User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions

Archives

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

What's with the insulting response to a simple request? Really thought you were interested in article quality, and would be willing to explain why you want undefined jargon in article leads when it isn't even mentioned in the article body. 82.33.111.106 (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's your use of "you" that was insulting, not my response. Unwarranted assumptions and all that. You make good edits and have terrible manners; I try to find something that attempts to alleviate the situation you signal, if only a little bit, and you shit on me. "Really thought you were interested"...more of those assumptions. "you want undefined jargon"...yet more. I'm not blind, you know, but I'm really not interested in being enlisted in some crusade. Wait--gotta go. There's something wrong on the internet and I have to make someone fix it. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in enlisting anyone in any crusade, and it wasn't my intention to shit on you. And I do find it insulting when someone says "you have nothing to say to me". I do. If you don't want to listen, say you don't want to listen. Don't tell me if I have nothing to say. You insulted me once before, too, complaining about how boring it was for you to see me complaining about edits being reverted for no reason. Did you imagine how boring it is to have your time wasted over and over and over again for no reason? And how much less boring it would be if people actually didn't do that? It's two years since I first made an uncontroversial edit to this particular article, and it's been undone 17 times by 10 different editors, not one of whom bothered to explain why they were undoing my obviously necessary work and wasting my time. So what I want is for you or someone else to have the basic courtesy that should have been extended to me two years ago, and telling me why you consider it necessary to undo my edit. Apparently, that's too much to ask. 82.33.111.106 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't undo your edit; I took your commentary on board and tried to improve the readability of that sentence even though I have no clue what Category C really means (maybe you should rewrite that article). You're using "you" in the plural, constantly, equating me with those who reverted you, and I resent that. And yeah, those same complaints, they get a bit tedious. That's not a personal attack by our definition: I'm complaining about the edits, not the editor. And if you hadn't called people cunts and whatnot all over the place, we might not be here today. That's the crusade: the equation of bias against IP editors on the side of Wikipedia editors with carte blance, on your side, to just edit war and insult, though I will say immediately that I haven't seen you do that in a while, but I kind of quit paying attention. You know, two, three years ago I was actually on the lookout for your edits and I've assisted you more than once without drawing attention to it. I don't do that anymore. It's tedious and it goes nowhere. I still don't agree with the blocks and the LTA case and all that, but I'm the only one. And if you come to my talk page, all bitter and yelling at me, then, yeah, you have nothing to say to me, nothing that interests me and nothing I can help you with. If you come here with a different message, it's different. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did partake in the undoing of my edit. I removed meaningless text from the article, you kept it in there in your edit. I never addressed you as "you" plural, and never equated you with those who revert my edits for no reason. However, you seem to think there was a reason for this revert but you won't tell me what it is. Calling people cunts never made any difference to anything, they vandalised my work and made false accusations regardless. If anyone had actually told people not to revert for no reason, and taken action against them when they did, we'd all be happy. Yes, I'm fucking bitter that people are free to destroy my work for no reason and make false accusations against me. Yelling at you? No. Here, right now, I'd like to know why you think the lead of the article must mention that the channel is "category C", when neither you nor I nor anyone else who pointlessly reverted my edit has any clue what that even means. 62.205.116.151 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • ... I'm late to the party again. I waded in at Talk:Blitzkrieg and then at the article, but in the latter I got entangled in swathes of "sfn" and "har". It is possible that I too will get summarily reverted, but in case I don't - Doc or any kindly talk page stalker who understands these templates, can you please fix the refs? The article could actually do with further work: I see a few more places where content appears to me to overlap, what looks like a major reference is broken and commented out throughout, and a book both of whose versions appear to have been published in 1938 was presented in the article as having been published in both versions in 2014. But I think I should bow out because I'm being challenged on the talk page and because ... you're not the only one, Doc, but a ban was passed despite protests from you and me and one or two others. Hi IP, sorry I missed you, sorry I'm not supposed to talk to you any more, it all bites.

On C-Class Channels or whatever the jargon is, I got nothin' because I don't understand our article on the topic. But it is conventional and I think permissible to tuck into the lede odd pieces of info like that about which there is nothing further to be said, and not revisit them later in the article; like the precise birthdate in a biography. So I don't agree with its removal, but I liked your rewording of the sentence, Doc. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about also telling User:Keith-264 that false accusations of vandalism are a vile personal attack which will not be tolerated? Sadly, of course, they are completely tolerated and encouraged, but we can always hope for better. My edit was met with disgusting slurs and pointless reverts; your edit was not. This makes me exceedingly angry. At least the article no longer contains incorrect and redundant information. As you know, there are hundreds of other articles where highly embarrassing howlers have been forced into the article by the reverters. They keep on attacking article quality because no-one seriously actually tells them not to.

It is absolutely not conventional to include jargon like "Category C" in the lead of an article without any explanation and without any further mention. If you think it absolutely needs to be mentioned in the lead, then what possible reason is there not to actually explain it? It's utterly meaningless if not defined. A date of birth is not like that. 62.205.116.151 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drmies. Know anything more about this lovey-dovey folk song? I'd like to fill out the article a bit more, but having trouble finding decent sources and ones I can read. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, no, I've never even been that far north in that beautiful country. Ah, if only Hafspajen were around--they love folk songs. And techno. Maybe a hot shot like Favonian can help out. Or a power player and certified singer/songwriter like Bishonen? Drmies (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it apparently was a very contentious controversy, and so interesting in the sense of the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." It is probable that both parties have conflict of interest. The intensity of the controversy suggests that there are financial incentives involved. (The most common reason for legal threats is alleged libel. There is no reason to think that libel is involved here, so there is probably a commercial issue.) If the other editor has a COI, the proper Wikipedia action would have been a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but there may be too much money involved to play by the rules or something. Anyway, they probably have COI. If there really is a basis for legal action, it wasn't stated, only made as a threat. United States courts do not resolve scientific disputes, and I (not a lawyer) think that the threat was too vague to be the basis of a legal action. I think that it was just intended to have a chilling effect with idle bluster rather than to do anything productive, but in Wikipedia a legal threat chills out the person making the threat. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies for closing down the discussion. Btw, when you said that the matter to be left after a year, is this the moratorium? (N0n3up (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• It just means what it means. I'm not good with fancy words. I sensed agreement all around that this would be a good thing. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Snowded threatened me with topic ban even after withdrawing the RfC. He basically was banned from editing "The Troubles" related topics in which he Still does. (N0n3up (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see how that's relevant. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a 1RR to be precise, but regarding your post in my talk page, I thank you for taking notice, but at the same time, I don't like it when other users WP:HOUND (like Snowded keeps doing) at my edits or even talk in my discussions without any basis. If there is any advice you could give in regards to that, that'd be nice. (N0n3up (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

They asked you not to post on their talk page but you did. One might consider that to be hounding. Don't post there again. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't post there again. Now if only he would stop hounding on my discussions and edits like he did long before, that'd be great. Not to mention he keeps blasting threats like "i'm going to report you" and so on. (N0n3up (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hello; I was wondering if you could give a more specific reason for your decision regarding FunderThuck, which seems quite likely to be "ThunderFuck" deliberately misspelled. The username policy states that "usernames that are inappropriate in another language, or that represent an inappropriate name with misspellings and substitutions, or do so indirectly or by implication, are still considered inappropriate"(emphasis mine). Thank you 331dot (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I suppose technically it's a violation of that rule, sure. But their edits weren't vandalistic, and the f-word in itself isn't always automatically offensive. It didn't say "fuck you", for instance. But YMMV. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply and I understand. Thank you 331dot (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you that I had to think about this one for quite some time--and typically, if I think I have think, I think that I'm overthinking its offensiveness. Tell you what--let's ask Daniel Case, or Vanjagenije, or Bishonen, or Acalamari; they may be the ones with varying mileage. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on the person's talk page and was going to wait for them to reply(as you indicated, their edits were OK) before doing anymore; but you wish to, you can and you can post my name too if needed. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mileage in the United Kingdom. "We considered that younger children who were unlikely to comprehend that "Phuc" was a Vietnamese word were also unlikely to read or pronounce it as the expletive. While some older children might have pronounced it as the expletive, given the context of an ad for a Vietnamese restaurant and that the word was taken from this language we did not consider that this made it unsuitable for them to see. We therefore concluded that the posters were not irresponsibly placed where children could see them." UK Advertising Standards Authority as reported by BBC. Not quite the same but still interesting. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It made me think "Founderthuck" (would that be OK as a username?). I tend to agree with 331dot, actually. Hey, I just saw somebody (i. e. a person, not the bot) reported User:RealsAreASubsetOfComplex as an offensive username. Is there some obscene meaning in complex numbers that escapes me as a non-native speaker? Note especially the new user's only contribution here. Won't somebody please think of the children! Bishonen | talk 21:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Have you asked that person? I could see possibly objecting to the length of that username, but since it's an easy name to remember I wouldn't worry about it too much. Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While attending a conference a couple years ago I went out for a walk came across this place and thought about stopping in for dinner, just because. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very popular! Note also the address on Schokkerweg. Schokk Brigade Boris strikes! Bishonen | talk 08:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I once remember somebody on a BBS several decades ago with a username "Chuck u Farlie" - they weren't banned. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Now you're really dating yourself (pun intended).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist. You are nominating organisations for speedy deletion of organisations so prominent that have major, significant coverage in books for god knows what reason exactly. I'm pretty sure you've had at least one that even has independent books about it specifically. Being expected to do detailed historical research with a gun to your head because someone's decided to start making very random deletion nominations is an incredibly obnoxious thing to do to other editors, and reflects very poorly on someone of your prominence.

I'd really appreciate if you'd have the decency to withdraw these: if it were coming from someone less senior I'd be advocating the nominator be blocked for disruption. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop yelling and improve these articles. Student unions? Have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not yelling. Student unions are intimately tied up with political history; they're a reasonably common subject for independent historians to cover, especially and ironically the specific ones you targeted (which again, for the uninformed, have UC Berkeley-like histories) and there are a thousand politicians who cut their teeth there, went on to have a political career, and wrote about their student union days in their memoirs. It is, however, the sort of subject on which you need to actually do some serious research to flesh out a good article, unless you want to grab whatever happened recently out of Google, and when the person prompting the demand has the attitude towards the entire subject that you just stated, that...doesn't feel like a pleasant use of my time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I'm here ... @The Drover's Wife: this sounds as if it may be a peculiarly Australian thing. I first got to know the doc when he AfD'd an article on an organization that I knew to be very much notable; but I've almost always been able to save such articles, and he's even withdrawn some of the nominations. I know it's a hassle, but you've got a week; please just reference them up to demonstrate their notability, not only to the doc but to the rest of us who only know places where student unions are almost never notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand and am sometimes sympathetic to that, but it's the ludicrous of unapologetically nominating some of these for speedy deletion and then his dismissive comment above that make me ill-inclined to drop what I'm doing, take a couple days off work, and run down to the library to hit up the books. There does need to be some demonstration of good faith for that to work where it's asking a lot of editors who are more knowledgeable about the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not sympathetic to your rude tone and the demonstration of bad faith here and in those AfDs--yeah, thanks for insulting me in four different places. Some of those articles have been tagged since last decade. There are tons of them and I looked at more than a dozen, nominating only a few. "Mass-nominating" you said on one of the AfDs--three is not a mass. "Drop everything"--in one of those AfDs you said you found all the necessary stuff in five minutes. Well, in all the time you spent yelling at me you could have copied those links and be done with it, so this "gun to your head" is not mine. Please don't come back here again unless it's with a more moderate tone. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear,

May I ask you to look at the new edits just recently added to the article, and if you find it appropriate would you protect the page? It's becoming like a circus! Thank you (Mona778 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

