Drmies

Joachim Peiper

Hi, I wonder if you could indef protect the page due to Peiper still being a popular figure in the Waffen-SS fandom. Sample contributions to the page: Special:Contributions/Peiper77 (username and edit summary speak for themselves) or this edit : SS-Obersturmführer Hans Malkomes described Joachim Peiper: “Not only as one of the most capable Panzer leaders in the entire Wehrmacht.... Etc.

While IPs are regularly reverted, sometimes things slip through the cracks, i.e. the Malmedy massacre for which Peiper was convicted completely disappeared from the lead, as was in this version of the page: . I don't think that ECP in necessary at this point, but getting rid of on-going disruption from IPs would be great. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@K.e.coffman: The doc could well be distracted this time of year, what with ushering another generation toward end-of-term and all. You might try seeking protection at WP:RFP. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Geoff, I was actually distracted by ceviche in Costa Maya and tequila in Cozumel... Drmies (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Even better! And here I thought you were sweating grades for finals from another class of ne’er-do-wells. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Sam Wood Rp and Superpower Edit War

Sam Wood Rp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry to disturb and I am not sure if this is the right place. But this above editor has been unilaterally changing the Superpower page despite consensus being reached. I am trying to restore the page when I am free, but he seems to want to do an edit war. While I understand some revisions were needed to keep the page up-to-date and that the page itself isn't perfect per se. The editor has been belligerent on their opinions, even using Google AI to support his actions, regardless of the consensus, and has not seek any compromise whatsoever. What do we do about this? 42Grunt (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Here are Columbia and Harvard Articles on the topic: https://cwp.sipa.columbia.edu/news/china-trying-have-it-both-ways-middle-east-cwp-alum-isaac-kardon and https://dash.harvard.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/9c13308c-9a96-4761-9f68-2d9b08fed7c2/content

There is no consensus regarding China's status as a Superpower.

Superpower is not the second largest economy in the world capable of challenging the strongest country regionally. Superpower is a country capable of projecting military force on a global scale. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a consensus. The third and final polling on the talk page establishes it in-favour. Period. The only one stating that there is no consensus is you.

The two sources you posted were posted in early 2024, with the one from Mario Casuga even highlighting that China is a superpower, albeit one with limitations. Said sources should already be considered as outdated given the sheer gulf of difference in the geopolitical arena before November 2024 and after February 2025, which has made whatever arguments obsolete. For example, Casuga tried to use China's apparent lack of resources as a weakness, but as shown in this current Iran War, China is the least affected North-East Asian country owing to its energy diversification and electrification. Moreover, he tried to pull out this old argument that China's economy was overstated, an argument that was immediately shot down by the US Federal Reserves itself, which concluded that China's GDP is largely accurate.

Isaac Kardon tried to use US FON in the Bab-el Mandeb Strait as an example of US power, which is now rendered a joke given current US ineptitude of guaranteeing FON in the Persian Gulf, which humiliates America's reputation to "project global military force". In fact, even Kardon himself, recently conceded that Trump's geopolitical suicide has gifted China unprecedented levels of global influence as Washington is too busy dismembering its own Pax Americana system that kept it a superpower. To say nothing on the current state of US network alliances which lay in shambles, nor the complete self-immolation of US soft power and political legitimacy and reputation. Meanwhile, the most recent sources has nonchalantly labelled the US and China as equal hegemons. To say nothing on high-ranked US officials like Marco Rubio outright stating China's stature.

Effectively, your edits ignores the consensus reached in the talk page where the majority issued in-favour of Option B, where we should at least, at a minimum, honour it with some tweaks and improvements. Your change flies against this consensus that was debated three times, all resulting in a in-favour for China. 42Grunt (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean you really think that the landscape of international relations changes in a few seconds? Then you should've considered the US not a superpower since the Vietnam war.

I mean come on. The classical definition of the superpower term is the country with the ability to wage a global-scale war. As in fight wars anywhere on earth, the US is the only one with that ability.

Officials can use whatever names they want, politicians will say one thing today and a completely different thing tomorrow.

I meant there is no consensus among the IR scholars, even Harvard is split 50/50 on the issue of whether or not China is a superpower.

I don't see how the US unwillingness to invade Iran and force the Persian gulf open is an indication of its inability to force the Bab el Mandeb. It's a policy choice not inability. The only way the US could force the strait open is by invading Iran (or what they did is blockading the strait themselves to wait till Iran runs out of money and has to make peace), they aren't doing that probably because they don't want to be in another endless war not because the US can't defeat Iran.

They wouldn't be able to force open Gibraltar or Istanbul neither without intervention on the ground. (The UK wasn't able to force Dardanelles open in WW1, therefore had to resort to ground invasion of Gallipoli.)

That is a result of geography not technical inability.

China is not in a position to exploit the US distraction in the Middle East because China lacks the global military reach the US has.

The only way another actual superpower emerges is if there is an actual coalition between China and Russia or say Russia and Europe. I don't see how else China can actually challenge the US anywhere militarily. (Or economically, the US Nominal GDP is still vastly larger which is the one that matters of international financial influence). Sam Wood Rp (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen. This is what is happening in 2025 and 2026. Iran is orders of magnitude worse than Vietnam. If you actually know anything about long term geostrategy, you would know this would be the case. Vietnam at least, had the figment of the excuse of the USSR and China backing the north and at least with Vietnam, the country did not hold any geostrategically important location.

Iran DOES. Iran de facto controls a quarter of global oil supply and one-fifth of global LNG. They literally have the power to dictate the global price of fossil fuels and energy. A Iranian loss means a complete loss in influence in not only in the Middle-East but the entire globe, as the rest of the world is looking at the US being completely helpless in a) opening up the Strait and b) helping their supposed Gulf allies. US failure to enforce the Strait means that the days of US-operated FON is over, and that the era of unchecked US military primacy is gone forever. How do you think, Europe and Asian allies are going to perceive complete US capitulation to Iran, even a partial one? If you are a self-declared military superpower and you are unable to enforce your will against a mid-rate power that has the entire global energy supply in a chokehold, what does that make you? Impotent.

This US failure is also a result of technical decline. One can just look at the sheer difference between 1991 and today. The sheer industrial decline of the US was made clear in this war. 42Grunt (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @42Grunt and Sam Wood Rp: These discussions belong on the article's Talk page and/or one of the avenues described in the dispute resolution article, not this user Talk page. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies. Noted on this. 42Grunt (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Very hard to deal with single purpose accounts best just lock up the page... before they both get blocked.... see if they and their friends can figure it out. On a side note someone should remove the source to Wikipedia.Moxy🍁 15:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Moxy: You mean elevate the protection level on Superpower, the article with all of the kerfuffle, to extended confirmed? (It' s already atuoconfirmed.) I suppose, like all things, this too shall pass. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the page needs to be locked or its protection enhanced. 42Grunt (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Geoff, Moxy, thanks for looking out for me while I was on vacation, haha. Drmies (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2026

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

Administrator changes

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

Bureaucrat changes

• WereSpielChequers

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 74

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 74, March–April 2026

• New partnership: Swissdox
• User survey results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 10:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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)