incorrect information, you should be reverted. I really don't care how you came to put that information in there--YOU put it in there. I don't care about your original edit; I care about the edit that inserted obviously unverified and incorrect information. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Gelkatn, how does it feel to assume an identity and pretend to engage in good-faith discussion? Is honesty just something you lay down next to your desk? Garchy, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glozker, which will soon be merged into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HailesG. They've been doing this since at least 2013. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

AJPH landmark articles[edit]

Hi there! I'm 146.243.110.117, logged in. :) Just curious about your revision of edits to the American Journal of Public Health. I understand Wikipedia is not a repository for links; however other academic journal articles do list some noteworthy articles in their pages. The articles I added I believed were noteworthy for historic and current event reasons (e.g., the Kawachi article is well-known in Public Health grad programs as majorly contributing to the understanding of social capital as it relates to community health) and far from being a PR campaign was intended to demonstrate the contributions the journal has made to public health. In your revision comment, you said it was not verified. If I am able to cite a reliable source stating the journal considers the listed articles noteworthy, would that be sufficient citation to include the links again? Thanks for your help! ViolinGirl♪ 17:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • If you have a secondary source, an independent one, that says that this or that article as published in that journal is noteworthy, sure--but if some article is important, that doesn't necessarily make the journal it was published in important, or the fact that it was published in that journal and not another. I've looked at many articles for journals, but I don't think I've ever seen a list like that. Here's the other thing: if a journal has made contributions to (in this case) public health, then one would expect that to be verifiable directly. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It does, thank you very much for your explanation. I will be sure to cite independent sources to verify the noteworthiness of the articles before I implement them into the page for the journal. I appreciate your help! ViolinGirl♪ 19:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Absolutely, and good luck with it. BTW, my go-to experts for journals etc. are Randykitty and DGG. While neither are as young or as goodlooking as I am, they both know tremendous amounts and don't mind helping out. Randykitty even knows a thing or two about health. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Myself, I consider a list of famous articles quite appropriate. But they must either be selected as Drmies has described. or be selected on some specified objective manner, such as the number of citations. The actual importance of a journal is the expectation that it will contain importance articles. I'll take a look at the specific situation tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It's all been said well, except that I'd like to add that I'm softer and fluffier than Drmies! --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Teun van de Keuken[edit]

I left you a question there that I don't think you saw. LadyofShalott 03:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Windsor Law[edit]

Hello! In a previous message to me regarding the Windsor Law page, you suggested that we should send you the revised content to review prior to posting. How should we go about doing that - do we put it on here or....? Also, once it is approved, would you suggest reverting the page and then editing out the offending language? We are loathe to completely redo the page when we have already done that and it now just needs clean up. Thank you Moonlore20002001 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Annette

  • Moonlore20002001, I don't think I said that--that's not really how it works here. Wait--you're pointing to the standard notification, "you might like to draft your revised article before submission". Yes, that can be done, and the best way to do that is to propose changes on the article talk page and ping an editor or two for advice, and/or leave a note for the relevant WikiProjects (hereWikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, and here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities). For relatively small edits that's the best way to go. What I take issue with is the "you" in your "we should send you"--I'm not a gatekeeper, no one is; these things are done by consensus, so "you plural" would work, but I don't want it to sound like it's us versus you (singular, Annette). And I really think/agree that to make cooperation relatively easy, it's best to propose smaller changes, not a major overhaul. Now, if y'all now have 600 faculty instead of 500 or whatever, and you have a decent source for it, go ahead and make that change; such changes should be uncontroversial. So perhaps focus on those kinds of changes first and get your feet wet, and then we can take it from there. I'm pinging DGG and ... who else ... Kelapstick; the first is a university expert, and the second is a Canadian, so he can translate for us if need be. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Moonlore20002001, I remind you that the subject of an article does not control the Wikipedia page for it. You should, in fact, not be entering content except for straightforward facts with clear sources--updating the number of students, and the like. the current article as it stands is unacceptably promotional, with content that is more appropriate to its own web site -- even from the first paragraph -- "The Faculty of Law embraces the principles of Access to Justice in all aspects of its operation, including its admissions policy, faculty hiring, faculty research and scholarship and its curriculum" This sort of self-praise (or possibly the Canadian equivalent of a US non-discrimination statement) is not encyclopedic content. "to provide upper year law students with a unique clinical legal education experience, and in turn support entrepreneurship and innovation in the Windsor-Essex region" is PR jargon -- I don't personally think this sort of writing belongs anywhere, but certainly it does not in an encyclopedia. The remainder is written in similar fashion. It contains material of no interest to anyone except a current or prospective student, such as the details of admission requirement. I have not yet checked,but it seems possible that some of this may in fact be copied from your web site. It's possible to give copyright permission--a free license that lets anybody reuse and modify the material for any purpose, even commercial, but the material is almost always unsuitable, so it much better to rewrite. And there must be third party references, not just to your web site.

