User talk:Drmies - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images
 

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.

 
story · music · places

Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

My story today is about a man who played jazz when it was banned by the Nazis, - you can listen to how they played it later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for help with my talk page! - My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was looking up an author, and came across Association of Classical Christian Schools#Boniface Award. I wondered if it were something of which you were aware. LadyofShalott 19:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

On reflection, I think this is probably the moment for us to stop replying to this guy. Either he calms down and follows the repeated instructions he's been given, or he doesn't and he stays blocked. Either way... AntiDionysius (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the person you reverted here is most likely a sock of User:Bikrampuri. They have this habit of POV pushing Bangladeshi/Bengali Muslim as you can see here, here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for your copy edits on Neil Hartigan. I noticed that there is some grammatical errors that could lead to factual misinterpretations. For example, Pelosi was a friend per source not a classmate, he oversaw Freddie Mac not Fannie Mae per source, and it is Loyola University Chicago not just Loyola University (which is a common college name). Thanks. SevenUp7up (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello DrMies.

I'm concerned about User:Bbb23's actions.

What's going on here? Why did he do that? BOOMERANG for what? YOU at least are aware that I'm not a vandal or anything like that, but it feels like Bbb23 is assuming bad faith here. I know I should probably try to talk it out with him, but he seems to have his mind made up about Keleperkins and me. I get that he's an experienced editor, but I got well over 30K edits myself, and he shouldn't be treating me like a vandal. And I'm afraid if I discuss this with BBB any further, he'll impulsively block me...can you make sure he doesn't do that? pbp 01:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) Purplebackpack89, Wikipedia:Appealing a block says that Third party appeals of blocks are allowed, but generally discouraged. I am curious why you are going to bat for this particular editor? Most recently, they have tried to add an list of non-notable red-linked alumni to the high school article, based on the unreferenced claim that they had gone on to prestigious universities, an obvious violation of WP:BLP policy, and flat out bad editing. They also created three obviously inappropriate templates that had to be reviewed and deleted. They made a series of incompetent edits to Irving Thalberg Jr. that had to be reverted. In 2019, they tried to write an article about Patty Caretto despite the fact that an article about her has existed since 2019. They misspelled her name and created a worthless draft that had to be deleted. So, we have an editor who appears to be a net negative, and we all know that competence is required. What is your substantive basis for challenging this block? As for your final request, what can one administrator do to prevent another administrator from blocking someone? Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Even if third-party appeals are generally discouraged, they're not VANDALISM...
I do not consider Keleperkins incompetent and I think he should be given more chances. When I look at him, I see somebody who has potential, but needs to be made more aware of Wikipedia's policies.
I will provide more info in an email pbp 02:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Purplebackpack89, as for your restoration of content in the history section, you have left eleven paragraphs unreferenced. Certainly you know that the onus is on you to comply with Verifiability when you restore contested content. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Many of the paragraphs can be sourced from the citations I provided. I also believe that BBB acted in error deleting the entire section rather than tagging it. pbp 02:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
But you have not done so, Purplebackpack89, even though the burden on you to do that before or simultaneous with restoring the content. Why should readers be forced to rummage around in the references in unrelated paragraphs hoping to stumble on verification? You earlier reminded Drmies that you are very experienced. Act like it then, instead of pursuing grudges against administrators trying to protect the encyclopedia from incompetence. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Have you looked at the article lately?
Also, IDK why you've turned this into hammering me about sourcing. The problem here is a bad block by BBB, and erroneously referring to contesting that block as vandalism and issuing an inappropriate warning. Guy should lose his mop.
Finally, I do NOT, and will NEVER, consider Keleperkins to be incompetent, so stop calling him that. pbp 03:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Purplebackpack89, so the number of unreferenced paragraphs has declined from eleven to nine since this conversation started. You should have taken that content to your sandbox, trimmed the trivia, and referenced all of it before restoring it. Instead you want to defend an editor who has, as far as I can see, not made any good edits for many years. I pointed put six specific examples of bad editing by this largely inactive editor in the last five years, which took me only about ten minutes to find, and you have provided zero evidence of any good edits from that account. And you get all indignant about me hinting at their possible incompetence when evidence of that is is glaringly obvious and unrefuted. Your call for Bbb23 to lose his mop is both bizarre and unsupported by any evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cullen328:, neither you nor @Drmies: nor @Bbb23: has answered the questions I posed...
