iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies
User talk:Drmies - Wikipedia

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.

October music

 
story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

My story today is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date. I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Old English Studies and its Scandinavian Practitioners

Hope this finds you well. Just noticed the above (D.S.Brewer, 2024: Bjork) is open access from Boydell & Brewer, here, if you're interested. All the best! SerialNumber54129 11:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Thanks--if we had world enough, and time! But yeah I'll have a look. I suppose you know about the American (Southern) fascination with Old English. I have not yet figured out how that matched with their Tennyson-inflected Arthurianism and their Scott-inflected medievalism. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppet Account at Bengalis

Hello there is a sockpuppet account named John Kumar Ibrahim who evaded their block by creating a new account and restoring the same old edits that they were blocked for at Bengalis. They even left a message on my talk page with the same copy pasted message that they are not a sockpuppet account when their edits indicate that they are, and given their edits at that article, the evidence supports the conclusion that this. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:RfPP

Hi there,

I see that you forgot to reply to the request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Help:Adding open-license text to Wikipedia and add the protection icon to the page, I've just done it for you. :) Aydoh8[contribs] 04:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 
 

  CheckUser changes

  Maxim

  Oversighter changes

  Maxim

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Can you enlighten me

as to why I might have been pinged in such illustrious company to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads? I know my memory is not what it used to be, but I don't recall ever showing any interest in roads, let alone ones in the US. Of course I will understand if you are as stumped as I am. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

IP cat pest

Hi, IP user 86.40.54.89 (User talk:Drmies/Archive 149#Possible IP evasion?) is back and has resumed their prolific but substandard category editing. I reverted them for a few last week and they returned with improvements (though still not perfect) but this week it has gone back to stuff like this, all minor but not correct, fiddly for others to fix, and something they have already been warned about already. Unfortunately I think when one IP is blocked they still continue to edit from another - 109.255.177.252 - so may do so again. Crowsus (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Continuing to add unsourced content, unexplained removal of maintenance tags, repeated addition of unsourced content

Hi Drmies, Found that there were 2 IP address ranges 2001:1388:A44:0:0:0:0:0 and 2001:1388:A45:0:0:0:0:0 All edits from the IP address found to be the same person. Harassing and deleting content in other articles which had administrators warn and rollback more than 30 disruptive edits Found the latest edit, redo it. Repeatedly adding unsourced content and deleting maintenance tags by correcting them and not explained in the article Nine (singer) in terms of being a fan club Due to adding content to live broadcast activities to sell products Duplicate content is added which is not important. As with most of the content in this article concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality.

There is a sockpuppet account named Rosalinares1 who evaded their block by creating a new IP and restoring the same old edits that they were blocked for at Nine (singer).

Please see Nine (singer): Revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nine_(singer)&action=history

Please see this edits: 2001:1388:A44:5700:28FE:5648:2A79:8595 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:5700:28FE:5648:2A79:8595 2001:1388:A44:EDDB:98F3:C8BE:82C6:175D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:EDDB:98F3:C8BE:82C6:175D 2001:1388:A44:23CC:DCF2:FD41:F2BA:FCE3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:23CC:DCF2:FD41:F2BA:FCE3

Revision history Nine (singer) has only one person, IP addresses starting with 2001:1388:A45 and 2001:1388:A44 all are the same person The edits will be made in the same way, namely adding information to the article without the source in Nine (singer) and deleting and disturbing other articles. which always has admin rollback This person made repeated changes with new IP addresses like this.

The article Nine (singer) does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Much of the content in these sections seems to be little known events and awards. Likely of interest only to a small audience.

Much of it should be removed:

The entire article was edited by the same person, unexplained removal of maintenance tags, and recently used a new IP address to add a lot of unsourced content.

repeated addition of unsourced content I think examining a person is difficult. This person from Lima, Peru uses a different IP address every time they resolve. Every time delete and add information to another article. will be reversed Then edit again with the new IP address.

This person created information in the Nine (singer) article and also caused mischief in other articles. Add information without references Administrators always roll back edits that this person deleted on other articles. Editing that disturbs another article and edited and added information only to the article Nine (singer) The person using all IP addresses in this Nine (singer) article is the same person who removed the maintenance tag without editing it.

The person using all the IP addresses I attached is the same person. I'm only giving examples because there are many. The entire article Nine (singer) has an IP address from the same person from Lima, Peru, but the IP address in the update is different every time the information is added. This person deleted the maintenance tag notice. Delete without correcting Most articles lack references. As I looked at the article's history, Nine (singer) has been doing this for a long time, but no user has come to check on this person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:F15F:C574:7A91:49D9:AAC9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:7B00:F810:2A14:7BCB:F48B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:7B00:358F:FBE6:A148:46A0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:40B6:504C:F2CB:D823:F9B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:AEDB:F872:834B:5232:4D3E

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:EA0C:2594:EA67:F737:FD4B MeetHoneyBee (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

unban request at AN

Hi Drmies, since this is a WP:3X ban I don't know if I'm expected to notify you personally, but just in case, since you're the original block admin, please see WP:AN#84Swagahh unban request. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

VMLY&R (Companies)

Hi Drmies, could you take a look at what's going on here? TaylorLvx has clearly gamed to autoconfirmed so I thought at first it was an obvious sock of TruthEditor3, but on second thought they seem to be editing against each other. Strange. C F A 💬 21:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You've got mail!