I need to think whether this is so promotional it must be removed to draft space for rewriting, or whether I can quickly do the necessary cutting to let it stay as an article--that will be better than reverting, and, it may be easier for me to do it than to explain to you just what needs to be done.
. And the journal really needs a separate article--but the material there also will need to be rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In general, without having looked at the article in question, I agree with DGG's comments above. Pulled pork tomorrow Drmies, which is always tricky in rural Indonesia. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Showstudio.com and Nick Knight (photographer)[edit]

Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, assistance would be greatly appreciated on these articles. The issues are self-evident...my requests for speedy deletion and page protection have been denied, but the former is especially awful in its current form. Even in its previous incarnation it's a press release. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we have a speedy criteria for UPE, I wonder? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It's been proposed, most recently here. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer TJW, I see. That's one of those discussins that gets lost once it gets bogged down in discuusing detail: if the original proposal had been focussed on paid editing, rather than the ToU (which admittedly could be a catch-all, almost), it would have been at least a sharper discussion, and possibly a different result. What makes PE different is that the accounts are generally use-once / disposable / throw-away accounts so blocks don't affect them: the only thing that wil stop them- 'follow the money'- is destruction of what they have been paid for. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, anchoring it to the TOU was kindof a way to try to avoid the pitfalls of past proposals. And anyway, it's CSD, which has a new suggestion rate of about one a week and a success rate of near zero. So a body has to overcome that predisposition even if their proposal is a damned good one. TimothyJosephWood 16:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Tone on Talk Pages[edit]