"Emir, who isn't usually in love, falls in love" - hmm. MPS1992 (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes. I remember that line but don't remember what I did with it. We need more Turkish editors. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker here. Doc I am not sure which policy applies to serials like this. Should the summary have sourcing, what kind of sourcing falls under WP:RS? I just did a bit of work on the summary as I have watched the series feel free to rv me as I did not cite any source. To be frank I am not even sure if any websites carry the summary, some which are giving the summary are just blogs etc, so not RS. So do point me in the right direction if you can ty. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, typically plot summaries don't need sourcing, though I prefer sourcing them in articles I write--but I haven't read Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary in a while. Was it a good show? Didn't you find it odd that both seasons end with a woman being killed? Drmies (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The turkish shows are quite a lot like the ancient Greek theatre. The protagonist dies/suffers due to his own weakness. Although nowadays Hamartia can take many forms, usually it is hubris, and even as shows have taken new forms to cater to a modernized public the influence of ancient Greek is quite common. The show was "decent", depends on taste to be frank(and age I think). I think I watched the first two or three episodes at the gym as it was playing on the screen where I work out and I would watch a couple of minutes between sets, after that I wanted to see how the story ends. And of Course I wanted to wring the writers neck when the kid died :(. On a constructive note, I'll see what sourcing I can find and put it in. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dears, you were looking for the website that carries the summary? Well, here you have it [1], it's from the distribution company itself (Calinos Entertainment). On the site there is a teaser of the show as well you can watch if you want to, and interestingly is in English! Regards, (Mona778 (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Cool! Thanks. Yeah, X-Files is almost over and I'll need something new to watch. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Taharrush" is a used in Egypt to describe public groping and rape. It's distinctly Egyptian because they are more progressive. Activists chose to describe this behavior with that word. The activity, though, is Arabic and Islamic. Prior to Egyptian activists, it was ascribed to "flirtatious women." The activity happens throughout the Arab and Islamic region (except perhaps Iran). It is a conundrum because every country that has it doesn't call it "taharrush" even though it's identical to what happens in Egypt. By claiming "taharrush" is uniquely Egyptian misses the real problem that these activities happen most of the Arabic and Islamic world with a word that places blame on the victim. Your move undermines the Egyptian movement for human rights by making it see that it's egyptian rather than an attempt by egyptian activists to use a word that places blame on the rapists rather than the victim. The english equivalent would be one U.S. state declaring that sex between a 14 year old girl and 50 year old man is "rape." We wouldn't vilify the state for calling it "rape" if other states didn't. Your rename did exactly that. It vilified Egypt for calling it "tarrush" rather than following Sharia law and blaming the victim. The activity is an Egyptian problem, they just named it with a word that places blame on the men. --DHeyward (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's interesting, and if you had produced reliable sources to support that and similar statements that RfC might have gone differently. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I did. It's in the discussion and the article. It's a pre-German New Years source showing the term and it's use in the region particularly the use by activists in Egypt to bring the practice to light. "Taharrush" in Saudia Arabia is used to describe rape of boys and girls in the home. It's a strong word that places blame on the men who do it. The same thing happens in other countries but it's not called "taharrush" just as Egypt didn't call it that (and older Egyptians still call the gang-rapes "flirting"). By making it seem to be only Egyptian and not using their term in the title completely undermines and misses the call to stop gang rapes which is why its use is prevalent in Egypt. [2]. The fil 678 used the term though it's a universal theme of harrassment, Egypt was the first to tie harassment with this word in Arabic and Islamic culture. It certainly exists everywhere but some countries ignore it. --DHeyward (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That article was cited, and your interpretation of it was refuted or at least questioned. Allow me to note that I think it's you who are missing something: you keep making reference to "it", the "strong word" which denotes a particular concept, which is now--you say--limited to only Egypt. But the result of the discussion is precisely to remove the word from the title, so you simply cannot say that the article suggests that "taharrush" occurs only in Egypt. It makes no such claim, because the article title and subject are sexual assaults in Egypt, not this term. That was the upshot of this discussion. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Egypt is the place where the discussion started and is one of the most progressive nations in the region, whence its language and tolerance for such behavior is lower. I am not at all saying that "taharrush" only occurs in Egypt, I am saying Egyptian Woman's rights group have given a name to this type of assault that is not even recognized as a crime in other Arabic speaking countries. Germany had a name for it and it was German words for "rape" and "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment." Until recently, that same behavior in Egypt was called "flirting" and pushed onto women. The term as it stands now is debated in Egypt as being very broad (from harassment to rape). "Taharrush" as an Arabic word being used to describe rape as in An article released on the incident in June 2005 by Al-Nabā News, referenced the Black Wednesday attack as both taḥarrush and htkʿirḍ, a term for rape that is often translated as “indecent assault” and deeply inhered with connotations of honor and shame (Al-Nabā News 2005). Both taḥarrush and htkʿirḍ were utilized interchangeably in the article, likening the indecent assault on women to an assault on the nation. However, sexual harassment, as it came to be understood in the post-Revolutionary period with both its political and everyday facets, as defined by Tadros (2013b), was not yet part of the larger discourse on gender-based violence in Egypt. - Egypt just happens to be at the forefront (as is India and Bangladesh with some of their documented gang rapes and arrests and law changes) in identifying and eradicating it. The laws in Egypt that make it a crime are based on modesty, honor or dignity - (i.e. a lot of work needs to be done to make it a crime of violence, instead of a point of shame for women). To the extent the article is centered on "Mass sexual assaults in Egypt," without using the word that that Women's Rights activists in Egypt have connaturalized to describe it and criminalize it misses the steps they have made. They use "taharrush" now to include a number of behaviors that used to be considered only a social problem and not an equality problem for women. Describing the actions as "taharrush" is to support the notion of the human rights groups that seek gender equality as "taharrush" is the word used by activists and mainstreamed in the press. It does a disservice to them not to use the broader term to describe what happens/happened. Think about this: the authors describe in English a thing called "violent sexual harassment." That is considered "taharrush." We would call it sexual assault but it falls short of that in Egyptian culture. The film I point out above (678 (film)) and the reaction (a male dominated Human Rights group in Egypt wanted it banned because they thought it would encourage women to take up weapons against male genitalia to stop "taharrush."). To make it equivalent to "sexual assault", activists simply started to call all of these actions from cat calls to outright rape "taharrush" as a name for the phenomena. Maybe the etymology of the word needs expanding in the article, but if "violent sexual harassment incidents" = "taharrush" and we decline to call "taharrush"="rape" and isn't in the article, we are missing significant steps in the push for equal rights for women in Egypt. The expanded definition (interchangeability with words that mean "rape", "sexual violence", "sexual harassment" and other behaviors that are target gender) by Womens Rights rights groups and its use in Egypt is foundational. It's simply not possible to describe accurately what happens to Egyptian women and the first step toward eradication is naming it. That's "taharrush." "Rape" is already illegal so the title change misses the cultural shift associated with naming all behaviors that gender equality rights groups are trying to eradicate such as those depicted in 678. --DHeyward (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This was their first block for a personal attack, and there is no way that such a first-time offense will lead to some really lengthy block, unless it's racist or sexist commentary or something like that." Really sorry to keep grinding on this. Really. But... Is that sexist enough? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, yeah, that's pretty bad. But I'm going to let the thread ride its course; I have the feeling this user was headed there anyway. Thanks for kickstarting it. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable how quickly he took the measure of rope you gave him and hung himself. Cheers, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'I am hereby banning Martin Hogbin for one year from abusing the talk page Talk:Veganism, and will allow him only one single edit, big or small, in one single thread, written out in one single paragraph, every 48 hours. Violations and attempt to skirt around the limits of this ban are to be punished with a short block'.

You are acting completely beyond your powers here. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. I have more edits on the talk page because I believe in the principle if civil discussion rather than edit warring. You will see from the RfC that the majority of editors support my proposed change to the article. I think it is now time for Arbcom. If that goes against me it will be something of a lanmark case, 'Editor banned for trying to maintain a WP:NPOV in an article in a WP:civil manner'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's really not. He could have blocked you or topic banned you. Your route of appeal is WP:AN or WP:BASC. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, it was abundantly clear that your edits were not considered to contribute to NPOV or so; they were considered disruptive, very disruptive. I acted on those comments made in the discussion, not synthesizing anything from whatever might have been said in some RfC. I'm sorry, but this cookie crumbled this way, at least for this admin. But there is, as Guy indicated, a way to an appeal. All the best, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have completely misunderstood what is happening on that page but I will follow the official process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Problem is he's doing much the same at talk:Paleolithic diet. Broad hint. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy, I followed the AN discussion. Since we don't have RfC anymore, we now have to go through more cumbersome routes to ... guide editors' behavior. While admins have broad discretion, of course, I am not necessarily looking for problems to solve by administrative fiat; if, however, those issues are brought up again in the appropriate forum, they can conceivably be handled in a similar manner. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You've seen the ANI-report, and the same vandal seems to be active on List of records of India, so could you please protect that article and block the socks (Bonadae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bonadaephone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) there? And also Coolcool1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only edit sofar has been a malformed and utterly frivolous AN3-report against Bonadea. Cheers, Tom. Thomas.W ^talk 22:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I wanted to do that! But Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, how does this stand now? Is it ready, or close to ready? Thanks for checking. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drmies and watchers, here [3] under "Licensing" the template states: "It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.". But what does that effectively mean? Can it be used on the English language wikipedia (servers in the USA), i.e. here at en.wp, but not necessarily on any other, say for example local European wikipedias? Thanks for explaining. Horseless Headman (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

"Fair use" is a United States legal doctrine permitting limited use of copyrighted works. See the non-free content article. So, the answer is "yes, it can be used on en.wp, which is, as you've noted, hosted in the US. But not on other wikipedias hosted where the "fair use" doctrine does not apply." (I see that the file, [[File:Gilles_Andruet.jpg]], is tagged with an orphan tag, but that the image is not currently orphaned, as it is used in the article after being restored following an IP user's removal of the image.) [I removed the orphan tag from the image after I confirmed it was still in use]. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glane23, I see, thanks for your answer - and removing that tag! Horseless Headman (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

User:Solntsa90. I am loosing my patience with this creep (see!?). Which, I know, is exactly what they're trying to achieve but it's working. After their block expired on Feb 13 they came right back to the Vladimir Putin page [4]. For the first 24 hrs or so they only commented on talk so that's fine. But that didn't last and they resumed their edit warring [5]. But ok, they're not topic banned from the article so whatever. But now he has resumed following me and randomly reverting my reverts in a clear cut case of revenge. Of course they popped into this ridiculous discussion on COI. Worse, in the past 24 hrs he's followed me to articles that he has never edited or shown interest in. Here he pops into the article on Lyndon LaRouche just to revert me (btw, that other account, User Not the original Jack Bruce, that's either a meat puppet or a sock puppet of User:Herschelkrustofsky [6], the page should be semi-protected). Then again here (note the threat in the edit summary). Then he jumped to another article where I've been active (probably noticed the discussion on my talk page) [7].

It's obvious that they're here to start edit wars and annoy the shit out of me to make me loose my patience or goad me into breaking 3RR or some other rule. I'm sick of this. Can you at least warn him please? He's not going to listen to me, obviously, since the whole point of his edits is to provoke.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you complain privately to a admin on his page, and not directly under the proper venue? It seems like you're trying to speak up to sympathetic ears in an attempt to remove me.

Anyway, it sounds like you just don't like my edits, we have a lot of cross-interests (namely, Eastern Europe and controversial politics) and the idea that I'm "stalking" you is absurd. You don't own wikipedia, and just because you edit a page, doesn't mean I'm no longer allowed to touch it.

Marek, Why didn't you bring this to the proper noticeboard page, and instead bring it to your admin friend directly? I would like to see the logic behind this. Is this an attempt to get me blocked without actually violating any rules? It certainly seems so. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solntsa90 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: What edit-warring? a quick glance will reveal that I'm actively participating on the talk pages of the respective articles, as User:SaintAviator or User_talk:EtienneDolet would point out. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my 3RR weeklong block was for editing RT News, not Vladimir Putin, which I'm actively participating in the talk discussion on, and where my contributions have also been called valuable. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, what's with the personal attacks? When have I ever called you a creep, or accused you of stalking or harassment, etc.? This is a major violation of WP:PERSONAL.Solntsa90 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker)You are definitely stalking the edits of VM, and are disrupting the project. I can't see any reason not to have at the very least a one-way IBan placed on you, and a total Putin topic ban.(Sorry DrMies) Dave Dial (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) (talk page stalker) is a humour page, not Wiki policy;

2.) I'm not stalking anyone's talkpage. I'm just editing a lot of the same pages as Marek, because our interests coincide. What interest is it of yours and why are you intervening? You're not an admin. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3.) Also, what does a Putin topic ban have to do with anything, and what justifies the ban? I haven't violated any rules since my week-long block for 3RR. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:HOUND:

Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor.

Solntsa90 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have followed me to close to ten different articles which are in fact outside of your area of interest, and attempted to start an edit war on each. Since when did you become interested in Lyndon LaRouche? Since I made an edit there. Since when did you become interested in "Lithuanization"? Since I made an edit there. Since when did you become interested in Race & Intelligence, Racialism or American Renaissance magazine? Since I made an edit there. Since when did you become interested in David Irving? Since I made an edit there. Since when did you become interested in the Polish constitution? Since I made an edit there. And I'm leaving out all the articles that you followed me to which could conceivably be considered to be within your area of interests. The evidence of stalking with intent to harass is clear as day.

And do you care to point out exactly which and how of your revenge reverts involved " fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy"?

You are shamelessly lying your ass off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:HOUND: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.". This is *exactly* what you're doing. Newsflash, WP:HOUND is not meant as an instruction manual.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supposed to listen to you, when you're so rude and WP:PERSONAL, but I'll respond anyway.

You have followed me to close to ten different articles which are in fact outside of your area of interest

Have I really? I was editing David Irving, and you suddenly appeared on the talk page. On Putin, you took the opportunity to use the talk page as your personal soapbox against me., despite my edits having literally nothing to do with you (and all the editors agreeing that my input was a valuable edition to the page save you and one other);

Lithuanazation? Racialism, Lyndon LaRouche, etc.

If you can't see the connection between all of these topics and how they might relate to our mutual area of interest, then you may be taking this all too seriously. Afterall: you edited Vikings Season 2, did I edit that one? No. How about Economy of the United States? Nope. Bangladesh?

No, I haven't. Because I'm not stalking you or following all your edits. I could care less (However, if I see a bad edit from you, I will revert it within the rules of Wiki, just as I would for anyone else).

Even so, you edit some pretty major articles, such as Bangladesh, Vladimir Putin, and the Crimea. It would be silly to suggest I have to stay away from them nearly because you "marked" them as your territory, despite them being such important articles (and how do you know what does or what doesn't interest me? Did you ever take the moment to ask?). That is simply risible.

shamelessly lying your ass off

...What a serious violation of WP:PERSONAL. But what am I lying about, anyway? I just laid bare everything. I kept a cool head this entire time, even when I was blocked for a week for 3RR. Why can't you be civil and decent as well? Solntsa90 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Solntsa90, you continued edit warring on three pages [8],[9],[10] and blaming other contributors of bad faith [11] after coming back from the block. In addition, what you did was indeed wikistalking. Denying this does not help your case. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afterall: you edited Vikings Season 2, did I edit that one?... - nooooooooooo, you're not stalking, not at all. Not at all... Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Marek? User:My_very_best_wishes has been stalking me for some time, and I just ignore him. I'm not even stalking you, and I have to deal with this guy, and yet I do it with grace.

Learn from example, why don't you. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. On October 25, 2015, an obvious throwaway account restored a monstrous amount of information (previously deleted by you) to the ever-troublesome List of South Korean idol groups (2010s) and its sister articles for the 2000s and 1990s. I ran across it whilst searching for something else and was shocked. I've tried to wear the editor hat in the past and it nearly drove me insane, and I can't step back into that madness. But if you want to dive back in again, the world would be a better place for it. Cheers!

Hi, I see you were involved in the debate a few years ago about whether or not to include the cat hoarding stuff in the Dale Bozzio article. While I personally think this should be mentioned (keeping in mind due weight etc) I'll yield to the consensus.

Anyway could you please review the recent developments on the article? I made a number of changes (improvements I hope), but there's an IP editor who insists on acting as her press agent and re-inserting this passage:

"Bozzio stormed onto the scene with her unique vocalization and performance style that set her apart from most artists. She pioneered many of the performance traits seen as standards today in popular music. She created and refined her unique sense of fashion and poetry along the way."

I don't want to revert again myself otherwise it just looks like it's me edit warring. The wikipedia policy regarding neutral point of view and avoiding peacock terms is well established so please make it clear that this is the wikipedia community, not just MaxBrowne, who thinks this passage doesn't belong in the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxBrowne TP sTalker here. I'll just give it a once over. I see the page is semi'ed for the time being so the IP editor will have to make an account to edit I guess. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxBrowne I have removed the peacocks I could find alongwith the peacock sign. Cheers. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]