User talk:Drmies

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, 150

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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.

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]

• Phil Bridger, it's some dumb troll who has been pestering Imzadi1979. Let's see if I remember--they were in a conflict over some road, and the troll demands an apology for something while also acknowledging that they were a douchebag. Something like that. I can't remember if there was an SPI or not. But hey, welcome to our little group. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • But hey, welcome to our little group. Heck, welcome to the internet! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluebird207 I've been updating it today on Imzadi's behalf. He's gone through enough with this guy. –Fredddie™ 21:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, yes. I've done a few things, but they are minor things. Phil Bridger you see this? Drmies (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I see it. Thanks for your help, everyone who helped. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was another account that popped up today Roger VIII Roger who basically claimed to be sockmaster of the Roger x Roger accounts. Those accounts were blocked as socks of BSanders46. I wonder if we could merge Bluebird and BSanders46. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fredddie, ping some of the admins/clerks that have been active on the SPIs--not from here, but in the SPIs. I think I left a note there but I don't know if anyone has looked at it. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I've finally got to the bottom of it. It seems that this sockpuppet keeps pinging me because of this edit, which I thought was very innocuous. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil Bridger, you got caught between two fools? I looked through all those edits and I forgot which side favored West and which side didn't, but I couldn't help but be reminded of User:MidAtlanticBaby, who got himself blocked (well, he was already a sock) over some silliness about how to define "Central Florida". Amazing! Anyway, thank you for sourcing that material: I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Sure thing. It's a longterm problem, I know. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey can you also add a page protection for Portuguese language as there is vandalism going on with one user changing the population numbers and dates and claiming they are found in the source when they aren't. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Cookiemonster1618, I'm not going to do that. There's been two edits from that range, only two, and they explained what they were doing. You say they were wrong--OK, fine, but then explain it to them also, on their talk page (the most recent one) for instance, or leave a note on the article talk page and leave a message on their talk pages using the TB function. So, it's too early for protection, and I don't yet see evidence of vandalism. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Can I have em after? I'll trade you for my almost-complete collection of North Korean novels in English translation--all three of em. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, though I’m not convinced that “The Patriotic Adherence to Juche Workers Brigade of Vinylon Factory 12” will live up to its promise. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You made that up, but it's actually a thrilling narrative, I'm sure. I just finished Friend--an interesting read. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh this was great, Acroterion. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot to mention that Memoirland was kind enough to choose my picture of Washington Square on a summer afternoon for their Substack extract from Thomas's reminiscence, [1] so I thought I ought to return the favor with an article for her. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This individual, whom you blocked a while ago, has created this attack page User talk:162.128.128.7. It's not aimed not at me but I'm sure he did one especially for me once. Not sure if you want to permanently remove it, or what the procedure is. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, the whining continues. I see that the indefatigable Bbb has taken care of it. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, what a hole. I should have studied the dictionary more, because I have never heard that word before. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's still going, creating User:Roger Eight Roger solely to have a pop at User:Roger 8 Roger and to dig at him (and me) in edit summaries. The account's been blocked but maybe scratch it completely for R8R's sake? This guy seems completely unhinged. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There was nothing else there. Yeah, amazing, huh, how someone can carry a grudge for that long. BTW the big edit was complete shite. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I guess he's too far gone to stop now, so let's see what happens next... ! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ? Drmies (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling to understand what problem is caused by blank edit notices such that they're worth the effort to nominate and discuss them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I'm all about cleanup, but I don't understand why I got pinged. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because we're supposed to ping the creator, even when the creation was in all likelihood not something they'll remember?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • This creator certainly doesn't remember creating one of them things. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking through some of those histories makes me miss Coffee. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drmies:! I've seen your reversions on the tables I edited recently.

• I was sure that notability issues were related to creating pages for unnotable people; I don't think listing them causes a problem, and erasing everything I done isn't definitely the best solution. Also, Wikipedia is a collaborative project; instead of erasing tables for lack of verifiability, let me invite you to improve what's already there!
• The tables I make are not genealogies; they are lists of rulers, ordered chronologically by beginning of rule, that somehow intervened/ruled in a part of a territory. For the Hohenlohe case, it's normal that, in Germany, there were lots of rulers, branches and divisions; they had the habit of splitting their inheritances between many children. I only make these distinctions with colours in one table, instead of many separate tables or long lists. Of course, for the Malaspina case it is very difficult to be concise; the family really split up a lot.

I'm sorry if you felt confused. I agree some tables can be hard to understand (The House of Malaspina is definitely one of them), but you can always message me first with your doubts, before undoing in seconds a work that took a lot of time to be done. I won't even bother about your erasings in a page that was clearly under construction. Just speak to me first, instead of justifying in-between edits. Thank you in advance for your understanding! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the note and the sympathy, but I'm not confused. I'm not "justifying in-between edits": I'm removing a ton of excessive, poorly formatted, unverified, and unencyclopedic material. No, I am not going to improve a genealogy of this size--that's for a different website than ours. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drmies:, please, tell me which website were you thinking of, because I wouldn't want to throw all my work to trash. I understand that for the Malaspina case, the table got too big, but I don't think it's the case for the Hohenlohe family. As so, I'll revert your erasing in this page. As I told, the page is under construction, and I would appreciate your respect for my work. Thank you in advance for your understanding! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was suspecting all three of those accounts were the same person, but hadn't formalized a report yet.
5.95.128.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had similar edits, so a little surprised they weren't included. Guessing there wasn't a technical connection, but would you have a look at a behavioral connection? All of their 150 byte+ edits added the same wikitable entry content as the confirmed socks. diff 5.95.128.24 and diff TES2.0 for a comparison. Can provide more if other diffs if needed, though they are all more or less the same. Zinnober9 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Zinnober9, that's enough--thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drmies, how have you been? GreenStoneThrow, who left a weird message on my tp[2], claims on their userpage to be Radix and to have some advanced rights like that of Wikimedia steward. It seems that GreenStoneThrow copy-pasted the userpage of the true User:RadiX. I notified RadiX of that [3], but almost 3 weeks have passed and they have not edited on enwiki yet. Maybe an admin should take a look at this, if time permits. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the userpage. Per el.wiki, the user is a sock of an account that hasn't edited en.wiki in a couple of years and is not blocked on en.wiki. I'd block GST but they haven't edited since posting that stupid message on your Talk page on November 1. If they resume editing, I'm happy to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me that maybe one day I should re-read Radix, which I think our user was named for. Very, very weird book. Images from it sometimes return to me. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, do you know what's wrong with the range calculator tool? Drmies (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look like some more collateral damage due to Fastily's resignation.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if there's something better, but I use {{blockcalc}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--I appreciate that. But the tool was broken a few days ago already. Anyway, yes, another loss for our community, which is how Knitsey put it. Did you see this and the responses to it? I noted in one of my comments on this or the other recall: users with little experience and sometimes even less sense get to weigh in and it all counts up to 15. Who's taking bets on who's next? I don't think Floquenbeam is in any danger yet. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safe, only because I so seldom do anything around here anymore; but if you recall RFA #2, there were quite a lot of non-fans. Feels like the French Revolution. Who's next at the guillotine? Maybe one of the people who supported it the first two times. That's how guillotines work. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will get my knitting needles out. Don't we have an essay somewhere about sitting too close to the guillotine?

@Drmies, I said on the recall that toxicity from RfA's has now transfered to the recall process. Knitsey (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floq, thanks for reminding me of that shit show--I had kind of forgotten. Glad you are still here. Ha, you have that too? Every time you see one of those old records you start clicking to see if the editors you remember are still here? Sad. Knitsey, I don't know about essays--I teach essay writing but prefer not to read too many. And yes I agree re:toxicity. I don't know, but I'll put down some money on the recall process being re-evaluated three recalls from now. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: thank you, much appreciated.

Btw, since the recall process was mentioned above, let me offer another point of view. I agree that the recall process gives weight to votes from inexperienced editors, who probably have no clue about things. However, on the other hand, it has the great benefit of making it easier to make admins accountable and desysop those who lose the community's trust. I know the vast majority of admins are constructive and I highly appreciate their efforts (apart from the Graham case, I have always voted "Support" in RfAs), but a few admins for a long time took advantage of the complexity of the desysopping process to misuse their tools and get away with it. In the Balkan topics this has become an obvious issue in recent years. Like the admin who blocked, without a prior warning, an established editor with a clean block log for making a single revert (they had had many content disputes on the Kosovo vs Serbia articles before, which puts in question admin's neutrality). Another admin wanted to topic ban an established editor, without a prior warning, for a single edit (they had had content disputes on the Croatia vs Serbia articles). Another one protected his version of the article after running out of reverts. Even more blatant was the admin who threatened to block anyone who reverted a recent edit, which had failed to get consensus on the tp, and which was supported by admin's "friend" (admin's own words). Or like the guy who, almost immediately after becoming an admin, went to a content dispute and decided that a recent edit did not need consensus on the tp, and blocked an editor for restoring the long-term version (the editor, a newbie, quit editing on enwiki). IMO only an easy process of desysopping can deter such blatant misuse of admin authority. The number of active admins has gone down and it is a serious problem, but it is as much of a serious problem that the overall quality, at least in the Balkans topic area, has gone down as well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, yeah, what you're describing is a whole nother kettle of fish, and if you decide to take any action on those issues, please let me know. I think you know me as a straight shooter, and I do believe that deep content involvement is not a good thing, and such matters should be dealt with in broader forums than obscure article talk pages or project pages. Then again, I think we both know how ANI discussions on Balkanized topics often go--they rapidly devolve into name calling and accusations of partisanship, and rarely offer solutions or even clarity. Well, you now have a tool to use if you want. I'm not happy with how the first two recalls went, though I also realize they were based on real and genuine concerns; I still think it's too blunt a tool. Perhaps Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop will be productive. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those cases are one year or older, so now it is pointless for me to report them. If they were fresh cases with the recall process around, I would seriously consider reporting them to the wider community. I agree that the recall process is too blunt. My concern is that some people will misuse it to put pressure on good faith admins or to take "revenge" after a dispute. IMO 3 changes should be added to the current rules. An editor should not directly open a recall petition, but instead should complain about the admin at ANI/I. Then another editor with a certain level of experience, say with at least 10k edits and 5 years of editing, is allowed to open the recall petition. If the petition fails or the RfA is successful, then that editor who opened the petition is not allowed to open any petitions for a year. Some conditions like these are needed to serve as a filter and prevent such a potent tool from turning into a joke. How the community refines the rules will decide whether the recall process eventually serves its true purpose or not. Only time will tell. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna do a WP:DUCK block for Ynm011 (remember this guy? User talk:Ynm010). Thanks. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Sheesh, how obvious. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...but all the world loves a vacuum cleaner. The Roborock article is indeed a curiosity. I take pleaure in removing fluff from such articles. There will probably be almost nothing left. I shall leave no corner unmopped.TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ...nieuwe bezems vegen schoon! Oh, right, you're the one who nominated the list. Thanks for that. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comeback to this hater here.

Hello Drmies, Cooldudeseven7 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, could you take a look at the Herren article? Seems like your kind of subject. I'm having a dispute with another editor about a lot of material they want added to the article. I suspect the article should be expanded but not the way the user is going about it. Maybe somewhere in the mythical middle? All I can think of is the song from Cabaret.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, he's an outstanding and important scholar, but yes, this kind of resume writing just won't do. Everything based on a Festschrift--we can't have that. You may have seen I got busy on Lisa Vollendorf, which is a similar case. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I didn't notice, these are not the types of articles I edit. I stumbled into the Herren article. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Drmies and stalkers. Murder of Wang Lianying is linked from the main page, and I'm at 2R for reverting a link to 'sex scandal' when the sources indicate that the case was more eye-catching due to its modernity and restoring a mention of sex work in Shanghai removed by someone who does not appear to understand the word "courtesan". I'd appreciate it if anyone could keep an eye on the article, as neither of these reverts crosses the "obvious vandalism" threshold set by WP:3RR. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these threads featured disruption around courtesans in China: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163 § User:清风与明月 multiple issues (August 2024) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166 § User:清风与明月 Continued Tendentious editing. (September 2024). Not sure if related. Folly Mox (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link, Folly Mox. It may be related... seems to fit the pattern of downplaying the prostitution aspect of courtesanship in China.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to decrease the protection of this redirect from admin to extended-confirmed protection? The attempts to override the AFD were six years ago, and there is a draft in review at Draft:Slim Jxmmi. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I see User:Asilvering took care of it--thanks. Hey, that reminds me: you ran for admin and I supported you. I see you didn't win enough people over, which is a shame and I'm sorry. I can't help but think that this is yet another case of someone having done so much good work that they ruffled feathers along the way. Well, FWIW, I think you'd have done a great job and I hope you're not too disappointed. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose cutting down the plot material, but having no coverage of his role in the game beyond his backstory makes it difficult for readers to understand critical discussion of his character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Hi Cukie Gherkin. As someone who played the game, albeit with the Black Eagles, I tend to agree that the coverage on Dimitri's role in the game is a bit excessive, better suited for Fandom than Wikipedia – and ironically also not sufficiently comprehensive, as it fails to cover the three alternative storylines (though to be fair, as far as I remember, his role in the Church and the Black Eagles storylines is the same). I agree that keeping some of it makes sense, but at most a paragraph. If you look at featured articles on video game characters, like Ada Wong and Jill Valentine, we don't provide beat-by-beat information on their roles in the games.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in agreement, but I merely reverted it because I think that too much was lost. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair, though I think the best step moving forward would be to trim the plot. As for the trimming of Hernandez' comments, I agree with Drmies that too much WP:WEIGHT is being given to that review. Hackney's commentary is (for me) mostly good, but it could be reworded to avoid bloat. I'll see about doing that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Managed to trim almost 240 characters.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could stand to trim Hernandez's comments, but I don't agree that it's undue, considering that the article focuses on Dimitri a significant amount of the time. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Chris. I removed those two huge sections of plot summary again: if someone can actually make that content about "appearances", and not plot, that would be great--with some sourcing, of course, since secondary sources are required for "appearances". Drmies (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Appearances sections for characters commonly feature plot summaries of characters. As was said, given that the Reception section discusses aspects of his character, failing to explain these aspects prior either requires awkwardly explaining in the Reception section or doing what is standard practice. Tidus, a featured article, features significantly more plot summary. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Strange that these FA reviewers also misunderstand the word "appearances". But at least that article cites sources for that section, which you have been unable or unwilling to do. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm confused by how antagonistically you're behaving, so I'm going to cease this discussion, as it's since become unproductive. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're confused yet you keep reverting? Strange. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think you even understand your own retort; is this written by AI? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also sent you mail as well regarding something I have noticed on my watchlist. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw! I even responded! Drmies (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

greetings from a trip -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Drmies (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed DrMees. I can't tell if it's just a coincidence, or if the account has an ulterior motive in the choice of username. I figured I'd let you know about it, and you can decide whether or not it's an issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, Tryptofish, thanks--no doubt it's a sock of that....there, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidWood11. Blablubbs, this one is confirmed with User:Blaxstocatamazon and a few others, but those accounts aren't tagged. Looks like the same guy, same MO, same presumptions. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this account related to WP:LTA/IAC from what I can see, Blaxstocatamazon was making same threats of having pursued legal complaint against Wikipedia like the socks of hindu raksha/rashtra dal (led by the same guy as india against corruption website). - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw you posted that somewhere but I don't know: that's for someone who is more knowledgeable than me. Right now I'm just finding socks and blocking them. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, this guy is the same as User:Maimontradi as well. Exciting, huh? Drmies (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Maimontradi & Blaxstocatamazon are operated by the same user as ShymalWhatsappUniversity(who in turn is directly related to IAC) given their extensive knowledge of India's legal system. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Behaviourally I don't see it. IAC does have a specific modus operandi, and DrMees doesn't seem to fit any of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed that this one is that one. I can recheck and throw some tags on them if you feel that it's helpful, but simply blocking and moving on seems like just as valid a strategy to me. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]