 
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC). 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.

SerialNumber54129 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're next!

I recall reading that Danton shouted this at Robespierre as he was trundled off to the guillotine. Can't recall the source. Can you?

These things didn't happen back in Nisus' day, but only "old timers" like us recall those times. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Haha, I quit teaching that: there's no point anymore in assignment texts that are more complicated than an Instagram poem. Shame--no more Virgil, Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare. Then again, that nursing students have to take humanities classes provides our bread and butter, but the use for them is pretty limited of course. It gets worse if you ask a class full of lit crit seniors what their favorite books and authors are, and none of them get any farther than some YA books. Euryalus, I always thought you had one of the best names of any admin, and I'm so glad you're still around. Plus your name has an article, which is cool. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
True. Luckily I am yet to be dragged to admin recall for my flagrant disregard of WP:IMPERSONATE. As Robespierre verifiably said, "To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty." Our turns will come.
And re assignments, isn't that what AI is for? Apparently allowed in University essays these days, provided there's some tiny fleck of individuality, or idiosyncratic use of commas, or some other trivial variation. Bah humbug, as someone once said. Anyway: hope you and yours are well. I have a reference book of eighteenth century Dutch warships somewhere, will write an article on one of them for you provided you can explain why the Dutch have such a confusing system of weights and measures. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • It frightens me to think that lit majors would rely on AI. I write because I like to write, not because I'm made to. I can understand people focusing on YA, because it's what they're used to (and it's still better than TikTok or YouTube shorts), but going into literature while feeling like writing is a chore... As for the Dutch units of measure, it all boils down to two arnhemse meisjes to each speculaas, and two speculaas to each stroopwafel.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • In all seriousness, based on our article I suspect it could be used as much. If is "the weight equivalent of 120 cubic feet (3.398 m3) of shipping space", by extension one could use it to measure capacity or displacement.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Yeah might do that. I've also worked out how to change Amsterdam feet into English feet (because I dont think we have an Amsterdam feet template). But apparently the Admiralty of Rotterdam (and not the others) used Maas feet for ship dimensions. Wtf is a Maas foot? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • If the Maas is the Meuse, then I'd expect that the Maas foot would be the Rotterdam foot (that city being on the Meuse). Our article gives that as equivalent to 312.43 millimetres (1.0250 ft), citing a 19th-century French textbook.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks, that's very helpful. I have a few reference sources on Dutch warships of (mostly) seventeenth century, and might try a summer task of filling in some of our blanks in their coverage. Labour of love really - these kind of articles get a handful of views a day and most of those are bots. But whatever. Starting point is being able to translate the basic numbers of ship anatomy before going on to the easy part of their actual history. Hence questions like these. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Page 415, near the bottom. Notates it as an "ancient" unit of measure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Serious, serious

Once there was User:Pinzunski, whom i was sure was a sockpuppet of Martimc123, but the investigation yielded nothing. Now, we have User:SukunaZenin, and i am SURE they are a sock of the first account mentioned. They continue to add stuff like transfer speculation to Francisco Trincão or Ricardo Velho (i let it "slide" in the latter, only composed the wording, but reverted the former altogether); now, through an IP (this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:6832:2C00:E10F:9A77:CE09:D3D7, i also use them, no problem there from where i stand), they resorted to serious insults ("fucking keyboard warrior", "biggot" (sic)) and, as Pinzunski before, warned me that there would be serious consequences if i continue what i'm doing: what am i doing? Trying to make articles readable, without tons of unencyclopedical material (some of their additions are good, i do admit it; the first time around, the legal threats were so "substantiated" that, following two or three days of them, we never heard anything more in that regard).

Attentively (oh, this just in, i'm leaving because: 1 - my summaries will never improve and i realise that may be unfair sometimes; 2 - can't take more of this abuse. Whatever any further investigations may produce it's neither here or there for me, cheers), continue the great work RevampedEditor (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

At Kerem Aktürkoğlu, through a new IP, they reinstated EVERYTHING you have reverted (with an "interesting" edit summary to go along)! a promise to you: i won't leave of course, have done NOTHING contrary to WP guidelines (if you except the summaries of course), but i will only edit with my account from now on, no more laziness/not logging off.

Cheers --RevampedEditor (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

2024 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

Can you help me? The game summary had a different looking format when I was adding and editing the content. Someone came in and changed it and I would like to have it reverted back to its original format Rolltide pisco (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since you pinged me

Since you pinged me, but I think that conversation's going pretty far off topic, I guess I'll respond here. Also, pre-emptively, my apologies if your question was rhetorical. If that's the case, then I guess you can just remove this from your talk page. But I think you were genuinely curious, so here goes. I don't think any of the admins, in either the recall or the AN/I thread, were intentionally covering up for another admin's poor behaviour. If I did, I would have said. Yes, I do think some of them could and should be a lot firmer on other admins, but it's really freaking hard to tell somebody you know and have worked with for years that they're behaving inappropriately. I can't fault anybody for assuming good faith of their friends/acquaintances. Well, I mean I could, obviously, but it would feel petty and vindictive and I won't.

I get that people do it, though. The fact you can have a situation where Person A says something mean, Person B says Person A was wrong, and Person C thinks "Yes, I agree, but Person A is my friend and I don't like Person B enough to jeopardize that" isn't great, but it's really common. So common, in fact, that we've ended up with a situation that's even more worse- there's an unwritten social rule that in either scenario, should Person B say something against Person A, everybody etching will assume that they're now friends/allies with Person C and therefore agrees with everything else Person C does. Or, alternatively, we take it one step back and deliberately read bad faith into the situation by saying "Person B didn't tell their friend to stop- therefore they must stand by Person A's actions and we must punish them as well". Which is also not great! My saying this isn't particularly revolutionary, I know, but it's true and I think I've made peace with the fact that I can't change any of it. The only thing I can do, I think, is try and avoid copying this behaviour myself.

I guess all of this is to say that I think I can understand why you think I'd be acting differently, but you asked, you pinged me, and I figured you deserved/wanted an answer as to why I'm acting in the way I am. Does this explain where I'm coming from? Feel free to ask again, or feel free to tell me to sod off. Again, if it was a rhetorical question all along, apologies. (And I mean that quite genuinely). But also, while I'm here, could you explain the wounded deer comment? I've been trying to get what you meant by it. Could you clarify/expand? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • I think there's some A/B/C confusion, and I don't think C said B was wrong because C and A are friends. You got a couple Cs here saying what A said wasn't wrong enough to fire them from their jobs, and that's what we're talking about, really. Never mind that A, B, and C are not coming into this the same way: B was actively looking to get A demoted, and if a couple of Cs don't agree, then B is looking for another forum in which to get A demoted--this procedure, which seems to be a relative easy way to demote someone.
    A wounded deer is a deer that's been shot or whatever and is now attracting attention from other hunters, and is a much easier prey. And anyone can shoot--one of the signers of the anti-Fastily petition has 300 mainspace edits and a very tenuous grasp of WP:RS, and has voted "you're fired" (basically "per nom") in both the recalls we've seen. I find this problematic, yes. The ArbCom procedure is much more difficult, and I think it should be much more difficult, since it's so easy for admins to make enemies. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • On your first point- if I'm going to be Person B in this scenario, you might want to note B was a bystander in the original thread - there was no "trying one forum, failing, and looking for another". And do you find it relatively easy? I don't. The recall petition can't demote anybody by itself- the community would still need to decide next steps at an RfA. And I don't like the term "demoted", but I think it's interesting that you chose it. Being an admin isn't a reward, and being a regular editor isn't a punishment.
      And thank you for explaining the metaphor. I'm not particularly interested in discussing an identifiable no-name editor's behaviour in a public forum, but without notifying them (It's so middle school), so I think if you have issues with any individual editor, you should bring it up to them, not me. I do find your point about Arbcom interesting, however. I've had a lot of people tell me recently that they think in similar lines to you. I can't say I agree. Maybe it's just be being youthful and optimistic, maybe I'm just not that swayed by the long list of enemies in wait argument, but I think most currently admins would sail pretty easily through an re-RfA, especially if we're going by the 60% and up + trust the crats to discount spite/bad faith !votes. There's a couple admins I think who wouldn't pass, but most have already proven that they're not going to start out-of-process blocking everybody who questions their actions. And I do think it's interesting that you think Arbcom should be less strict. Desycops and admonishments are pretty rare, especially once you consider that most of the behaviours that get administrators desysopped or warned would earn a regular user a nice little enforced Wikibreak of varying lengths. That's probably enough of me being anti-establishment for one day, but I am curious as to what solution you would propose instead. How poorly would you have to view an administrator's conduct before you took action? And, seeing as you have the block button, how poorly would you have to view a non-admin's conduct before you took action? Under whatever new even more strict Arbcom you have in mind, how would those answers look? What avenues would you make availible to discuss administrator conduct? How severe would a potential infraction be before you even examined it? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Page Protection for multiple articles

Hey I know I don't usually ask adminstrators to do page protections but now it has gotten serious because the same editor 2601:42:0:4000:f914:fa4b:3a66:3ad2 keeps adding the same edits at multiple articles that are not proven nor found in the cited source they cited. So if you can please do page protection on those articles. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abigail Thomas

For such a well-reviewed author who, after all, mainly writes about herself, there is precious little biographical information available. I've ordered her books as Christmas presents for my wife, and will read them myself once she's had a shot at them. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply