User talk:Drmies#Pro Quest

{{divbox|brown||

{{Infobox mountain|name=Ters|country=Kyrgyz Republic}}

Ters ({{lang|ky|Терс}}) is a mountain in the west of the Kyrgyz Republic, between the Ters and Chatkal rivers.{{sfn|Barataliev|2004|p=71}}

It is {{convert|30|km}} long running roughly south-west to north-east, and between {{convert|13|and|15|km}} wide.{{sfn|Barataliev|2004|p=71}}

The Chaktal side slopes whereas the Ters side is the steeper, with a gorge-like valley.{{sfn|Barataliev|2004|p=71}}

The mountain is mostly crystalline granite, with intrusions of Carboniferous granite-diorite and granite-syenite rock.{{sfn|Barataliev|2004|p=71}}

It is between {{convert|3000|and|3300|m|yd}} high, its highest point being {{convert|3890|m|yd}}.{{sfn|Barataliev|2004|p=71}}

Up to {{convert|2300|m}} it is covered in field and meadow steppe, meadow and forest bush above that to {{convert|2800|m}}, and above that tall grass meadow and alpine meadow.{{sfn|Barataliev|2004|p=71}}

{{reflist|20em}}

{{refbegin}}

• {{cite encyclopaedia|article=ТЕРС ТООСУ|language=ky|year=2004|editor1-first=O.|editor1-last=Barataliev|encyclopaedia=География Кыргызстана|trans-encyclopaedia=Kyrgyzstan Geography|url=https://new.bizdin.kg/kniga/geografiya-kyrgyzstana|location=Bishkek|publisher=Official Language and Encyclopedia Center}}

{{refend}}

{{Kyrgyzstan-geo-stub}}

:ky:Терс тоосу

:This submission to Articles for Creation is yet more geography fallout resulting from that author. You can help Doktoro.

}}

{{divbox|brown||

People, places, and things named Ters include:

• Ters (river) — a river in the Kyrgyz Republic
• {{ill|Ters (mountain)|ky|Терс тоосу}} — a mountain in the Kyrgyz Republic
• {{ill|Ters (village)|ky|Терс (айыл)}} — a village in the Kyrgyz Republic
• St Ters of Antwerp, a phallic saint

{{tl|disambiguation}}

:ky:Терс

:This submission to Articles for Creation is yet more geography fallout resulting from that author. You can help Doktoro.

}}

{{further|#KITT|#GNIS "unincorporated community" bilgewater, bellywash, and bosh|Template:mountain passes in Europe}}

Please could you explain this comment? Talk:Imane Khelif#c-Drmies-20250603134900-Barnards.tar.gz-20250602185900 Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I could ask you to explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imane_Khelif&diff=prev&oldid=1293616655 "What’s the basis for the claim “Khelif is male is a false claim”?"] but I am really not interested in the answer. I think Simonm223 has been uncommonly patient and reasonable with you, by the way. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Did you read the rest of my comments on that talk page? I hope it’s completely clear that my position is simply that in the face of credible uncertainty, the responsible action (especially in a BLP and CTOP article) is to avoid making definitive claims one way or the other. I am advocating for NPOV over side-taking, and it feels wild to be threatened with some sort of ban for arguing in favour of one of our core content policies. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{TPS}} "Credible" uncertainty is one thing, but the claim that Khelif is male is an extraordinary one, being as it's rooted entirely in transphobia. I find Drmies' response quite reasonable, as editors who take such nonsense seriously have no business claiming competence to edit biographical articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Please be aware that at no point have I advocated for including the claim that Khelif is male in the article. I have argued specifically against this. Is there a possibility that you are confusing me with another editor? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Are you deliberately ignoring what I said? You're hearing sound logic and policy from experienced editors on one side, and hearing nonsense transphobia from known transphobes on the other, and then telling us they have the same weight in your view. That's exactly what you're advocating. The fact that you're not fully committing to transphobia is nice, I suppose, but it still necessarily raises competence questions, as the alternative is to assume you're just pretending not to pick a side, and that's not a constructive tact.
• ::::You can read Drmies', Writ Keeper's and my comments as recrimination, or you can read them as (blunt, but fair) corrections from experienced editors. I can tell you that my comments, at least, are intended as the latter, and both Drmies' and Writ Keeper's comments strongly read that way to me. But you are free to assume the former, if adhering to the norms here is not your cup of tea.
• ::::If you want some more direct, if less blunt advice, I would say this: You may wish to avoid editing articles dealing with transgender people or issues surrounding them. One of the best choices I made on this site was to recuse myself from editing articles about modern politics. I also tend not to edit articles about, for example, climate change, because my understanding of the subject is little better than that of the average person, despite my immense appetite for self-education. There's no shame in eschewing subjects you have any kind of distaste for or ignorance about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::What exactly are you referring to when you say “nonsense transphobia from known transphobes”? The Telegraph? I’ve argued against giving that equal weight to other sources. My judgement that there is credible uncertainty is based on a multitude of sources, including every mainstream source that sees fit to mention intersex conditions. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::The more you reply, the less this looks like a competence issue, and the more it looks like tendentiousness. You're only strengthening my opinion that you have no business editing BLPs, or transgender topics in general. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::That "credible uncertainty" is entirely because of a hostile press making hay from a set of pixels that purports to be a leaked medical report. If there is any other evidence it has not been presented. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Somebody recently made a reference to people crying "Where there's smoke, there's fire," while throwing smoke grenades, and that analogy has been one of the most on-the-nose ones I've ever read. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::"Neutral" is not the same word as "milquetoast", and not all statements are created equal. "Unproven" is not exactly halfway between "true" and "false"--the presumption of innocence in a court of law is a classic example, or the Monty Hall problem. A more illustrative example might be the idea of Sensitivity and specificity. You'll forgive me for indulging in some math, and belaboring a point you might already be aware of. Say there is a disease that occurs in 1 out of 100 people. There is a test for disease X that has 95% accuracy (that is, it has a 5% false positive rate and 5% false negative rate). Say you get tested for X, and your results are positive. You might think that, given the test's accuracy rate, you have a 95% chance of having X. But that's not true; your odds are actually closer to only 16%.
• ::for the maths: if we test 2000 randomly-selected people, given the disease's 1% prevalence, we would expect 20 people to actually have the disease. out of those 20 people, we expect 19 of them to have a positive result (95% of 20). but out of the 1980 people that *don't* have the disease, 5% of them will still have a positive result, to the tune of 99 people (1980*.05). so, we have a total of 118 people who got a positive test, but only 19 who actually have a disease: 19/118 ~= 16.1%.
• ::I hope the analogy here is clear, but the point is, treating an unproven statement as "just as likely to be true as false" is not *always* neutral, and it can do our readers, not to mention the subjects of our BLP articles, a grave disservice. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I understand completely, but I am not advocating for inserting equivocating language that creates false balance, but rather for not making statements that express absolute certainty when there is credible uncertainty. In fact, I see that one of the most problematic passages in the article lead has already been changed from “false” to “unsubstantiated”. This is exactly the improvement I want to see, but it feels like you guys think I want to insert something like “it is unproven that Khelif is female”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Honestly I don't know what you want. That Khelif is male is a false claim, by the way. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Frankly, what I would like is for you to strike the bit where you said you thought I should be banned from all BLPs. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Surely you've read the various comments by other editors in this thread. That's not going to happen. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::OK, well I think I deserve to know what infraction you want to ban me for so I can make sure I don’t do it again. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Are you serious? The faulty logic you applied should not be applied to a BLP. Really, you should leave her alone. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I'm not sure what logic you thought I was implying by my question, but the change I wanted has been made[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imane_Khelif&diff=1293670103&oldid=1293669088] and has stood without objection for over a week. Feel free to revert it if you still disagree, I guess. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Thank you for pointing that out. Per multiple RSes presented in the discussion, I've corrected that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

They are back. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Howard&diff=1295023206&oldid=1292715704] compare [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Howard&diff=prev&oldid=1287852390] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Howard&diff=prev&oldid=1288349530] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Howard&diff=prev&oldid=1288828172] "public intelllectual". Thanks. Polygnotus (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Polygnotus sorry, I was walking the dog. "Public intellectual" is kind of funny. And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=1295094400 what a child]. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :No worries, dogs have priority of course! "Public intellectual" sounds like a form of exhibitionism. Yeah that guy is lovely. Polygnotus (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Saskatchewan Highway 5. I found most of the lower numbered SK highways are in the same disastrous boat. I've been slowly working my way down the list. I've finished down to Saskatchewan Highway 16. The Saskatchewan Highway 15 rewrite is currently in my sandbox. Next will be Saskatchewan Highway 14. Masterhatch (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note--I appreciate that. I picked that one more or less at random after seeing what happened at the 331 article I edited, and I have no doubt that those edits were habitually made by an editor until that editor was told off a bit--and then huffed and puffed about it. So yes, no doubt there is a lot of cleanup and their talk page suggested that the list of GAs was being looked at as well. I think there's a GA review for that 5 article, but perhaps you've already contacted the editor who started that. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I have not participated in any of the GA reviews for SK highways, but if I had, I would've voted in favour of delisting. I have not discussed with any editor GA reviews or any of the rewrites and culls that i've done to sk highway articles. I guess either no one noticed or cared. But many of the sk highway articles are in dire need of work. As for this editor you mentioned who huffed and puffed, I'm not sure who you are talking about. The irrelevant fluff you removed from sk hwy 5 and most of the same type of fluff i've been removing from sk hwy pages was added about 15 years ago and came from an editor who no longer appears active. Rewriting the terrible hwy articles is a tiresome and thankless job but it needs to be done (and I don't mind doing it). I started out by just working around the edges trying to clean them up a bit and that was ok for some articles. But others were so bad, complete rewrites were needed. Masterhatch (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

{{-}}

{{User QAIbox

| image = Foxglove, Scheid, Ehrenbach.jpg

| image_upright = 0.8

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Springfootball1fan would seem to be back at it again with the poorly sourced edits. Noticed you've dealt with them before and thought you might want to take a look. Emma (chats ✦ edits) 00:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{U|Izon}}, thank you--that's exactly what I would have done. BTW what a nasty attitude they have. {{U|Emma Caroline}}, thank you for keeping the place clean. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind checking the talk page for {{noping|Yvette2002}}. I think she might be on the wrong website? Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

: Maybe Doc is looking for a good time ... Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tpw}} I've just snorted with laughter IRL at this. And I thought I'd seen it all on here...! Patient Zero^talk 23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm always looking for a good time, but they're not looking for me. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This might be your chance though Drmies? She says she is willing to negotiate. For a small arrangement fee, I am happy to be a go-between. Knitsey (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't know, Knitsey. I appreciate it of course--perhaps you can ask her if she's OK with OnlyFans being my main source of income. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I KNEW the rumours were true. Knitsey (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oh my! It's clear there needs to be an additional category added to WP:NOT, though perhaps whatever she was offering (rumply or pumply or both, perhaps?) is covered under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#And finally... Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Glane23, that's a bit harsh. I don't think Drmies was intentionally advertising his OnlyFans account? :) Knitsey (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{yo|Knitsey}} It is always incumbent upon all of us to uphold and maintain this Talk page as the current headquarters of the The Ministry of Silly Walks. Heaven forfend that we should descend into sheer seriousness! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You need to apologise to Drmies immediately @Glane23! It's not his fault he walks that way. You would know the real reason if you had checked out his OnlyFans account. Knitsey (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{u|Knitsey}}!! I’m in bits… But hey, Wikipedians gotta do what they gotta do, I guess. We are (almost) all volunteers here after all, no shame in having a side hustle! And this person seems to be rather flexible. Perhaps in more ways than one. Patient Zero^talk 02:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{U|Glane23}} why have you been coughing up $40 a month for...a year and a half now? to look at precisely the way I "walk"? Drmies (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Well, Mr. Tyler told me to Walk This Way. What can I say? Worth every centime... Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Have I made improvements to the Rocky Hollow draft that have made it good. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• A link would have been helpful. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• I see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ARocky_Hollow&diff=1296850262&oldid=1290055798 you added] a poster (?) and some Amazon links. Oh, and YouTube links, and a blog. {{U|Kuru}}, do you see the actual improvements? Drmies (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'd say it better than my old draft of the page especially since there's more information about the series and more plot summaries I've been able to find for most of the episodes. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• You might say that, yes, but I think it should be obvious by now that the Wikipedia community has slightly different thoughts on the quality of work, the reliability of sources, and the notability of subjects. For the life of me I don't understand why you're adding blogs, fan websites, Amazon links, and YouTube videos. It shows a lack of concern for our standards, and a lack of understanding of what many, many editors have told you. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I've tried to my best for it to be like the Wikipedia page for Starhill Ponies since that page has very little information about the series. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• 'postertrail.com' is just an image of a poster that does not appear to support the claim it is attached to. 'avid.wiki' is an open wiki. A wordpress blog. Amazon and youtube links. 'tvcharts' is just a mirror of imdb user-created data. 'doesthedogdie' is a neat site, but it appears to be user edited and socially ranked material - not clear that the description there is usable. On a separate note, the entry there for 'Cannibal Holocaust' should probably return a page that says "are you really asking if Cannibal Holocaust is triggering?" Regretfully, I cannot access the newspaper archives past the paywall, so someone else will need to do that. Someone mentioned these were trivial mentions, but I don't know. Is there really nothing material supporting this show?Sam Kuru (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• The newspaper articles I've been able to look at on other pages by the editor were all trivial mentions, yes--program listings, basically. Oh, I read up on that movie and wish I hadn't. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• I've managed to add a reference to the Rocky hollow draft page from toonhound from the way back machine. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• So? Drmies (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Is that a good reference since another Wikipedia page I came across titled Starhill Ponies has a link the same as that. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• I've removed the archive.org links from the draft. Is the page still not good. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• {{tps}}The answers.com link is written by an "AI Bot" Gawby.com shows no evidence of meeting our criteria. If this is notable you should easily fine English language sources discussing, not just mentioning, the show. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• I got rid of it. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• It is a website, or was a website, run by one person. Not a reliable secondary source. That you'd still ask that after all these conversations and notifications just means that you are not a very competent editor. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I asked you about the toonhound link to see if the page can be accepted since I can't now. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Also you stopped the page from being accepted and I had to try and find better sources that detail information about the series. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Since the page has now 6 reliable references is that enough for it to be accepted or does bits of it need to be cut out. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Is my Draft:Rocky Hollow good. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• No. I'm done with you. There is an entirely unferenced Trivia section, and we already shouldn't have Trivia sections. Then you invented some praise for the show, "The shows featured in the article are remembered fondly for their unique charm, storytelling, and their role in shaping childhood memories for a generation of Welsh-speaking children", which looks like it was produced by AI, and is supposed to be based [https://www-bbc-com.translate.goog/cymrufyw/43787827?_x_tr_sl=ko&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp on this source], and it clearly isn't. Then you have websites like animationhalloffame.org and answers.com. Six reliable sources? Where?{{pb}}No, and if I'm ever asked I'm going to say that you should be blocked from further editing for incompetence. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there!

You are invited to the event Wikicurious: Rewriting the Canvas on Wikipedia. The event will be taking place on Wednesday, July 2, 2025, 5PM to 8PM, at the Bechtler Museum of Modern Art in Charlotte, North Carolina. This free event is open to all. It is especially designed for people interested in Black American music and modernist visual art, and for peope who are curious about using Wikipedia to learn about these subjects, about getting started editing Wikipedia, or just meeting other Wikimedians. If you are interested, please sign up on the event page AND on [https://www.eventbrite.com/e/wikicurious-rewriting-the-canvas-on-wikipedia-tickets-1381962700639 their Eventbrite page].

You received this message because you are on the global message delivery list of the North Carolina Wikipedians, probably because you signed up on our user page or because you attended one of our events. If you would like to remove yourself, please e-mail me or remove your username from our global message delivery list.

Thanks so much -- I hope to see you in Charlotte! -- Gaurav (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you may not remember me, but I was here a while back because I caught a user who violates WP:NOTWEBHOST among a few other things by editing pure nonsense on their user page, Bbb23 has blocked this sockpuppet 4 times now, and they're back once again. I went to Bbb23 yesterday, although I'm unser if they are leaving Wikipedia or not due to their recent edits. I thought I'd come to you instead. This user is certainley the same userame editing habits as the last four times. Sports, mostly football, and or exclusivley talk page nonsense, it's User:Fortnite12482. Check it out. Lemonademan22 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• I can block, but maybe WP:SPI is a better venue. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks for the suggestion, I've just done it now. Lemonademan22 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense in article continues, now the IP has upped the ante and REMOVED A SOURCE to get their preferred version to stay!! I am not 100% sure that these IPs are the accounts (seen in article), only that this nonsense has longsince worn out its welcome!!

Please double the protection you originally enforced, at least we won't have to deal with the IPs! You have been briefed, take care RevampedEditor (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• It continues, now they "allow" source to stay but they just have to have "marking an historic double" written in paragraph. They do it just to enhance Mr. Mohamedi's page word-wise, or the club's! Been here for 19 years, seen it done thousands of times to not recognise the pattern. 20:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)