Hi Drmies, I was a bit disappointed that on the 2016 United States election interference by Russia talk page, you admonished one user to show collegiality (regarding this comment), but seemed to turn a blind eye to the equally (much worse, in my opinion, actually) behavior of the other editor involved. I would just hope for a bit more even-handedness from an administrator. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm glad you agree that the accusation that placing a DS notice is a DS violation is not collegial (and untrue, of course); I don't see how "for french fry's sake" is worse than that. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you consider the post by VM to be uncollegial? Since you're telling users to watch their tone, I'd just like to see you do so equally. It's not good to tell only one user to watch their tone, while the other involved user is going around leaving sarcastic comments. Just to be frank, it looks very partisan. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe I used any "sarcastic comments". What I said I meant literally, funny words aside.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I enjoyed VM's post. He sure has a fancy-brand bent for his word turning. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No. I don't. There's a big difference between making a false accusation and using an unusual phrase that indicates exasperation. I don't know, Thucydides, what is not clear to you here. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious what's not clear to me here. I'm interested to know whether it's acceptable to deal with fellow editors in the way that VM does in the comment linked above. If I were to leave sarcastic remarks and accuse other editors of bad faith (as VM did in the comment linked above), or if I were to make blatantly false accusations against other editors (as VM did in this comment, in the thread you were involved in), would that be viewed as acceptable, or would I eventually land in hot water with the admins? I think the latter is the case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Where was I being "sarcastic"? What I said is that if X is true then find a source that says it. That's it. Nothing sarcastic there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thucydides411, Drmies has explained to you twice that spreading falsehoods is much worse behavior than using colorful language to express frustration, yet you continue to conflate those very different forms of behavior. Why are you choosing to behave that way? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thucydides411, this is not a high school playground, or some Twitter forum, where you get points for snarkiness, loaded question, or patronizing tone. This is, besides a schtick, a stick, and you should drop it. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: I asked you a simple question, and I was very direct about my reason for asking it. The way you chose to respond was very unbecoming of an admin, let alone a constructive editor. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: "this is not a high school playground, or some Twitter forum": that is called snark and patronization. Thucydides411's question was direct. If you are going to intervene at a talk page and accuse editors of incivility, I'd like to see the even-handedness of an admin. The accusations that are and have been flying around on that talk page are extraordinary. -Darouet (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who you are or why you are busting in here, but you are wrong. This was not a direct question: it was a series of repetitive loaded questions, and I would like to not see those. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I was quite active on the Talk Page of the article in question before you showed up (sorry, busted in) to threaten BlueSalix over DS sanctions there. I was amazed that, given all the shit that had gone down at that talk page already, including numerous false and/or deeply hypocritical allegations of DS violations, you appeared on the talk page to focus on that one particular incident. Why that one, out of everything else? I disagreed with BlueSalix, but they were hardly alone, and acted in an environment that has been established at many of the Russia-US articles. For that reason your very particular intervention did appear partisan, and I appreciated that Thucydides411 asked you to explain yourself there (you didn't). If you are willing to threaten and impose sanctions on one side of an editorial dispute, but not another, there is no possibility that a collegial editing environment will be maintained. And confronting that, not with sarcasm but directly, is important.
P.S. I made my first post on your talk page a week before you made an appearance at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia. You did not reply. My comment more or less addressed a very similar issue. -Darouet (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry I missed that post. But let me list, again, what all it is that I object to. a. The suggestion that the two comments from the two different editors were somehow equivalent. They were not. b. The continued harping on the idea that they were, esp. if couched in passive-aggressive terms such as "Just to be frank..." c. The not at all passive word choice from you and Thucydides. If Thucydides cannot handle one simple non-templated note from an admin--sure, call it a "threat", why not? let's make this more uncollegial--then they should stay out of contentious areas. VM has not, as far as I know, crossed any line in a long time--not since I blocked him last time, I think. Now, if there is something you wish to accomplish, you can do it at ARE, and I wish you the best. Finally, the explanation you said I didn't give, it's in my very first response in this thread. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Labdoo[edit]

Hi Drmies, you flagged the Labdoo article for several reasons. I removed my last added section, about Labdoo's zero funding approach, although it is not at all an advertisment, but a description of how Labdoo works. Nevertheless, I removed it. I reduced the history section to a minimum. Is that enough to remove your flags or how does this works?

--AoifeJB (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Q: Montreal in August? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Man that sounds lovely but I don't think I can, Ed. I don't have a budget, and I probably don't have much time. Is there a link for the thing you can send me? Drmies (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about an old reversion of yours[edit]

Hey there, Drmies. I'm here to talk about these two edits which you made to the page The Underland Chronicles some time ago. I've been working on getting pages from that book series to GA status, and I'd really like to put some of the material you removed back in. I've been wrestling with how to approach this conundrum for a while, and I could use your advice.

I agree with your removal of the "symbolism" section that used to be there; it was completely unreferenced OR, and it should stay gone. It's the "locations" section that I'd like to restore. The series takes place in a completely original setting, and relies very heavily on the reader's understanding of it; the plot of the series is essentially a war over this fictional territory. I believe that you removed the section at least in part because of its poor referencing, although you simply labeled it as plot cruft, and I've been working on finding secondary and tertiary sources to resolve this issue. I'm confused by examples I've seen of this kind of section/page elsewhere on the wiki, however, like Fictional locations in The Railway Series and Fictional universe of The Hunger Games. Not to cast aspersions on other editors' work, I'm just getting mixed messages about how to justify material that might be seen as cruft-like.

Since it is your reversion I'd be undoing, what would you like to see in a restored "locations" section here? What makes The Underland Chronicles all that different from other book series, except maybe a smaller sales figure? I really appreciate your time spent reading this small essay, and any help you can provide. Happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • 2ReinreB2, as far as I'm concerned all articles are equal; I just haven't gotten to all of them yet. The short answer here is threefold: a. for an encyclopedic article these locations are just not relevant esp. since they're fictional; b. yes, unverified, that's problematic; c. way too much detail. By way of comparison, A Brief History of Seven Killings is set in Jamaica (for the most part)--that's essential to the entire book; that's what it's about. For a fictional universe, the same rules don't apply, since the book makes up the universe. This kind of content is best reserved for Wikia or places like that.

    Fictional locations in The Railway Series is a terrible article and rightfully tagged; Fictional universe of The Hunger Games is equally terrible BUT! one can easily imagine that some of these locations have been written up in secondary sources in regards to their meaning. Articles are all equal, but not all books/topics are: some should be written up in more detail than others because they're more important, according to reliable sources. That ought to make the difference--and that's why you'll see a ton on Tolkien and maybe a bit less on Ursula LeGuin (I'm guessing here). Drmies (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your speedy reply. I do understand your points, but I'd still really like to add in a very brief "locations" section to The Underland Chronicles. If there's a section in which I can consolidate info on locations - just a few sentences on why they are strategically important - I'll be able to shrink the actual plot sections on individual book pages. In the end, a little consolidated detail (with references, of course) will lead to less material on the plot overall on Wikipedia. I brought up those unrelated articles hoping for an example page to use as a guide, but your comments have made clear that each situation is unique. So to restate my original question, then: In this particular case, would you accept an abbreviated, referenced "locations" section? Thank you again for your time, 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
  • I don't want to fight over anything, and if you write up something that's concise and doesn't list every single place, you stand a better chance of it being kept. Best is of course to start looking for secondary sources, which is where every single encyclopedic edit should start. Thanks, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hey I wanted to ask how to deal with not released albums on discography pages? Is it ok to add it when it has been reeased on iTunes? I always remove it because it is too soon and because there is no chating/sales but others add them back and right now I'm having some problems here. The album has been released digitally in January as far as I know but there is no charting or even sales. I don't want to get into trouble with other users so I was thinking you might help me out? Is it ok to add it because it has been released digitally or wait till it is officially released and we have sales and charting positions? Or does it matter at all? --Thebestwinter (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Maybe an expert like Dan56 has a good answer. Unreleased recordings are typically removed unless they're announced in a notable way. If it's already released digitally (and I think you are setting up a false contrast in digital vs. official: a digital release is official if done by the artist/record company), you can list it, but one would hope you could find a reliable secondary source rather than having to link to iTunes or Amazon, which is a terrible thing to have to do. BTW you won't easily get into trouble over something like this. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thebestwinter:, an album doesn't have to chart or sell anything to be a part of someone's discography. If it's been released already on some kind of format, then it's in the discography. I don't know anything as far as whether citing a retailer is appropriate or not, and an initial Google search for the album seems to turn up retailers and blogs. Dan56 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you both. I'll try to find a better source and add it back then.--Thebestwinter (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixing?[edit]

Drmies, do you plan to fix the material you removed from the Violet Wand article? You removed the other major method of use "Reverse" and its description, and you removed all the other text on Branding and Body Modification in your rush to remove citations you felt suspicious of. You've left the only citation a book that contains two paragraphs about violet wands and is NOT the source for the information that is in the wiki. The major source for the information contained in the wiki article is at www.violetwands.org, The International Violet Wand Guild, a member-user and education only non-profit association that standardized the terms and definitions, and set safety and specification benchmarks about 20 years ago. They do product reviews but sell NOTHING. The organization is the only real source for violet wand information, and they ARE the source. So when the wiki article talks about 'Direct' and Indirect and REVERSe' techniques, those terms were defined by the www.violetwands.org, the original source for the terminology. When the wiki article talks about the safety of using violet wands, the recognized safety benchmarks came from the same source. The entire article is now 'citation needed' without that. And there's only one place to get those citations: www.violetwands.org. Please reconsider, the article is now ambiguous without the main citations.Awolnetdiva (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Awolnetdiva, I do not plan to fix anything here and in fact I just sent it to AfD; I do not believe the thing is notable by our standards. If there is only one place to get citations, and that place is a website that looks, at best, like a community forum, that's a pretty clear indication that we're not dealing with something that passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI?[edit]

On my talk page you requested that I add something to an SPI. I'd appreciate it if you explain this in the case! MereTechnicality ⚙ 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I left a note on the SPI page--thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

😉 --Wikipedian of Wikipedia (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments (re Abasiono1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))). GABgab 15:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=765284402"