Drmies

Air Foyle Ltd. not Air Foyle Heavylift

Do you think it's possible to promote an airline that's been defunct for 20 years? If you have any other details, why don't you add them? Settignano (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Settignano: Contrary to a common and popular misconception, the Doc here doesn't control all 7 million articles and doesn't seem to have ever edited Air Foyle HeavyLift, where you were editing on 2 June. Perhaps you could start a discussion on the article's Talk page if you have questions about the article? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to build up a page about Air Foyle Ltd. itself.

Air Foyle Heavylift was a connected brand but could not fill the parent page.... Settignano (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Glane23, it's about Draft:Air Foyle Ltd., and Settignano is referring to this edit. (We're at 7 million? I only wrote like half of them!) Settignano, I think it is entirely possible to write promotional material for something that's been dead or defunct or whatever for years, yes. That list of unverified great things they did, well, if you object to a broad definition of "promotional", I'll stick with non-neutral. Also, please play nice. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, gosh! I wish they'd said that before I went haring off down yet another rabbit hole after Alice. Cheers, as always! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that my native language is not English. That's why I don't fully understand what you're writing.

I need to explain.

When I first opened the Air Foyle page, I found a text that completely ignored its origins and the important role it flew for TNT in the UK and Europe. No mention of the passenger charter subsidiary. Instead, there was information about its contacts with Antonov and the ill-fated joint venture with Heavylift, which accounted for about a third of Air Foyle's business.

I thought Air Foyle deserved a longer and more comprehensive text. Isn't that right?

If you can write a better text than mine, go ahead. I'll be happy to read it.

P.S. I don't understand the reference to Alice. For me, the only connection is with "Alice's Restaurant," a 1969 underground film. Settignano (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Try Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I prefer Gulliver's Travels.... Settignano (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that my native language is not English. That's why I don't fully understand what you're writing.

I need to explain.

When I first opened the Air Foyle page, I found a text that completely ignored its origins and the important role it flew for TNT in the UK and Europe. No mention of the passenger charter subsidiary. Instead, there was information about its contacts with Antonov and the ill-fated joint venture with Heavylift, which accounted for about a third of Air Foyle's business.

I thought Air Foyle deserved a longer and more comprehensive text. Isn't that right?

If you can write a better text than mine, go ahead. I'll be happy to read it. Settignano (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Fire/rescue disruptor

I'm not sure if you remember, but back in 2021, a user named Doriden would stop by on your talk page whenever the aforementioned LTA returned. Unfortunately, he's been able to make these types of edits mostly unchecked for about five years now. They do get reverted often, it's just that most of the times editors don't know how far back it's been a problem. I just added another one of his IPs to AIV, although I have a feeling AIV might not be the right place considering it's not pure vandalism. I did disclose the IP and not the TA as this involves an LTA and IIRC the rules allow disclosing IPs in these situations. Take a look at the history of Vancouver Fire Department (Washington). BC5043 has been reverting them for way too long, and I was wondering if you know of any suggestions besides what's already been done. Thanks, Cutlass^Ciera 18:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Hi--well I don't really remember but I see what's happening, and I blocked the last one that BC reverted. If it's really an LTA, then you can open a file, or maybe even an SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • If possible, could you block the underlying IP? The current one has been used for a few months now. Cutlass^Ciera 23:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    • If I understand it correctly, the block on the TA does that. I went back through the history but the earlier IPs were unavailable to me, which I don't quite understand. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
      • From what I know, TA blocks only autoblock the IP. Cutlass^Ciera 17:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
        • I don't think you can say that anymore... Go look at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Implementing_blocks; autoblock and disabling account creation are automatically checked for a NOTHERE block, so this should stop it for 90 days. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
          • Alright, thanks. Sorry for the (now oversighted) IP disclosure - I assumed that since it's an LTA you're allowed to disclose it, but I may be mistaken about that. Cutlass^Ciera 21:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
            • Sure thing. Honestly I find the whole thing rather confusing myself sometimes and I can certainly understand others' confusion. Better safe than sorry, as far as I'm concerned. Take care, Drmies (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Hello, I'm Hamimh2. I noticed that you recently removed content from Senior Week without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hamimh2 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• You should probably provide edit summaries when you hit rollback: not doing so violates the guidelines for rollback use. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • But raw rollback has no easy way to provide an edit summary! And semi-automated tools... don't they provide one for me? Hamimh2 (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Well, "raw" rollback maybe isn't the tool to use. I don't know what I use; it can't be anything fancy, but it leaves me the option to explain, which I typically do. Being forced to explain means being forced to think, and that's not a bad thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

      Well, @Drmies, technically semi-automated tools like Huggle and Interceptor make their own edit summary when rollbacking edits... and you don't get to make your own edit summary. Which is good for speed but not for, like, a custom reason. I really don't use custom reasons, because want to revert fast and the default reasons are enough for me. And vandalism doesn't need a custom reason. And writing a reason everytime is tedious work. Hamimh2 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

      @Hamimh2 The automated edit summaries you are using from WikiShield, etc. do not always match the edits you are making. For example, when you reverted this edit using WikiShield, you put in the edit summary "unexplained deletion." However, the editor who deleted the material did clearly explain the removal. If you disagreed with the deletion and wanted to revert the edit on those grounds, you should state that reasoning in your edit summary. Simply saying that the revert was justified because the edit was "unexplained" is disingenuous. Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

      Interceptor does say Other (AGF) and Other both bring up a text box to enter a reason for the rollback. After the reason is submitted, it opens the user's talk page so you can add a warning using Twinkle. I could use that if I disagree with an explained content removal in Interceptor and then warn using RedWarn, @Aoi! Hamimh2 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

    try using Twinkle, if you use the "rollback" or "rollback (AGF)" options, it will prompt for an edit summary. you should use those options unless it's obvious vandalism. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

    Interceptor says Other (AGF) and Other both bring up a text box to enter a reason for the rollback. After the reason is submitted, it opens the user's talk page so you can add a warning using Twinkle. So, I can just use Interceptor when I want to use a custom edit summary, plus use RedWarn to warn users, @Aunva6! Hamimh2 (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Hamimh2, you seem to be reverting almost any content removal, even if it has an edit summary. Other removals (for example, of dates in info boxes that are pure speculation) aren’t necessarily against policy and anonymous users aren’t likely to add an edit summary. I’d encourage you to be much more careful with rollback. I tend to grant perms fairly easily, but also don’t mind removing them if they’re not used in line with policy.
  Also hi, Drmies, hope all is well with you and yours :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Other removals (for example, of dates in info boxes that are pure speculation)... doesn't sound like an good idea to revert, @TonyBallioni! Next time I will only revert a content removal without an summary that removes information we need! I also revert lots of vandalism also! Hamimh2 (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • TonyBallioni, I think I'm doing pretty good, thanks--hope you are as well. It's always a pleasure seeing you around. I have so much faith in you. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • User:Aoi, it is always a pleasure seeing you too: it's been a while, I think, and that's probably my fault. Thank you for pitching in here--and you too, Aunva6! Drmies (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Definitely not your fault! It's good to see your name on my Watchlist from time to time. I hope you are doing well. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

      I accidently made a great discussion! And I am now fighting vandalism better and reverting correctly and using rollback efficiently, @Aoi, @Aunva6, @Drmies, and @TonyBallioni! Hamimh2 (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

      And @TonyBallioni, I listened to everyone's suggestions, and now I revert much less content removals and more unconstructive context removals! And vandalism, of course! I think rollback is critical for my anti-vandalism work and rollback has helped me revert much more vandalism! Now, I am much more careful when using Huggle, Interceptor, WikiShield, RedWarn, and "raw" rollback! Hamimh2 (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Ghislaine Maxwell SPA, whitewashing everything about her

Eyes needed on the blatant COI SPA

Spravato (talk · contribs · count)

whose nearly entire wiki career appears to me to have been blatantly whitewashing Ghislaine Maxwell across multiple pages. Their most recent edits are the most disturbing.

Two or so days ago I sent a mild usertalk COI notice which was promptly deleted.

Could folks please watch this and fix their blatant whitewashing, etc.? They should probably be TBANned from Ghislaine Maxwell but I personally don't have time to post at COIN or ANI; perhaps someone else does. Thanks for any assistance. Softlavender (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok,

number 1. It was not deleted. I have sections on my talk page. It is here: User talk:Spravato/Complaints 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 06:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, to call me an SPA is very far off. I’ve created the page. First Light. If you want to ban me, that is fine tho🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 06:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The fact that you created the article First Light (song) does not change the fact that you are an WP:SPA. Here are some other gems that you have created:

• Operation Cherry Cola
• Why Operation Cherry Cola belongs on wikipedia
• WP:CHERRYOP
• User:Spravato/Userboxes/OCC
• User:Spravato/OCC topicon

Immediately deleting a usertalk warning and moving it to a non-visible unlabeled page (rather than an archive with a visible Archive Page link specifically labeled as such) is de facto deleting it.

-- Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe drop the SPA/COI angle and just concentrate on the POV pushing? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hiya! Yes, I admit I made the sections a lil inaccessible(they are available by clicking on the icons). I just added text links too. Sorry abt that. Onto the main topic though, while I have no actual COI, I do believe that I may have gone too far. I have had lately some lapses in my psych meds which really clouded my judgement. To be very clear, this is not an excuse. Just an explanation. If a TBan ect. is needed, I will accept it. 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 11:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Spravato, before I go any further, can I PLEASE get you to not do these things with these icons and categories and subpages on your talk page? It is really not helpful. It may be cute to some, but it's not helpful. Really, User_talk:Spravato/Kitchen#Contentious_topics--it's OK to REMOVE such a notification, but to put it away as a "system error" (under "Kitchen"???) is deceptive. User:Robert McClenon worked hard on that notification. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Hi, could you please have a look at the editing of User:Dayshade? Cause he's driving me up the wall. Over the past year or so he's been taking a wrecking ball to our chess opening theory articles. I know we're encouraged to be "bold", but he's never content to just make incremental improvements, he has a compulsion to do complete rewrites of well established articles. Which might be ok, but a lot of his edits are simply bad. Among the issues with his editing:

• Wholesale reorganizations and rewrites of articles without discussion or consensus
• Unilateral decisions to merge articles, or spin articles out, without going through proper processes or discussion
• Basing edits on original research (e.g. chess program evaluations, chess game databases, personal opinions)
• Terrible repetitive writing style which reflects his use of chess databases ("White usually", "Black usually", "most common is", "after the usual", "is also common")
• POV pushing
• Misinterpretation or misrepresentation of sources
• Making a huge number of changes in a single edit, making it impossible to follow what he's doing
• IDHT and bludgeoning behaviour whenever this is brought up on Talk pages. He'll reply to almost everything, often with massive walls of text to try to justify his idiosyncratic interpretations of sources.

He is just exhausting to deal with and the behaviour just continues despite numerous requests that he go easy on the rewrites. I'm seriously considering requesting a TBAN, but like most wikipedians I hate ANI. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC) See Talk:Chess opening for an example of what I'm talking about. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• I see tons and tons of pretty big edits, many without an edit summary, and vague, sometimes deflective comments on the talk page (Talk:Chess opening) but a lot of this starts with content--this is not really a thing I can help with because content and behavior are a bit mixed here. This looks like something you should get the project involved with, maybe? Drmies (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Thing is it's an ongoing pattern that's been going on for a year, over multiple articles. We keep trying to tell him there's no need to completely rewrite articles, but he just keeps on doing it. If anyone brings it up on the talk page he bludegeons them with massive walls of text, demands answers to unrelated questions and "whatabouts" away, and generally annoys the shit out of people. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Well, then it probably is an ANI matter... Drmies (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• See also e.g. User_talk:Dayshade#Whataboutery_and_IDHT. I seem to easily irritate MaxBrowne2 but I definitely take his comments into account all the time and welcome them even though I find the unnecessary hostility upsetting. I've very into talk page discussions, but I'll continue to present evidence on talk pages after having something shot down. Sometimes I end up changing my view, but sometimes not. I can see why it feels bludgeony, but MaxBrowne2 seems to like to come in with an assumption that I'm completely wrong often times, which then makes any pushback from me feel like bludgeoning, maybe. Idk. Dayshade (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• MaxBrowne2, I just read Dayshade's note and that conversation. I don't know exactly what started that and I'm not gonna go look for it (don't drop links--too granular for me), but if you are correct in saying "you continue when consensus is against you", then I see two options that admins can lock in on.
  First, admins will act on "editing against consensus" (I know I will, and others do too), but not if there's no clear place with a clear consensus. So you can help yourself in such a case by having a section on a talk page or whatever that makes that clear. If (and I'm not saying Dayshade does that--I'm speaking both hypothetically and from experience) the other editor muddies the water in such a discussion), don't follow up on that (or take the bait, if you're negatively inclined) but stay on point.
  Second, if it's Big Things, you can go by way of WP:RFC, which also calls for other editors' input, and typically those are formalized in a conclusion after some time--and then you have something rock solid you can point to. Dayshade, to some extent the ball is in your court. I see some of the things you said, but remember what the coastguard said to Beowulf (and us) about words and deeds. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of The Brilliant Book for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Brilliant Book is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Brilliant Book until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Useless Niamh (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Notable alumni

What constitutes notable alumni, many would consider him more notable than many on that list AlbinoGorilla (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Many" did not come up with our guidelines, AlbinoGorilla. Read Wikipedia:Write the article first. But you didn't address the bullshit part of your addition, I believe. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Word extension request

Hi Drmies, I hope you're doing well. Could I please have my word limit in the Slava570 AE filing extended to 850 words to respond to Samuelshraga? Thank you. Paprikaiser (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• You're already at 652 words, according to the word count I ran. I personally don't really see a need to do that, and given that and the comment by User:Vanamonde93 I don't think adding more can make it stronger--but perhaps Vanamonde93 agrees with you. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm disinclined to give the OP extra words for replying to a third party unless there's evidence against the OP, which there isn't in this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Vanamonde93, I agree. Thank you for weighing in so quickly. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
      • Thank you both. Using {{ACWordStatus}} only in the diffs section, I get: Paprikaiser's statement contains 516 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit, of which approximately 473 are my own words excluding quotations. Could you clarify whether the word limit includes quotes and the other required sections of an AE filing, rather than only the diffs and accompanying explanation? It would be useful to know for future filings.
      • And if my count is right, would it be helpful for me to explain why I specifically made a filing concerning Slava570 and am preparing a separate one concerning another editor and not the others involved? If that would assist the reviewing administrators, could I have a modest extension to 575 words solely to address it? I withdraw the request for 850 words and would add nothing further. If that is not deemed necessary I am content to leave the filing as it is. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
        • Oh, I don't know: you just blinded me with science. I copied the whole thing and put it in a word counter; I've never seen that template before and I probably couldn't figure out how it works. I cannot tell you whether quotes etc. count or not; I'm not that seasoned on that page. Best ask one of the arbs.
          If you want to add a paragraph explaining what you just told me, I'm fine with that, but I doubt that it will significantly help your case. I will let you have another 150 words or so. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyvios by this account

Hi Drmies! The ~635-byte edits from this account all include a copy-pasted sentence from this website, whose content is under copyright. Thought I'd send a note in case you think it's worth RD-ing. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 20:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Ugh. So much Piermark-shit. I mean merde. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

Better late than never, - soo great music if you click on music! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2026).

Administrator changes

• Chipmunkdavis
• TechnoSquirrel69

• Mlaffs
• SpuriousQ
• Lectonar
• Dennis Brown
• Hog Farm

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

• Dbeef
• EdJohnston

Oversight changes

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

L235

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the criteria for autoconfirmed and extended confirmed should be modified.
• A request for comment proposes an addendum for the Real name section of the Username policy.

Technical news

• The special page Special:RangeCalculator has been created for any users to use to find an IP range. (phab:T268429)
• The "indefinitely" button in Special:Block for temporary accounts can be replaced with a preferred block duration stated on MediaWiki:ipb-indefinite-expiry-temporary-account. (phab:T427125)

Arbitration

• Following a series of motions, changes to the contentious topics procedure to restructure awareness have been implemented.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• 10 candidates have been appointed to the U4C.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 9 § Category:Fictional scribes

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 9 § Category:Fictional scribes on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 75

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 75, May–June 2026

• New partnerships: The Telegraph, Marg, The Tribune newspapers
• Tech tip: Expired partnerships

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 14:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Drmies and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Drmies:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.