  1. Why was it appropriate to tag a block contest as vandalism, and
  2. Why would I get hit with a BOOMERANG?
pbp 15:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think I can assume that "vandalism" here didn't mean "writing dumb stuff in an article" or lying about a date or something--it probably meant "disruption of a serious kind", and I think Cullen has outlined how a. the editor was seriously disruptive and b. your particular response was also disruptive. If you want to question a block, fine, but this isn't really questioning a block. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) PBP, I'll answer these two questions for you:
1. First and foremost, Cullen has addressed that the editor has not made any good edits for years. Even though I don't know much about the editor, I'll go along with what he said and agree that the editor did not make any good edits for years (I hope Cullen gives me the benefit of the doubt). I can probably agree that it's not vandalism, but as it says, it's generally discouraged to write a block appeal for someone else even if you are trying to act in good faith.
2. Bbb23 is really experienced as an admin, and considering how long he's been on here for years (long before I even started editing), people would say that you are considering the block by Bbb23 to be a "bad block" when it really isn't. Because of that, they'd be calling you out for this and say that you should be blocked per WP:BOOMERANG.
I'd rather not interact anymore on here, so I better get back to writing my theatre paper due on Friday. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) I'll keep this simple. Your unblock request for the user was absolutely wrong and deserved to be reverted. I should not have called it vandalism, and I apologize for that (I do agree with Drmies that your edit was "seriously disruptive"). I should have told you on your Talk page that you are not permitted to create unblock requests for other users. It is true that in very limited circumstances you can challenge an administrator's block of a user based on the change to WP:AAB in 2021, but that does not mean you can do so by posting a formal unblock request. In addition, those limited circumstances do not apply here. They are not intended for "bad blocks" but for egregiously out-of-process blocks, and, even then, you are supposed to first discuss your concerns with the blocking administrator before bringing it to the attention of the community, usually at a noticeboard like WP:AN. I hope this makes some sense to you, and we can put this unpleasant matter to rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Bbb23: @Drmies: almost there, but not quite...
  1. It wasn't disruptive (or in bad faith) on my part, and it's inappropriate for either of you to claim it was
  2. Nobody has explained this whole BOOMERANG claim
  3. Are either of you contending that Keleperkins added inaccurate information to articles, or just that what he created didn't really meet our inclusion standards? Did you really try to explain what does and doesn't belong on the project before indeffing him? When I look at their edits, I see a guy who IS legitimately trying to improve the encyclopedia (therefore I question the NOTHERE rationale for an indef), but doesn't understand the inclusion policy, in part because I'm not seeing enough effort to train him in it.
pbp 16:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can be disruptive without editing in bad faith. I am not going to discuss the merits of the block of another user. If they wish to make an unblock request, they can do so. I blocked the user on September 3. On September 29, over 3 weeks later, you challenged the block on behalf of the user. Why? Were you in touch with the user through e-mail? I have nothing more to say on this issue with you. I strongly suggest you go find something else to do that is more constructive than this protracted conversation about an incompetent, disruptive user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, yeah, the boomerang thing. That's standard. It doesn't mean that I would block you for taking me to ANI. It means that your conduct would be scrutinized and that you might be sanctioned by another administrator. I'm surprised you think otherwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
PBP--I'm sorry, but you are wrong in item 1: it was disruptive, for reasons outlined in various places above, and the rest follows from that. There are things you could have done that could have led to a block review in a non-disruptive way; I can imagine a "help" request or whatever from the user on their talk page, followed by some chatter back and forth with the experienced editor offering advice, etc etc. Or the experienced editor could have asked the blocking administrator, perhaps on that administrator's own talk page, about the block, and taken it from there. That's not what happened here, not at all, and as a result we're here--or, you're here, now in the company of three or four other administrators and editors, none of whom seem to really agree with you. You can accept this and we all move along, or you don't, and then I guess we don't. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're not wrong that the Sprey article is a mess. However I think it may be overkill to simply blank an entire section of the article. The whole reason Sprey is a notable figure is because of his involvement (however significant or insignificant it may be) as an analyst aiding the conceptualization the what would become the F-16 and A-10, and his subsequent criticism of the F-15 and F-35. There is extraneous information in that section and I'm not sure of the right way to structure the article but his connections to the A-10 are necessary for a proper article about him.

As to the reason I made my edit, I think it's fair you reverted it; my wording was bad. To explain better, the section is about Sprey's favor of the F-16 over the F-15 as a fighter and states the the F-16 is "highly successful". It then mentions that Sprey has continued to criticize the F-15. This wording therefor lightly implies the F-16 as more successful than the F-15 and that his criticisms are therefore valid. However Sprey's criticisms are commonly deflected by pointing out that the F-15 is the most successful active fighter jet with 105 kills to 0 losses. I should have worded the section in that manner, wording it as something like

"Sprey continued to be critical of the F-15 fighter, though proponents of the F-15 have argued it is also a highly successful design, commonly referencing it's aerial combat record of one hundred victories to zero losses."

Though I think that wording could still be improved. TaqPCR (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • The whole article is written in a fairly convoluted way, and "entire section" is incorrect: the part that was properly sourced is moved up. What's deleted is two passages: one sourced to what appears to be a chat at a conference, and the other unverified. Also, we can't really deal with implications or suggestions, only with what is positively stated in a reliable secondary source. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Honestly you're right not much was lost from that section.
    I did some more reworking of the defense analyst section a bit more to pare down extraneous details, particularly overly wordy descriptions focused on the fighter mafia and their concepts instead of Sprey, and improve the flow of it including grouping the parts discussing his work on the concepts that would become the F-16 and A-10 together in one paragraph, and then his later public comments about the jets that were created. TaqPCR (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yo Drmies I'm sorry for all my draft pages bro. I didn't even know it was vandalism so I hope you can forgive me. If you want you leave me a message on my talk page bro. Again, my bad for all the draft pages it was irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddellas (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

 

  Administrator changes

 
 

  CheckUser changes

 
 

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

 
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

Was wondering if you could take a look at this:

Guardiansmells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GuardianH (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) I've reported and reverted @GuardianH:. They have been blocked.
If they turn up again, I would suggest reporting straight away to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Knitsey (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The edits have been rev/del by Pickersgill-Cunliffe. Knitsey (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Haha thanks to everyone for handling this. I'll forgo my usual ANI2.0 fee. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah that LTA. GuardianH, this is not the first time they're picking on you, right? I have seen those edits before but I don't remember who they attacked. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Drmies Unfortunately, the person behind this particular user has been at this for quite a long time — about a year, I would guess, and always with the same request that I cannot oblige. I have no idea of who it might be but they've been able to evade several, several blocks only to come back again (perhaps they are using a VPN?). I never thought I would get so determined a shoulder devil. GuardianH (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well is there a name, an SPI, an LTA report? That might be helpful in blocking though it might do little to prevent it. I'm really sorry you have to deal with this. People are sometimes awful, and people on the internet are more easily more awful. Have you emailed Trust and Safety, or ArbCom? Drmies (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
My assumption has always been that this particular user has been banned on a parent account via an SPI reported some time ago for similar serious attacks, but has been determined such that they have found some way to circumnavigate the IP ban by way of a VPN or some other program. This "user" has varying degrees of interest, as they pop up every other month or so reverting my edits and leaving those messages. From which particular SPI I have no idea. If they've been able to circumnavigate the original SPI I don't know how fruitful another one can be.
I don't know what Trust & Safety or ArbCom can do if there is no way to pinpoint this user's actual location and/or the person can just bypass it, and even then I don't know if it is just one person. Doug Weller semi-protected my talk page for these attacks and others. GuardianH (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Trust and Safety and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. These are really important in matters like this. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, I saw you just blocked these IPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.29.179.155, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.29.151.66, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.29.164.227 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.29.162.92). I just discovered that probably this user User:100jan0vski is related to them because both of them are from Tetovo, Macedonia and the edits made by this user are identical to the ones made from those IPs. Here you can see that he sometimes edit with two of the banned IPs (77.29.162.92 and 77.29.164.227) and with his own user indistinctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? AlejandroR1990 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • I saw your report but I have nothing to see on the connection. The user was warned for logged-out editing; let's see if that works. Also, IPs aren't "banned"--this may seem like semantics, but it does matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply