Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suikerbrood

[edit]

I was looking through the list of requested articles, and came across a mention of Sugarbread, that being a lack of an article corresponding to nl:Suikerbrood (brood), but looking at the Dutch article, it has an interwiki link back to the very stubby Craquelin. Soooo.... does that interwiki link make sense? Do I redirect sugarbread to craquelin? I notice that the Dutch article is unreferenced; so just translating it is probably not a good idea (even skipping the recipe). LadyofShalott 01:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel like I should apologize. Are you finding sources in English? I can help using those. (My Larrousse Gastronomique isn't any help on this though. It's just got a tiny entry on craquelin and nothing on sugarbread/suikerbrood.) LadyofShalott 02:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No apology necessary. I'm actually quite disappointed in the lack of sources. The Dutch article ("Trivia"--as if the recipe wasn't trivial) mentioned that it was given to mothers who had given birth to girls (bread with currants for boys)--now that's interesting. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Hey, look what I found! A cool template to really stick it to the masses! Bwuhaha, peons beware--or I will delete your pet and its talk page. Zis is your administrator speaking! Drmies (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After dinner, ordinary Wikipedia editors eat sweet treats. After dinner, outstanding Wikipedia editors write articles about sweet treats. I think that is fair to say that almost every European "national" cuisine has been shaped and altered by the cuisines of other nationalities. In her book 1,000 Jewish Recipes, Faye Levy includes a recipe for "Babka with Cinnamon and Raisins" on page 552, which she describes this way: "A staple of Jewish bakeries, babka is of Polish origin and is made in many versions: as light, airy batters, streusel-topped cakes, or swirled with a cinnamon filling, like this one. Some French bakers consider babka to be the origin of their batter yeast cake specialty, babas." If I remember my European geography properly, France is somewhat close to Holland, and only the Walloons and the Flemish separate those two countries? So, perhaps, some migration took place, eh? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warning! There are mountains in this world named Suikerbrood, or Sugar Loaf Peak. The Wikipedia mountaineers will object strenuously if their favorite topic is left out of this worthy new article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SIR! If you are implying that the Dutch could be influenced by the Belgians in any shape or form or way or avenue, I must strenuously object. Please consider yourself advised: next time we will meet on the Etiquette noticeboard. I must keep my Dutch articles pure. Did you happen to see this edit summary? BTW, most of the hits I found in GBooks were for mountains. I see a dab page coming in the near future, and I may have to move my Suikerbrood. Drmies (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Move my Suikerbrood" sounds impolite. Anyway, I was wondering if it might be better placed at the Frisian name, if we're using non-English titles. LadyofShalott 18:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--Well, maybe so, but there is one hitch: Friesland is a province of the Netherlands, so we win. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought about that yesterday (while you were beating me to making the redirect). The problem is that both get very, very few hits on Google Books and News, and that I am not sure to which extent the actual product can be called Frisian enough to warrant a Frisian name. It is certainly known in the Netherlands under its Dutch name, though very often with a regional connotation--that is, most people know of "Fries suikerbrood", and that the two go together. You know, we should ask a Frisian: I think Ucucha is from that economically and culturally deprived group of saint-killers (remember Saint Boniface?). I'll drop him a line. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I thought the question worth raising, but I'll certainly defer to the opinions of people who have heard of the stuff before running into a redlinked request. As far as the redirects go... you were doing the actual article writing - at least I could do a little related gnoming. :) LadyofShalott 18:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know you're my second-favorite gnome. If I could establish that it really is Frisian (whatever that means...) I would change the title, yes. Actually, I'm tempted to make some. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, thanks for the the help there! I was going to say you know you can deep fry anything... except, I don't understand the concept of fried Kool-Aid. I've heard the words, but how does one fry a liquid? LadyofShalott 19:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to mention this to a Dutch purist, but Mrs. Cullen has uncovered some sources (not very reliable ones to be sure - amateur baker's blogs and such). One of them associates suikerbrood with Belgium. I will post them on the article's talk page so that you can decide not to include them in the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOOOO! Lady, quick--you block Cullen indefinitely, and I RevDel all his contributions. What to do about Mrs. Cullen, though? Maybe send her a booby-trapped rolling pin? Drmies (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Doc, she might booy-trap some suikerbrood and send it right back to us. LadyofShalott 19:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I get to eat it before I die--I understand she's quite a baker, and also plays a great hand of canasta. Cullen, cocktails around the pool this afternoon at 5? Drmies (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Meet me where I am working this afternoon, at the headquarters of McAfee in Santa Clara, California at 5. It is easy to find - there is a gigantic stainless steel statue of the Virgin Mary right across the street. Alternatively, we can have a "virtual" cocktail party, but I don't find JPEGs of cocktails all that refreshing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My wife has been doing much more baking in recent months, as she's started a traveling tea party business (Victorian not political). She's a pretty good baker but really specializes in main courses. That's why I'm so "big". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. I stuck one in, and added your Belgian reference. I don't like it, but I have an ethical obligation... Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sûkerbôle is the best food available in the Netherlands. In my family it's known by the Frisian name, but that may not be representative. I've never heard of it being eaten after birth; that's what we have beschuit met muisjes for. Ucucha (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is probably four times longer than the article itself, and I'm not helping... Will find a Dutch/Frisian baker ASAP.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More than four times. Good luck finding that baker. Ucucha, thank you for weighing in. I didn't know it was that important. Tell me, the kind you get back home, is it baked with parelsuiker? And if you're so Frisian, why haven't you taken a class with Rolf Bremmer? Drmies (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because I can take classes with Hopi Hoekstra instead. I don't know what it's baked with ('t Stoepje does), I'm afraid; I just know it's delicious. Ucucha (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Well, that cutie-petutie is certainly a lot better looking than Rolf, and I mean that with all due respect to Rolf. Please tell her that I am a mammal also and warrant closer inspection, and that I can recite Chaucer AND Milton (though not at the same time) while she curates me. I'm making suikerbrood this weekend and will let you know how it turned out. Groetjes aan Hopi! Drmies (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with article creation queue

[edit]

Hey,

This is Brian, whom you met at the Higher Ed. Summit. A student got his article into this queue somehow, and all he wanted to do was move it from his sandbox to the live article space (which we've now done) but we cannot figure out how to extract him from the article creation queue: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/F.B.T._Productions,_LLC_v._Aftermath_Records Can you just take that out of the queue (or something?!) Hope you're doing well. Brianwc (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Drmies — I'm getting frustrated with Rangoon here, and I definitely cannot keep a cool head there anymore, so I'll let you up to it, as you're the user in question. HurricaneFan25 17:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note. I knew something like this would happen, turning it into a perfect issue for ANI, unfortunately. There is really nowhere else to discuss this, AFAIK. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Austin

[edit]

Thanks for your assistance and comments. I was unsure whether it was acceptable to link the organization's web portal (external link) from the statement about the Library of Congress so I did not do so. As for enduring encyclopedic value, I guess time, consensus and/or admin actions will tell. Sngourd (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that's an excellent decision. And one thing is really helpful about that link: it verifies that there is something that can be called an "official" website. That Facebook link I removed cannot be accepted (but I just liked them on FB, haha)--anyone can make such a page, just like anyone can make a website, but this one, thanks to you, has some verified standing. Take care, Drmies (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third party needed

[edit]

I think I need some third-party intercession on this. Could you look it over, please, and if you feel so inclined, comment on it, one way or the other? I'd appreciate it, because I don't really know what to do at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragliding

[edit]

Drmies, why are you editing through full protection on Paragliding? I whole-heartedly agree that the article needs a lot of work, but if you edit for content through protection without consensus, isn't that essentially you using your adminship to be a "super-editor" and have more of a say in content than a regular editor? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO, that depends on the edit. I will tell you this: I am done. As far as I can tell, there are no more spam links. Note also that I commented on the talk page on precisely this matter, including the explicit invitation to any admin to undo me if they disagree. BTW, it seems as if the whole thing was sort of at a stand-still. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I certainly can't see any logic in reverting you--it would kill me to revert on principle (IAR, etc.). to be honest, if I wasn't being an admin on the page, I would be strongly tempted to wipe out half of it and tell people they need to start over from sources. If anyone objects on talk, I'll revert. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you think will happen if protection is lifted? It's odd, but none of them seem to care enough to learn the language of Template:Edit protected, or to fruitfully discuss improvements. Instead, we get walls of text and the article is going nowhere. Joefaust is under discussion at ANI, which is what led me to the article, and might be topic-banned soon. I just added my support for a ban--it's sad, but I see no other way. Perhaps that will mean the return of sanity and an end to edit-warring. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to file an edit request pertaining to the function of paragliding in the development of rural environmentally friendly tourism, just to convince the nay-sayers. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that I would at least wait until the ANI discussion finished. If Joefaust were gone, there really wouldn't be any edit warring (and likely much less talk page insanity). If he stays, getting him to properly converse rather than going off willy-nilly is going to be necessary before we can get anywhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will try extra hard to "properly converse" and will stay very short with high effort for keen RS, if I contribute; I will avoid editing the article "paragliding", but only work in consensus discussion in the Article Discussion page. Would that conduct help? Joefaust (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion of the Occupy deletion requests you made...

[edit]

...should no longer be made at User talk:Northamerica1000's page. You may make further comments (should you feel the need) on my own talk page. Also, as a note, I would also like to let User:Sngourd know that Drmies actions should not be seen as an official Administraive action and his (User:Sngourd) input at the ANI is still of value and should not cease merely because Drmies has authority as an Admin. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ? Huh? What's this doing here? Please show me that you're authorized to function as a mouthpiece. If NA1000 won't have me anymore he's big enough to tell me himself, and my comments on his talk page were to him about his edits, which is where they should be. Sngourd also strikes me as an adult who can speak for themself. Finally, any fool knows that I have made no "actions" as an admin--any fool but you, apparently. I have no desire to comment on your talk page; I have nothing to say to you--kindly stay away. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Bosman

[edit]

Hi there MIES, VASCO here,

hope you like my arrangements in this guy's article (we're not getting any younger, but i was blown away to read that him and Marco van Basten scored 138 goals combined in three seasons for Ajax, not a small feat; also sad to hear about his son).

Would you be so kind as to provide a translation for REF#3's title (and, if you see some errors in #2, go right ahead). "Gaining momentum", if you find some relevant info in YAHOO.NL or the sorts, please "paste" it in Bossie's article.

Attentivel, have a great weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vasco, you're a good man. I always liked Bosman (or "Sjon", with the appropriate Amsterdam dialect). Note: I made a small edit to the lead--it was too much credit. I'm sure you've seen this link--a rush by Van Tiggelen, one touch by Muhren, a volley by the master. Still gives me shivers to see it. First time I watched was on a tiny TV screen in the bicycle parking of the Zaandam train station, with my then-girlfriend and the bike attendant. Happiest day of my life. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Tod

[edit]

A note, to thank you for your help in raising James Tod to GA status. The tweaks were appreciated. Despite the discontent about the treatment of Tod on talk pages away from the article, nothing too dramatic actually appeared where it mattered. Perhaps people realised that it was in fact a reasonable depiction of the subject after all. The drama elsewhere involving my contribution to matters Indian is, however, reaching new levels. When it comes to drama, I am at present a one-man West End. Oh, shucks. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at.

[edit]

Hi,meester Drmies,I need your opinion regarding article Pir-e-Kamil.Please take a look at my talk page and talk page of User:LadyofShalott and give your experienced opinion according to exact concept of wiki policies and guidelines.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold onto your hat...

[edit]

A very rare event has just occured... as a "rabbit inclusionist" has nominated a BLP for deletion. I think my reasons for doing so are sound, and will survive scrutiny, but could you please study my edits surrounding Badran Roy Badran and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badran Roy Badran to make I transcluded everything properly? I'd hate it if a "rabbit inclusionist" is perceived as screwing up on an AFD nomination. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks correct to me. LadyofShalott 21:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me to express an opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:86.150.18.230

[edit]

Hi, you blocked this chap a few days back for disruption - well he hasn't paid much attention and is back to his tricks. Could you keep an eye on him? Parrot of Doom 23:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Kling

[edit]

It seem that th above never got listed on 3 October so I've included it for today. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I chimed in. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, CBW. I don't know what happened--sometimes my Twinkle gets stuck halfway, but usually I find that it did go through all the steps anyway. Drmies (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts

[edit]

On this? Bongomatic 05:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Drmies/Archive 21! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

question on removing articles

[edit]

When a biography article gets created with a lower-case name. After I move the article to upper-case names, should the lower-case redirect then be removed? Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I'm not the expert on MOS naming and redirects, and I never understood how and when WP is case-sensitive. I usually leave 'em, to be on the safe side. But there are smarter people than me who will know better, and perhaps some of them are reading this and can comment. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that his phrase originally? I've heard it from many and used it a fair few times myself elsewhere. I suppose there are costs other than monetary... and redirects cost little in any of the sorts of costs one could think of (bandwidth? other?). In trimming Wyandanch, we've saved the time it would take some poor hapless readers to wade through all that. LadyofShalott 00:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, I've just wasted some time and a few electrons to answer semi-seriously a non-serious question, but oh well. :) LadyofShalott 00:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

<--Yes, and I'm sorry about that. Are there any drama-free places? Actually, I thought you never hung out there to begin with. I did miss something and had to dig through the history to find a thread on some really stupid and insulting comments by Off2riorob, a thread that went nowhere, of course. Ha, Malleus gets blocked for the usual absence of reason, and Rob gets to go on one of his famous (and famously short) wiki-breaks, scot-free. Well, I'm involved in some missionary techniques right now, and then it's off to bed. Perhaps tomorrow I'll go to work, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not my usual hangout, but it is on my watchlist, and sometimes I have to watch a train wreck or two even if I stay out of it. Then there are the ones I'm directly involved in, like this tooth fairy business. Good night! LadyofShalott 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boy, I ask one simple question and boom. Don't know much background you two are talking about, but I've unfortunately met DGG and Off2riorob. Those two and a few others sometimes make me want to give Wikipedia up and run screaming into the night. But you two, Mandarax, GBfan, Kudpung and others restore my faith. Thank you both. Bgwhite (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey Bgwhite, thanks, but as a side note, I learned a lot from DGG, and I have great respect for him as an editor and a human being (I think he's a human being, and I'm pretty sure he's a he). I find myself disagreeing with him often enough in deletion discussions, but often enough his comments make me change my mind. It takes a village, you know, and the longer I'm here the more I see the point of the variety we have here--inclusionists like DGG, MQS, and the Colonel, deletionists like, well, you and me (haha), gnomes like Mandarax, fantastic copy editors and writers like MF and Ealdgyth. Have you ever run into Mike Christie? Great writer and researcher, who would be great in a classroom as well. And if it weren't for the Lady and other friendly admins, I would still be stumbling around in the dark. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Number one is Lars von Trier to my Bjork: I've already been found in the woods rocking (in a fetal position) and chewing on my costume.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Glebova

[edit]

Dear Drmies, I requested protection on Natalie Glebova page due to Persistent vandalism by User Illyukhina talk • contribs in mass editing of Biographies of living persons on Wikipedia without providing an edit summary. I tried to discuss the issue on talk but Illyukhina is blanking all warnings and communications, please see the talk page history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Illyukhina&action=history - this user simply ignores Wikipedia rules and etiquette. I was trying to keep the original article text consistent with other Wikipedia articles. In particular, The geographical place Tuapse in Wikipedia: Tuapse is a town in Krasnodar Krai, Russia. Illyukhina is changing Tuapse, Russia to Tuapse, Soviet Union. So, you have protected the page with the latest incorrect edit by the user Illyukhina. Thanks, Voyad M (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comment, but please post this on the article talk page where proper discussion can take place. I am not convinced at all of vandalism; the place to prove it is on the article talk page, not here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try to discuss this on the article talk page, as I mention before the user Illyukhina is not willing to discuss but just blankly edits the article. Voyad M (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you . . .

[edit]

. . . source this? Bongomatic 13:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also sent his mother a letter...

[edit]

Letters to parents might be quite effective.  :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The House in Paris (GA nomination removed)

[edit]

I came across this article yesterday while putting in the navbox, and it was rated stub class! I just wanted to bring some attention to an article that looks like it's only a few steps away from GA. I don't really have the desire to work on it myself, but it seemed a bit sad that the article was basically forgotten.--INeverCry 04:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why did you remove the nomination? To be honest, I'm not sure it would/should pass right now, but I do wonder. Of course it's a lot better than stub class, and I'll reassess it. (Update: wait--you did that already. It certainly is B-class.) Drmies (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you don't want to work on it, then there's no point in nominating it: a nominator is both an editor and a shepherd during that process. I'll see if I can find some editors who have nothing better to do--haha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RHCP

[edit]

This isn't an edit war; as you clearly see from the history on the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, I waited over a week to make any revision to the article, and the only reason I did this was to prevent an edit war from appearing on a WP:FL. I'm just getting very exhausted of the issue with Zander Schloss; there was a consensus reached in the previous years in which he was regarded as a member of the band; Anthony Kiedis even states in his autobiography that he was a member of the band, albeit for a few days. The length of Schloss' membership shouldn't be a factor; Kiedis is one of the most reliable sources the band has, and if he says that he was a member for four days, he was.

I apologize for blanking out my talk page, but I felt that I was being attacked and harassed, and I didn't want to leave that on there. I'm sorry, but there needs to be an end to this false information with the RHCP members. I have fought for years with that user, and I just want it to end. WereWolf (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't have to apologize for blanking your talk page--that's well within your rights--but thank you nonetheless. But as far as I can tell, there is an edit war (albeit a slow one), in which at least two editors (not counting me) have reverted you in the recent past. I've looked back in your edit history to December 2010, and I don't see a single edit (correct me if I'm wrong) to the article's talk page, which is where you should have taken this up. And you should have taken this up, since these are your changes to an FL, against the wishes of (I think) at least four or five editors in the last half a year. In general, you've made only 100 edits to article talk pages, which, to some, might suggest you're not interested in cooperating and achieving consensus. Now, this Jason1978 you're duking it out with, they're somewhat young and hot-headed (not unlike yourself, I imagine), and I've disagreed with them in the past on Peppers matters, but you (and he!) have no choice: you have to work this out on the article talk page(s).

    I don't want to sound like some schoolmaster, but I do have to warn you: this is an edit war, and the next time you revert you will be blocked, since the consensus is against you. I really don't want to do that, since I have a soft spot for werewolves, so I hope it won't get that far. Start that discussion, invite Jason and that other editor (a warrior of some flavor), and be prepared to accept the result. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'm 33, don't feel that young but I can be hot headed sometimes. I have worked on and helped run various Chili Pepper sites over the years and made many contributions here mostly to their area on wikipedia. I never really had much of a problem with anyone else other than this situation. The problem is the 2004 Kiedis bio. While he is a legit source his quote is misleading and can be read the wrong way as I pointed out when I provided the full quote. Wanting him to replace Fruciante, rehearsing for four days but not working out is not being hired. The band released their only official book in 2010 and there is no mention of Schloss anywhere. Everyone else that was a member is mentioned or interviewed so if Zander were a member why leave him out? Anyways... I just want this to be cleared up and resolved. I don't intend to get into a edit war either. I noticed after a while his name reappared and removed it and over a week later I am being warned and threatened by Werewolf. Jason1978 (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, that's better than being haunted by a werewolf, I suppose. And you're a bit younger than I am, so you'll have to allow me my old-man vantage point. ;) There is no need for edit-warring: take it to the talk page and work it out there. Jason and WereWolf, it would be helpful if you had a look at Wikipedia:Indentation; proper indentation makes conversations easier to follow. Jason, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but if he had been a 'real' member one would expect some mention of that in an independent source. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary People

[edit]

If you have a moment can you take a look at this edit and have a word with the anon. user about the addition of unnecessary details and opinions to plot summaries? Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, plot summaries. My favorite. Thanks a bunch. BTW, what was the political allegiance of Jacob Baradaeus? ;) Drmies (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's easy enough. But, dear Jacobite, and I think you know this is coming: you also should not edit-war, not even slowly and when you think (know) you're right. I have warned the IP (with the appropriate template), and now I have to warn you: please don't edit-war. I'm glad we got that out of the way. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting that, knew it was coming, and recognize my error. Honestly, I kept hoping somebody from WikiProject Film would jump in, but no one seems to have that film on their watchlist. But, that does not excuse my behavior. The whole plot summary should be rewritten, which would have been a better use of my time. Thanks!
Baradeus is a new one for me... Jacobite in my name refers to the Jacobite line of claimants to the throne of Scotland. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, the "45" gives that away, of course. Are you an avid reader of Sir Walter? Drmies (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your counterpart just reverted; I blocked them for 24 hours. I hate it when it has to come to that. I'll keep an eye on matters, and perhaps you'll remind me if it happens again. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobite, if this keeps up, semi-protection may have to be applied, to this and to A Beautiful Mind (film). I hope that won't be necessary, that this blows over. I have found three different IPs used by this editor, and perhaps a rangeblock will be necessary in the long run; but I'm not a smart person, and the range may be too broad. Keep me posted. Cheers Bonnie, Drmies (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that he reverted, but decided it was best not to intervene.
Cheers to you, and thanks! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's back (again), editing as 99.146.23.208, doing the same crap, in addition to stalking my edits. Tiresome... ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 01:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I see that HJMitchell already took care of it. Sorry, I was eating chili dogs and working on a BLP. I'll send HJMitchell some WikiLove (and now you know another friendly admin, if you didn't already), and please keep me posted. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Mitchell took care of a different one, I think... But, the article has also been semi-protected for a few days by WKnight, so that will help, at least temporarily. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: HJ blocked your guy for block evasion. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd bring this to your attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/99.146.23.208 Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 03:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned about these blocks and would like to review them with the admin(s) who placed them. Nominally, WP:AN/I is the place to carry on such a discussion, but at this point I don't have any interest in bringing it up there since the actual tone of those discussions are more like mini-RFCs, which is not at all what I want. But I'm worried about what looks like severe newbie biting and jumping the gun on blocking a confused IP. Drmies, are you okay with a discussion on it taking place here? causa sui (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot get a valid user name, because RepublicanJacobite keeps getting people to block me. Due to my service provider, I get a new IP address every time I log in, so that is why my IP changes, and I am not socking. RJ continues to UNDO every change I make. He threatens to undo all my edits "til Doomsday." Although I add nothing but facts to the Ordinary People plot page, RJ calls my edits silly. Just above he calls it "crap." When he is chastised by other editors for engaging in an obvious edit war with me, he changes his tune to falsely naive: "oh, sorry. I shouldn't have done that." Of course he shouldn't. He has been warned to stop accusing well-intentioned editors of vandalism, but he still does so continuously. When Drmies (correctly) did not take barring action, he went to JamesBWatson instead to get me barred. It is not vandalism to state that Conrad cursed at his parents. It is a simple fact. It's among the most explosive scenes in the film. It is not crap. Just because RJ disagrees is not reason for him to disparrage me to his friends across Wikipedia. He cannot start (and continue) multiple edit wars and then say "aw, shucks, I know I shouldn't have, but go ban the other guy and not me." JamesBWatson has allowed RJ to get away with just that, and it is not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.65.183 (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Again, I cannot get a valid user name, because RepublicanJacobite keeps getting people to block me. So I must use anon for now. Due to my service provider, I get a new IP address every time I log in, so that is why my IP changes, and I am not socking. RJ continues to UNDO every change I make. He threatens to undo all my edits "til Doomsday."

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.70.66.43

He writes: "I do not care what that admin. says...every edit you make from here 'til doomsday will be reverted on sight." As you can see, several admins chastised RJ for his vandalising of my edits, and he simply said, in his own words, that he does not care what the admins say and he will continue to vandalize my work.

If you block me for too many reverts within 24 hours, then I accept that. But as other admins have discussed, you must also block RJ for warring, newbie biting, too many reverts, falsely acsusing someone of vandalism, etc 64.183.42.60 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MED

[edit]

Welund

[edit]
Welund him be wurman wræces cunnade,
anhydig eorlearfoþa dreag,
hæfde him to gesiþþe sorge ond longaþ,
wintercealde wræce; wean oft onfond,
siþþan hine Niðhad onnede legde,
swoncre seonobendeon syllan monn.
Þæs ofereode,þisses swa mæg![1]
Welund tasted misery among snakes.
The stout-hearted hero endured troubles
had sorrow and longing as his companions
cruelty cold as winter - he often found woe
Once Nithad laid restraints on him,
supple sinew-bonds on the better man.
That went by; so can this.[2]
  1. ^ Deor at the site of the society Ða Engliscan Gesiþas.
  2. ^ Modern English translation by Steve Pollington, Published in Wiðowinde 100, at the site of the society Ða Engliscan Gesiþas.
The hamstrung smith Welund, portrayed on the Franks Casket.
The hamstrung smith Welund, portrayed on the Franks Casket.

I hadn't known it was available on-line.

What do you think of Welund/Voelund as a user-name? I'm thinking of User:Welund von Jante.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Please see the new sub-section of an existing section: WP:ANI#response, where you are mentioned. LadyofShalott 15:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Lady. So, Joan of Arc is a black man in Texas? These are interesting variations on Godwin's Law. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that entire section should be hatted...and is the request that I be banned from interaction with the editor? That's silly, but I have no intention of interacting with them. I note that once again, my dear Lady, you are the good fairy. Congratulations, and I mean that sincerely: if more of us were like you, this might be a nicer place, and certainly a better-looking one. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, thanks. I think I try to go by a civility policy on myself, and think we should all try to be that way here, even if I am no longer as certain about how or when enforcement of the official policy should be done as I once was. LadyofShalott 16:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit salad for you!

[edit]
Fruit salad for you!
Fruit salad, yummy yummy! In honor of the classic Wiggles song, I present you with some wikilove as you requested. Hopefully, it won't sabotage my likely RfA. ;) Christine (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, thanks! But please look at my user page: if you want to really bribe me, bacon is the way to go. I just had a BLT--I'll take a BLT salad as a side or a dessert... Good luck on the RfA; let me know when you go up. I'll give you ten bucks if you block Malleus and Sandy within your first week. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent deletion

[edit]

would you please be so kind as to review a different draft in my sandbox, to see if it fixes the problem, which I'm guessing is humor? please reply on my talkpage Penyulap talk 20:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but no, I am very uncomfortable in this position. If, after being here for a considerable amount of time, and having gone through a block and an ANI discussion and a topic ban, you still can't see what kind of material is acceptable on a talk page and what isn't, then...well, then you draw your own conclusion. It is possible that you might benefit from or even desire a mentorship, but that won't be with me: I am too old and unfriendly for that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On other matters

[edit]

Check out this AfD discussion, which involves matters Netherlandic and academic, a nexus you may be able to shed light on. Bongomatic 23:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing-rationale

[edit]

Aside from the fact that it enables a passing reader to make a quick adjustment to an article, are there any other reasons why we tolerate IP contributions? I don't think that anonymity is particularly an issue and I am becoming mightily fed up both of IP hoppers and registered users seemingly editing while logged out in a manner that may be deliberate rather than accidental. The admin overhead is probably considerable also. Registration does not stop socking, for example, but it does make it that little bit harder. Or am I way off beam?- Sitush (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, not way off--you put your finger on a sore spot. Of course, without IP editing we wouldn't have soccer and wrestling. I'm sure this discussion is waged somewhere continuously on an ongoing basis. As an admin, I toe the party line: collective, anyone can edit, etc. etc. Lots of good work is done by IP editors--and enormous amounts of time are wasted on them, esp. in such contested areas as worse. I see it as the weather: I can't change it, and I have to live with the fact that I have to mop the floors more often if it rains. Hey, I'm making carnitas. It should be ready in a half a day or so. Come get some, and have a beer with me. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes, collective responsibility. A term which I think may have originated with Walter Bagehot, but doubtless you will prove me wrong. I understand the concept and, yes, it has its place
    • There are some things in this project that seem to have become set in stone but for which I can find no originating mason(s). I am sure that they exist, somewhere in the history. Among them are the statements that every populated place is inherently notable, and that every educational establishment is ditto. I cannot begin to conceive how many of the near 4 million articles are poor representations just of those two areas, but the mantra is rolled out time and again. It is an almost biblical thing: it was once said (although no-one seems to know why or when) and therefore is true. But, yes, when in an admin position it is often a case of "ours not to reason why". Or there is the approach of Malleus et al. I am somewhere in between. But the IP situation is really, seriously pissing me off.
    • I'd never heard of carnitas before. Alas, crossing the Atlantic for a meal is not really an option, although I was tempted by the addition of a beer. Given that WP is not a recipe book, I shall do some digging for a suitable mélange. It sounds good. If my dog could read then he would be drooling. Feel free to amend my indenting - I cannot get the hang of this multiple asterisk affair when it crosses several paras. Oh, and I want a signed copy of your book, please, as and when. Preferably without bacon-y fingerprints on the cover.- Sitush (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recently, there was consensus to block IP users from creating new articles. But the (#*$_@ WMF struck down the proposal. Soccer and professional wrestling are sooo yesterday. Mixed martial "artists" and every musician who has "released" a single on youtube are today's vermin. Mmmm carnitas. Even better, some mole with the carnitas and a Mexican Coke. My favorite mole contains Pasilla chiles, chocolate, raisins, peanuts, walnuts and bananas. It tastes nothing like the ingredients. Bgwhite (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, IP's actually have been prevented from creating articles for quite some time. The consensus that had been developed and which WMF quashed was to prevent non-autoconfirmed users from creating new articles. (As an aside, I've never liked the term "autoconfirmed". Who came up with that anyway?) LadyofShalott 11:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we regroup for a second

[edit]

You're usually one of the admins I look for to apply common sense. I'm not too convinced that re-directing church planting to an article that was in AfD was a good idea, especially when the AfD is complaining that the nominated article is a fork of the article you redirected. It just doesn't make sense to me and I think it might have been avoided if there was some discussion about the redirect. Bold is one thing, acting arbitraily is another. But then you started gutting the article with some kind of snarky edit summaries. I completely support WP:V and WP:RS, but this is starting to look personal. For example, saying the article can't use guidelines from the ARC because it "advertises" a specific org......yeah, not so sure that really washes. I'm just suggesting maybe taking a minute to look at it might not be a bad idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Niteshift, thanks for the note. Snarkiness, well, that happens sometimes. You are, of course, free to revert whenever you see fit--but I would like to note that working on precisely this kind of article is usually problematic for the same reasons: they are written by folks who don't always know what an encyclopedic article looks like. If you look at the history of Church Planting Movements you'll see what I've invested, and I guess I'm going to have to do the same for church planting. Personally, I think we shouldn't have articles that are bad and have been bad for a long, long time--however, it seems that the only way to not have such bad articles is to improve them, even if that's the last thing I want to do. Seriously, "The Association of Related Churches, known as ARC, is one of several networks that help church planters launch new churches. ARC provides coaching, training, and financial assistance to those who qualify by passing a strict assessment." How is that encyclopedic writing? How is that not an ad? Drmies (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've sent my share of stuff to AfD. Don't think for a second that I like keeping crap around. I don't even have an issue with combining the two articles. IMO, the difference between the idea and the "movement" isn't all that great. That said, I still don't think re-directing to an article that could very well be gone in 7 days makes much sense. As for what is or isn't an "advertisement", I'd suggest re-wording some of it and then talking about how one of the other orgs does it. Showing 2-3 examples is better than deleting one because nobody has bothered to find the second example. In either case, I'm sure not going to war over it with anyone and, to be honest, I'm trying to keep my distance because I'm not sure I can remain as neutral about the topic as I'd like to be. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niteshift, I gave disclosure about the redirect, and I wasn't going to undo it because CPM will not be deleted. It's undone now, that's fine, I don't care. I've already spent more time researching this than anyone else, and the fun thing (and this makes your suggestion, about the other orgs, very difficult) is that there isn't a single academic book or journal article that I found that discusses the topic. So, whatever the article will have to say on other orgs will be based completely on primary sources, thus synthesis and OR. It is clear (to me) that this is a purely Protestant and American (and possibly Australian, but that is also unsourced) idea, but I can't even state that clearly because there are no reliable sources. At least with the CPM you have sources that discuss the CPM! Here, there is no discussion, only manuals, books telling you how to do it.

    Well, I really don't care much for this topic or the article. If Hyper3 wants to put it all back, they are welcome to do so, though I will tag the article appropriately. I hate to see yet another bad article, but then again, they're in good company. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear free zone

[edit]

You might want to take a look at Talk:Portugal and better assess the issue and your own involvement. As for User:Mr. Joca, that was a one-day POV account after all and your warm welcome didn't work in the end. Regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think your emotional involvement is a more interesting topic. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even more than Wikipedia's integrity? Well, as you know emotion is an indespensable part of inteligence :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What bothered me then, and still does, is that you saw fit to haul that editor to ANI after their first edits. They even sought your talk page to explain, and even if the contents of their edit weren't totally neutral, or even tendentious, there is no reason to assume bad faith and ask for admin intervention. And what happened? You got admin intervention, you just didn't like what the admin in question had to say. The editor is now gone, not, I surmise, because their hidden POV-agenda was uncovered, but because they were bullied. Your note here, and your note to Vanisaac (who also critiqued your belligerence and haste, and who responded to you aptly), what more is that than gloating? Drmies (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only reason for sending those messages to Vanisaac and yourself was because I felt that your initial approach was unfair and hoped that you acknowledged that (yes, I’m a bit naïve myself). I may have escalated the conflict without necessity by asking for admin assistance too soon. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, but that was also due to my relative inexperience in dealing with articles in Wikipedia (I work mainly with images). Anyway that was made in good faith, with the sole purpose of making what I considered to be abusive actions to stop. As far as I remember, I took all the necessary steps (warning the editor and initiating a thread in the article’s talk page), avoided to start an edit war and only asked for assistance when I didn’t know what to do more. It is important to emphasize the fact that the statements in those changes were factually false (not to say pure nonsense) and that Portugal is a high visibility article. As for Mr Joca having left because he was bullied, please be rational and consider the facts: I was admonished, Mr Joca was kindly invited to join Wikipedia and his edits remained untouched for six weeks! Still, his account has been idle since then. The most likely explanation for such behavior is that his initial (and only) objective was accomplished: to force some politically-charged opinions into some articles, for whatever reason. I ask again: who is the villain here? I wonder what a British or an American editor would do if similar nonsense statements were forced into their home countries’ articles! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I appreciate your last note, but not the tone of your first comment here. But it doesn't take away from the fact that you could have read the ANI page more carefully: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." And besides, the claim that some country is nuclear-free (which may be wrong but isn't necessarily 'nonsense') is hardly the same as some vandalistic or derogatory, is it? Drmies (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daft

[edit]

Hi Drmies. I had just been on the SPI when your post arrived. Thanks very much for your help. All the best. ----Jack | talk page 15:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies. That's a good idea. This has been going on intermittently for nearly four years now and I suppose I should think about taking whatever steps are necessary. I don't care about his opinion of me or my work as he is entitled to it. The problems are that he will not accept other people disagreeing with his view and he attacks other WP members to try and get at me through them. I don't suppose we can do any more than revert his posts and protect certain pages. Thanks again. ----Jack | talk page 08:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Username merger

[edit]

Hello. I do not want to merge anything. I have had dozens of different usernames across the years, one at a time. When I change to a new username I never use the old one again. I never use two usernames at the same time, and honestly, I do not even know all my old usernames. I addition, I use to forget the old passwords too, so I can not log in with an old username either. Lord Dandy (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jan-Hendrik Schön

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jan-Hendrik Schön requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR. And FWIW, I fixed it into a redirect. HurricaneFan25 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You left the speedy tag; I've taken care of that. LadyofShalott 17:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoopsie: yes, I meant to create that redirect. Thanks Hurricane and Lady. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tagging

[edit]

I fully admit there are cases where I CSD incorrectly. That is why we have a review process by the admin to take final decision imo. However, if you look at my history, I think you will find that I make a rather large number of CSDs in my new page patrol, and that the vast majority of them are sustained. I certainly will try and improve my process to eliminate the errors going forward. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, good--because I'm looking at Metal Airplane Corporation and OwnCloud and Richard Grusin. I am not convinced about vast majority, and at any rate CSD tagging is not about getting the vast majority right, it's about getting as few as possible wrong. Don't tell me about the review process: I have created more articles than you have tagged CSDs, and I am an admin, who has to judge those nonminations. Also, please don't take issue with Blofeld's geographical stubs: there is broad consensus across Wikipedia that geographical topics are automatically notable. There is no river in Germany that does not deserve an article in Wikipedia. If you don't like those stubs, you are free to find information to expand them. Don't whine about them not having content: for those geography articles, it's better that they exist with little content (but interlanguage wikilinks and coordinates, for instance) than that they not exist at all. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie's article

[edit]

Hi, I'm new here and wanted to ask your opinion on the article I wrote. Would you be so kind to have a look at it and let me know if it is ok to make it public? It's in my sandbox. Thank you :)--Gavin.nast (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean User:Gavin.nast/sandbox, right? Well, this is hardly my expertise--I'm neither a gambler nor a law-abider--but it looks fine to begin with. I'd say some editorial things, like use citation templates, re-divide the lead into two paragraphs of roughly equal length, and, especially, include more secondary sourcing. But (and I say this as a non-expert who is completely unaware of whether this content is covered somewhere else already, if the terminology is correct, etc.) it looks fine to me, and I guess you can move it, yes. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie Kanakos

[edit]

My apologies for the revert, I read that it was an image with a copyright problem. Maybe I'm mistaken.Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie Kanakos

[edit]

I'm not particularly knowledgeable either (I just happened to have that page on my watchlist) but the user admits that image is taken from [1] which is marked as copyrighted with all rights reserved. I've tagged it for speedy deletion at Commons. Hut 8.5 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help please - POV pushing etc

[edit]

You have just CSD'd an article that I nominated. The creator and their logged-out IP - User:Kemdad and User:124.6.229.33 - are causing complete and utter mayhem with article recreations, insertion of invalid content, duplicated content and so on. It has been going on for days but even in this last hour or so has been horrific. I left a note on Salvio's page because he closed an MfD earlier today, but it seems that he is not around. Can we not put a short block on these accounts until I get on top of the situation? - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Done Drmies (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?

[edit]

I don't see any cussing in this diff here. Might be of benefit to leave those intact for when he appeals (and vehemently complains), no? Srobak (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right--I saw the "LEAVE MY PAGE ALONE! LET ME HAVE FUN!" and imagined the usual Fuck Yous from their other contributions. You may restore the text, if you wish, but my concern was also that I didn't want the talk page to be a kind of forum for their yelling. And If I remove their text, I should remove all of it--at least, in my opinion. But again, you are free to disagree. If the editor comes back and turns that page into a cussfest, I'll block talk page access. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Percival

[edit]

I am working on a DYK level article in my user page with a larger number of references. Do you have time to colloborate, you look busy :) Kanatonian (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, I'll be glad to help. I haven't gotten to my homework, haha. Looks like an interesting topic--I'm only an honorary Tamil, though, and there are some folks here who know that stuff better than me. Let me know what I can do. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Ah! That picture is of a classic British "chinless wonder" (as opposed to my British "Desperate Dan" chin, and no wonder at all). I do not have access to JSTOR etc but if you are just after generally available sources then I do not mind doing some digging for you. Or is it that you have the refs but need the assistance of Drmies in some other way? - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roc Nation

[edit]

Hello Drmies,

I'm really sorry to bother you, if I can just borrow 5 minutes of your time, I'am indeed really sorry to get you involved with this small matter but you are the only Wikipedia administrator that I know that has the knowledge to help me sought this problem out. I have a small problem with a couple of Wikipedia editors Dennis Brown and DGG. I came to you for advice because I know you from the little edit conflict incident we once had a while back ago, which led to me being blocked for one month, and I don't want to get into any trouble or edit conflict again like that again and be blocked.

This is the problem Drmies,

I had edited and decorated the template Template:Roc Nation with the colors (black background=#000000) and with a (white foreground=#FFFFFF), (see this link of how I edited it ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Roc_Nation&diff=458570211&oldid=458549097), I used this color checking chart at this link ---> http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html, to see if the colors were compliant for use in Wikipedia templates and then it showed me that the colors that I used, a (black background=#000000) with a (white foreground=#FFFFFF), were indeed compliant for use in Wikipedia templates. DGG then ignored this by stating that "We standardize colors on templates as well as in text and elsewhere. This is basic style for consistence within an encyclopedia, and basic readability" he then standardized the template Template:Roc Nation, I then asked who exactly is we?, did he mean him and Dennis Brown or Wikipedia?, because it looked like he was talking about him and Dennis Brown.

I then asked Dennis Brown and DGG what about the 4 templates Template:Miami Heat, Template:New Jersey Nets, Template:Manchester United F.C. and Template:University of Michigan, why is it that the template Template:Roc Nation has to be a standard company template and the templates Template:Miami Heat, Template:New Jersey Nets, Template:Manchester United F.C. and Template:University of Michigan are all left the way they are?, are they not what you would call promotional?, you must standardized them also, the colors (black background=#000000) with a (white foreground=#FFFFFF), that I used in the template Template:Roc Nation were acceptable by Wikipedia and caused no difficulty to accessibility or reading otherwise the colors would not have passed the compliant test on the template color checker, at this link ---> http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html, nobody had an issue with the edit that I made on the template Template:Roc Nation except for Dennis Brown] and then after I proved Dennis Brown wrong he then got DGG] involved then DGG gave a weak comment by stating "We standardize colors on templates as well as in text and elsewhere. This is basic style for consistence within an encyclopedia, and basic readability" before undoing my edit to this (see this link of how DGG edited it ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Roc_Nation&diff=458576166&oldid=458570211).

Where I'am going with all this Drmies, is that if the edit that I made on the template Template:Roc Nation (see this link of how I edited it ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Roc_Nation&diff=458570211&oldid=458549097) is supposed to be "Basic style for consistence within an encyclopedia, and for basic readability", then why have and why are the 4 templates that I mentioned, Template:Miami Heat, Template:New Jersey Nets, Template:Manchester United F.C. and Template:University of Michigan still the way they are?, if they are and were supposed to be "Basic style for consistence within an encyclopedia, and for basic readability"?.

So please Drmies , if I can just borrow 5 minutes of your time to help me with this small problem I would be very grateful, possibly by reverting the edit (see this link of how DGG last edited the template Template:Roc Nation ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Roc_Nation&diff=458576166&oldid=458570211) by DGG to my last revision (see this link of how I last edited the template Template:Roc Nation ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Roc_Nation&diff=458570211&oldid=458549097) or sorting something out where the template Template:Roc Nation can be similar to my last revision, I would be very grateful Drmies, I'am indeed really sorry to get you involved with this small matter but you are the only Wikipedia administrator that I know that has the knowledge to sought this problem out for me.
MarkMysoe (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mark, thanks for your note, but I have to say there is one thing not correct in it: I do not, in fact, have that knowledge, since the only templates I make are perfectly ordinary ones that look exactly like your template after DGG reverted. (See Template:Marshall amplifiers, for instance, or Template:Ham). I know little about color standards, for instance, in such matters, and in the following I am speaking personally, not as an expert. Also, I have great faith in DGG as an editor, by the way; he's been here forever, and I often rely on his opinion.

    To the matter at hand: I'm sorry, but this version gives me a headache, and the white font on a black background is not conducive to legibility. On my laptop I probably couldn't see it at all. I'll grant you that the Man Utd template also has white font (but on a red background), and that the Michigan one is extremely colorful (in the team colors, of course, which I think is why you picked that). I'll say a few things: first, as inconsistent as it may be, that one template (or more) has something doesn't mean that it's OK. Second, I don't necessarily approve of the Michigan template (it's too bold, IMO). Third, your version of the Roc template is too much, in my opinion--with the logos in it, and with the difficult colors. But that's an opinion; I don't speak law here.

    Perhaps the best thing you can do is something you haven't done, I think: ask DGG (concisely) what precisely his reasons were (he'll tell you--he's very communicative) and how your version of the template is different from other templates (though, as I said before, that is not necessarily of the greatest importance). I am not going to revert DGG, out of reverence but also because (as I said) your version of the Roc template is problematic, in my opinion. But ask them. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait--I hadn't noticed that DGG already commented on your talk page, as did Dennis Brown. (The text above is a bit, well, there is a lot of it.) Dennis made comments similar to mine. I am interested in DGG's response, on the question of standardization, but Dennis already said that what happens on one template shouldn't necessarily be repeated elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Herman

[edit]

I edited the incorrect information - such as current occupation, which is not MP now, and other minor edits. Why were they not considered? Regards, Hanna Herman 16:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Hanna_HermanHanna Herman (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Hanna Herman (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Hanna_HermanHanna Herman (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because they were part of a wholesale revision of the article, which included removing text and references, and did not comply to the MOS. Individual updates are welcome; please provide edit summaries that indicate what you are editing and why. But need I point out that your user name and the name of the subject are quite similar? COI-editing is strongly discouraged. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Leaves block evasion

[edit]

Remember the Green Leaves saga, which was an incarnation of a fairly prolific sockmaster. Well, I think that they may be evading once more - see User_talk:98.68.141.18. One edit and then straight into modify the closed AfD with a claim of personal attacks, just like last time. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

Question: what you were intending to do here? Alexandria (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I think there may be a slight misunderstanding here. You see, Adam was trying to start a friendly conversation with Pinkstrawberry02, but he happened to ask a tabbood question. I don't think he meant any harm, and if you're contemplating blocking him, I beg that you don't carry that out as Adam asked that question in good faith, meaning he meant no harm. (Confronting question to ask, though). --Sp33dyphil © • © 05:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

[edit]

Problems? Nah, no problems. I appreciate your comments at my RfA, and let me assure you I wasn't trying to make it seem like I was any great content contributor. Someone asked for examples, and I tried to show my editing pattern of watching contrasting articles. It was never my intention to imply those articles were great samples of my writing, only that I edited with no agenda, other than keeping Wikipedia's articles in good shape and BLP-compliant.

I don't think I've done very well with my responses at the RfA, so I'll take much more care in responding in the future. I appreciate you dropping in there, either way your vote goes. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I feel kind of bad in many ways, but I do feel strongly about the issue. (Unless, of course, I didn't support because SoWhy once voted keep on one of my AfDs...) RfA can be tricky to maneuver. Here's the thing: if it fails, I hope you'll do it again--and by that time, you'll know what at least some people are looking for, and you'll have done that. Someone else said not every admin needs an FA, or even a GA, but many of us are looking for a commitment to article contribution, basically for plain text written, articles created, references added. If you succeed with this RfA, you have my best wishes and my congratulations; if you don't, I will still treat your contributions as I have before: with thanks and trust. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Learning that now. And I realize some people have a commitment to article creation, I've had a commitment to the policies of Wikipedia for the last three+ years. If that's not sufficient at this point, I'll just have to understand. I appreciate the comments, though. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luchow's

[edit]

Would you please take a look at this article? User:BruceWHain has taken ownership of the article -- see, for instance, this edit, in which he restores a quote box at the very top of the article with an acre of space between it and the lede, and does so with the edit summary "I intend to have the Quotation Box with legend at the top of the article. Otherwise, I will see about having the content removed." He clearly doesn't "get" what Wikipedia is about -- he also removed other editors' comments from the talk page, and re-arranged it to his liking. (I've restored it to a semblence of normalcy.) I've pointed him to WP:OWN, but I can't do any more, I've lost all perspective and have to back off. I'm removing the article from my watchlist and going to pour myself a drink. I'd be grateful for any intervention you feel is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - another editor undid his revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't need to do anything, I don't know. I want to make clear that this person is not a vandal, he's done a great job of expanding the article, and should be proud of what he's done, but he seems to have let his stewardship of the article turn into ownership. Probably he's lost perspective too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, I worry about you sometimes. When's the last time you went to confession? Do you still have a good relationship with the higher power? A hobby besides Wikipedia is great, but this rampant alcoholism... (And yes, I'll have a look. Thanks!) Drmies (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When's the last time you went to confession? Before I married my first wife. (ba-dum-bum) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And by "the higher power", do you mean my second wife? (ba-dump) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. I'm afraid to look at the history of the talk page but I can imagine--thanks for organizing that. I've run into such editors before. Sometimes there's a happy ending. I've left them a note, and now we wait. (Holy shit--this doesn't even look like a talk page.) Drmies (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's now reverted back to his last version, deleting all of my contributions to the article. Sigh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. Drmies (talk ) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, my comment on his talk page [2] and his rather unmagnanimous response [3]. Nothing to be done about it, but I'm afraid this is one of those editors that we all come across every now and then who just totally refuses to accept how Wikipedia operates and what it is about. He's someone that needs to be monitored, not because he disagrees with me (hell, my wife and kids disagree with me on a regualr basis) but because he just doesn't seem to have a clue, and isn't interested in getting one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's now trying to take control of the talk page again [4], including rearranging sections, and elimnating my responses. This guy really doesn't get it. And this after I did the pain-in-the-ass job of moving all the sourcing for his list of "noted guests" out of the talk page and into the article. Sheesh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, this has to be stopped. I posted a note on ANI; I obviously can't block the editor myself since I'm a bit too involved. In the meantime, reverting their efforts is fine with me since they don't have a clue what "MOS" means and are generally uncooperative. Let's see what happens at ANI. Take care, BMK, and make sure you're all happy and relaxed and in a BAMA frame of mind come 7 o'clock. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure you're aware of the rather bizarre conversation taking place on User talk:BruceWHain. The executive summary is that he came this close to issuing a legal threat to you, and he's demanding apologies from both of us -- you for calling his butchered article talk page "incomprehensible", and me for butchering his article and taking "ownership" of it. I think we're going to be in for some more shenanigans when his block expires, so I am going to ask the admins who have commented on his talk page to keep the article on their watchlists and keep a close eye on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That page just keeps getting more and more bizarre, Ken and "Dmries". LadyofShalott 02:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Truly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I didn't look up my talk page often enough. I'll go have a look and see if I need a lawyer. Isn't he still blocked? Does he still have TPA? I'll see in a minute, I guess--rhetorical questions... Drmies (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's off his block, but so far he's only editing his talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is crazy. I made an edit or two to my retraction--I could not let stand what he had put there the way he had it. Well, we'll see. I got some grammar to work on tonight, which isn't nearly as complicated as trying to figure out what is happening on his talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the clever one! Apparently, your striking through your re-posted comment on BruceWHain's talk page, so that no one would see it as a retraction, was taken by Hain was actually being a retraction! His "scholar and a gentleman" remark appears now to have been sincere and not sarcastic. He now firmly believes that you're the only one among his self-perceived opponents (myself, Bwilkins, Elen of the Roads, etc.) to have apologized as he demanded.

There's something seriously wrong there, either something causing a lack of WP:COMPETENCE, or massive trolling -- although it seems much too complicated for the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clever? Me? Mrs. Drmies will take issue with that. But if you are correct--I don't even want to look at it--then truth is stranger than fiction (which I've always believed anyway). What do you think--should I friend him on Facebook? (If you're looking for me on Facebook, I'm the guy with the dodo.) Thanks BMK. This is reminiscent of Tahash--which, apparently, needs my attention again. Later, Drmies (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guy completely imploded and issued a specific legal threat (he was even nice enough to label it "This is a legal threat") so his talk page access has been shut down, and there's little possibility of the indef block being lifted. What a waste. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Notice

[edit]
Extended content

I am sure you are a very busy person, and I hope you will forgive me for responding to your administrative hint to behave better in the future. I really am a person who works hard toward moving my very self toward a neutral point of view every day and in every way. But, when pushed to the limit I must respond to mean persons such a user AndyTheGrump. I hope that somehow my over the top characterization of the user AndyTheGrump as "Teutonic" would be viewed if not appropriate, then at some level with a bit of humor. I too have Teutonic roots, and for some odd reason frequently find myself trying to push things into straight lines. It must be in the genes. Sincerely Zedshort (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I appreciate your note. I didn't see the humor in it, nor did Andy. It is entirely possible that I interpreted it incorrectly but, as I hoped I made clear on your talk page, the incorrect interpretation was pretty bad. I have no intention of taking any kind of action, but I did want to let you know that I do not think this was a good thing to say. Then again, your comments here lead me to believe that this can be the end of it. Thanks again for your note, and happy editing. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really fail to see the humour in Zedshort's comment, and don't believe he even grasps why his casual racism and stereotyping is so offensive. I don't care if he calls Andy a Nazi (Andy is a bit overly generous with the insults himself), but what I do have a huge problem with is his characterization of Teutonic people as sticklers at best, and at worst, by inference, as Nazis. His comment on my talk page and more blatantly here ('It must be in the genes.') clearly demonstrate that he believes that the German people are genetically predisposed towards certain problematic behaviours. Although he now claims to have 'Teutonic roots' himself, he clearly originally used this term as an insult. I do not think it is acceptable to ever use any ethnicity as an insult, or to use an offensive stereotype, especially in a completely unrelated discussion. A sentence like Anyone so [insert stereotype] as he is should be warned that he is showing his deep [insert ethnicity] roots. is never ok, and never funny. I'm also tired of being accused by Zedshort of being AndyTheGrump’s sock- or meatpuppet, just because I confronted him about his racist remark. I'd never even heard of AndyTheGrump before the AfD discussion at Energy Catalyzer, and disagree with Andy on his views on that, and also with his uncivil style. The only thing that I agree on with Andy is that racism has no place on WP, and I don't want to be persecuted by Zedshort for that. At the very least, Zedshort should apologize for his 'Teutonic roots' comment on the AfD talk page. This issue is resolved. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, it is not over. I will strike out what I wrote as an apology (if I can find it) and even post one on Andy's page for the pointed use of "Teutonic Roots", but the irritant in the form of the user AndyTheGrump needs to be addressed. I need to learn to use the process to bring the complaint to the attention of the proper person and I will let the cards fall where they may as I sincerely believe that that user needs to be corrected. I understand there may be negative repercussions for myself but that is life. He continues to bully and be an irritant. I need to learn to use the process so I know I have recourse to something other than hot words with people in discussions. I will find someone to second this request and begin the procedure after I read up on what seems to be a convoluted process. Please understand that I see how useful Andy can be but his behavior is over-the-top. I also have an idea on how to deal with problem personalities that Wikipedia might consider adopting. Sincerely Zedshort (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it is over as far as I am concerned. Zedshort, I just wasted ten minutes of my life going over that ridiculous AfD (for the peanut gallery: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer) looking for a personal attack or other unacceptable comment by Andy the Grump. I could not find it. You may find him irritating, and sometimes I do as well! No doubt he finds me irritating often enough. You may find his style abrasive, sure, but there was no bullying going on. His comments at the AfD were policy based, and the only bad word he used was after he thought you called him a Nazi. I would strongly suggest (let me make that more clear: strongly suggest) that you drop the stick and walk away from the horse: it's dead. You've given what appears to be half an apology, at least to editor 109, and I don't think Andy is going to make a case about your (incorrectly) blaming him for your unfelicitous remark. Drop the stick: nothing good can come out of this. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I give an apology it will be contrite and though I would like to do that for Andy, I do not find it in me at this time as I am still steaming like and E-Cat. His comments were well couched and he continues to bait me on the discussion board. I will let it rest for a while and come to a better point. Not sure what to do.

W.R.T. dealing with conflicts and in particular difficult people my idea was this: a system of demerits. A number would be appended at the lead of every persons ID that shows the number of demerits they have been given. If the user saw that every day perhaps it would dampen their behavior a bit. People who were unfamiliar with a user could see immediately if they are troublesome. On the other hand merit numbers might be appended to the end of the user name. Demerits in red, merits in blue. Sounds much like a scarlet letter, Brownie point system but it might work. I will leave the rest up to the administrators as to whether it is of use and such. Meantime I'm off to create an article "Efficaciousness of Torture" Zedshort (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page stalker) That sounds juvenile and like a really bad idea. LadyofShalott 02:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, with a vast potential to be abused. Who will decide which "demerits" are justified and which ones are from people trying to cause trouble for editors they don't like? How do you prevent a group of people from getting together to pump up each other's brownie points to make them appear more trustworthy, or to gang up on an admin who enforced policy in a way that pissed them off, even though it was perfectly justified and legitimate?

      No, that idea is a non-starter. Were I Zedshort, I wouldn't bother putting any energy into trying to get anyone to accept it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Well, my talk page has been a vent before. That's what it is. BMK, nice to see you again. I assume you are not as hurt by Alabama's loss as sympathy would have dictated. And Lady, the best thing about going out of state? The out-of-state beer stores! On the way back, Sunday, 2-yr old Rosie: "Are we going to the beer store?" Drmies (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • My apologies, but I didn't feel very "connected" to either team. It was a fascinating game, though, with neither team able to get significant traction against the other. I predicted early on that a field goal would probably be the winning margin, but didn't imagine that all the scoring would be field goals, or that it would be (missed) field goal vs. (good) field goal in overtime that decided it. Clearly, two very good, very well-matched teams. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, her mother started loading up the cart first. We needed two carts. My sister in law posted a picture of the total price on the register--did you see that? They also serve mediterranean food, incl. falafel and lam and tabouleh, so after all the beer I dropped another forty bucks on dinner there (with a couple of beers). We don't have that kind of food in our hometown, unfortunately (never mind the big bottles!). Drmies (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't suggest that ordinary editors give out demerit or merit points but the administrators. If a person is found to be troublesome by some administrative council proceeding (still not sure how this place works) they would apply a demerit if someone appears to be working to improve the process they would be given a merit. Personally I prefer seeing emphasis on merit (positive feedback) rather than demerits but you know, some people also go to jail in the real world. Zedshort (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next round's on me

[edit]

Thanks for the drink, I needed it! I have spent the past 20 minutes trying to articulate my thoughts on the matter, but it's been a long day (nearly 1am UK time!) so I hope I've made my case clear. Have a good one, GiantSnowman 00:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help on a section move from a friendly and competent admin?

[edit]

Drmies, I'm confused. I've been working on the Jamaica High School (New York City) page a bit. A template placed in September proposed that the history of the "Academy of Finance" be moved to the Academy of Finance page -- makes sense to me, having looked at the bare-bones AoF page.

Am I allowed just to cut-and-paste that single paragraph from one article to another? Or is there a more complicated process? I have read the guide to moving pages, but that seems to discuss only renaming entire pages. This is just merging a single paragraph.

Just askin' before I inadvertently cause trouble... Thanks. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here: use the {{copied}} template -- fill in the fields and put it on both articles' talk pages, the one you took the paragraph from and the one you moved it to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Beyond My Ken. I think it worked; please feel free to check up on me. The template now appears on both talk pages. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me. You didn't need the headers on top of the template, so I took them out. Otherwise, well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--Eh, I'll gladly take the 'friendly'. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Liberal internationalism

[edit]

Thank you for the heads up Drmies. In a case like this, what would be considered a sufficient reference? Would it have to be a reference that demonstrates that an act is exemplative of the subject matter (which I'm sure if preferable), or merely a reference that confirms the existence of the act (letting the reader figure that the act applies to the subject based on the definition of the subject in the article)? SeiADP (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Ashland article

[edit]

Since you voted on the first AfD for Occupy Ashland, just a note that it's up for a second deletion nomination here. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dostoyevsky

[edit]

I apologize for disruption, can you please verify the correctness of this action? I used well known sources and expert claims, after which the user Spanglej unjustly accused me of nationalism. I tried to write an objective piece of text and I think that this user is wrong. Whether he did it on purpose? Thanks for the help!--UAKasper (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you left a comment on the editor's talk page, who referred you to the article talk page. What brings you here? Have we met? I'm not about to get involved in a content discussion on Dostoyevski when I still have to teach the Inferno today. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This means that it is allowed to delete the article, regardless of others' opinions and sources. Thank you, sorry for disruption!--UAKasper (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Intelligence

[edit]

I’m a newcomer to Wikipedia. I joined because I’m completing a PhD on Collaborative Intelligence, saw that the article was poor and wanted to put in place a framework so others could contribute. Since joining in September, my main contribution is a new Wiki bio page on Israeli physicist Eshel Ben-Jacob (whose work is relevant for Collaborative Intelligence). That page is now a Wiki Israel project. My objective was to continue to add short articles relevant to Collaborative Intelligence, some of which might be stubs for awhile.

Proposed Method – If the Collaborative Intelligence article is viewed as a process of engaging the collaborative intelligence of Wikipedia contributors (and others who may not be Wikipedians but who are doing relevant research), i.e. itself an experiment in Collaborative Intelligence, then it should start with a framework to which others can contribute, i.e. not completely loaded with content at the start.

eg. I attended CrowdConf 2011 on November 2 where many spoke about the next generation of crowd-sourcing platforms that can enable effective aggregation and collaborative intelligence. I aimed to engage leaders in the crowdsourcing community to contribute to the section of the Wikipedia Collaborative Intelligence article entitled

Crowdsourcing – Precursor Platform for Collaborative Intelligence …only to discover that section was deleted on November 1 along with the section: Precursors in Artificial Intelligence

You’re an expert Wikipedian. But I’ve joined Wikipedia specifically to build a knowledge network around Collaborative Intelligence (main article + cluster of related articles). I don’t want to just revert edits; some are improvements. But what was wiped relates to new research where I wanted to leave a framework to which others could contribute over time. I’d like to reconstruct the framework, i.e. restore those two sections to which I’ll ask others to contribute. The two websites you labeled CoI pointed to the work of Aaron Koblin, who has a bio on Wikipedia. I asked him to post a couple of art projects that represented Collaborative Intelligence. I guess I should have asked him to send me the links, so I could post them to avoid the CoI perception? Sorry, I'm a novice.

Background info

  1. Crowdsourcing. There were few publications in 2008, nearly 4000 last year. At CrowdConf 2011 last week, several speakers mentioned Wikipedia as a crowdsourcing pioneer. Crowdsourcing is expected to grow exponentially next year. That community is inspired by Wikipedia.
  2. Collaborative Intelligence is a few years behind crowdsourcing, since it needs more sophisticated crowdsourcing platforms, now being developed.
  3. Microbes-Mind Forum & Zann Gill – both stub articles in this knowledge cluster; could you make a decision and either leave them with stub tags to grow gradually (my preference) or delete them, since it’s been seven days?
  4. Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia itself is an ideal example of effective crowd-sourcing and collaborative intelligence, there could be more information on research about, and lessons learned from, Wikipedia itself. As part of developing the article on Collaborative Intelligence, I’d like to link to research on how Wikipedia is an example of collaborative intelligence.

Btw I like your birds. . . Let me know on above. I'm a novice user and still trying to figure out the ropes/ rules etc so I hope you can have a little patience. Also this knowledge web needs to evolve over time. Okay? Ark2 (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ark2, thank you for your note. I am not entirely sure what all you're asking me, and unfortunately I am a bit pressed for time right now. In general, Wikipedia may well be a crowdsource kind of thing, sure. But my edits were based on the content I found and to which extent it conformed with our guidelines. The entire human computation section, for instance, does not appear to be related to the topic at all--and you may say, of course, that it is one way or another, but it doesn't appear to be, and in the end what this seems to produce is a kind of synthesis which is specifically discouraged, even disallowed, per WP:SYNTH. Besides, sources presented there were not up to snuff per WP:RS.

    If I have any suggestions to make here it is to stick to the format, the accepted, conventional format for such articles. Of the cluster of "See also" articles, the best one seems to be Human ecology, but even that one has an inflated External links section and a bibliography that may be appropriate in a thesis, but not in an encyclopedic article. I don't know if you made the most recent edits (as an IP), but those also aren't helpful--the rewrite of the lead, with its focus on business, is too specific, and sentences like "it is useful to find distinguishing aspects" are not usual in encyclopedic writing. Sorry if I can't be of more help. It is easy for me to point out what is not really in agreement with WP guidelines, much easier to suggest what should be done in this article, for instance. One of the things you could try is to find and hook up with a relevant Wikiproject, via this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies -- Thanks. The recent edits you don't like were not mine, and I don't like them either. Collaborative Intelligence is a new field and much bigger than the shallow business concept of "smart teams." I'll put a framework in place so others can contribute. btw Vernor Vinge, whom I contacted to ask if he thought some of his definitions of the Singularity applied to Collaborative Intelligence, wrote back "yes" and added "There's a good article on Collaborative Intelligence on Wikipedia" you should read (not knowing I wrote it; this was prior to all the editing). I'll try to retain your efforts to make it "Wikipedic" as it evolves and I learn the rules. Ark2 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated chat that might be an attempt to game the system

[edit]

I removed this [5] from Talk:99 Percent Declaration as being unrelated chat and not a discussion to improve the article (there's a lot of that there, but this was really bad), possible attempt to game the system and just really insulting and rude behavior from a "senior" editor that just flipped out.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't think that was a good idea at all. You can always undo that, and that would be a good idea. Greg Bard has a point: if the article has falsehoods they need to be removed. Mediating is not the same thing as being a go-between or a meat puppet, and I see nothing in Greg's remarks that would fall foul of any guideline. Editors are people too, who can have interests and make phone calls and apply what they learned, if the resulting edits are in accordance with WP guidelines. Now, I don't know what that blocked editor emailed you, and from what I understand that editor was correctly (something that Greg does not contest), but that doesn't mean that Greg can't do what he thinks is proper to improve the article. At any rate, blanking that conversation is not in accordance with talk page guidelines (WP:TALK), in my opinion, and I hope you will undo it before someone else does. One other quick note: if they really wanted to game the system they wouldn't announce it on a talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read through the guidelines and it states that any editor has the right to remove chat that is not a part of improving the article and I also read the policy in regards to Wikilawyering and gaming the system and it does appear to be a legitimate delete, but I will take your advice and return it based on you words and knowing that I may simply have a bias that I cannot see. It also seems worth noting that if he were less uncivil it might not have gone that way. I have left everything else up that is just chat about the subject and not improving the article, but this seemed more than uncivil it seemed to just move into personal attack. I don't mind leaving it if you feel strongly about it...well....or even just slightly inclined.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your advise please

[edit]

Hello Drmies, I have been following for a certain time Moxon Huddersfield, an article which was plagued by advert/fluff from HMS sovereign of the seas, a SPA with a possible COI. With the help of a 30, I succeeded to neutralize and properly source the article. In the process, the SPA was requested to stop reverting. After a recent ref was published, Southpole1, a new SPA, started editing the article. In view of his editing/reverting pattern, I raised a SPI. I also asked for a new 30, which twice indicated a reasonable solution. In the discussion, Southpole1 had some excesses which I raised at Wikiquette. I am now coming to my question: To avoid edit warring, I raised my concern at RSN and refrained from editing the article in the mean time. To my surprise, there was no comment. Hence I am wondering what is the best next step. The 30 is suggesting DRN. Any thought? Thanks, Racconish Tk 10:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • OH! Third opinion! It's been a while since I was puzzled by an acronym. Now I can actually try to figure out what you were asking, haha. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I'll give you some bad first, and maybe good later. DRN, 3O, SPI, RSN, Wikiquette--you've tried most of the forums, except for ANI and AN (and maybe RfC and RfC/U...). You see where I'm going with this? At the very least that suspicion is raised. In other words, I advise you to stop making the rounds.

    But I looked at your RSN post (you shouldn't be surprised that you get no response; it's not the most popular board), and I think that the doubt raised by your opponent is silly. I'll have a look at the third opinions and the article next. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait: this really boils down to the difference between "businessman" and "agent from Hield", is that correct? Well, I weighed in on the talk page. That article is such a mess that I'm not touching it (what is with the notes and references? what is the unrelated and trivial note 1 doing in there? what's with the strange punctuation between superscripts for notes and references? what's with footnote to, which has one year, two references, and one strange sign?), but as far as I am concerned you have every right to restore that Hield thing. You can quote me on this, if you like. Happy days, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punta Brava

[edit]

$20 check eh? Blofeld and SPECTRE accept payment for committing evil acts? Neever Meester LOL. Call it $2,000,000 and we might be able to negotiate something!! Blofeld only talks in millions of course! I'll look later, I'll have another article to start first..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that....

[edit]

Hey Drmies, sorry for the confusion. Was just testing out a new AfD notice template (there was a bug in it, which we just fixed). Go ahead and delete that subpage if you want :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No sweat, no confusion. I saw that nothing was logged, so there is no problem. I'm leaving everything as is; when you've tested to your heart's content, putting a db-author template on the pages you need deleted will take care of it. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which reminds me: I'm organizing a Wikipedia editing session at a convention of English geeks this coming February, and I may have to ask the foundation for a contribution (possibly audio-visual rental, and maybe a dinner for the two volunteers organizing it). Who do I ask about that these days? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure exactly who to ask about that, but this might be a good place to start. Also, English as in UK? Are you by chance coming to the London meetup on the 13th? I'll be there :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you fly me there--from Atlanta, probably. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please invite Malleus as well! I reckon I owe him a pint. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Yes actually, most of them do....Dr. Dre's, Drake's, Lloyd Banks' and Wiz Khalifa's are just a few examples.--Yankees10 02:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, U2 and the U2 singles template don't. So not all of them have it. And you haven't explained what it is. But never mind, I am not going to get involved with that template--it's just another example of that silly over-use of "featured", as if it means something. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article request from the usual sources

[edit]

Any chance that you might be able to get me a copy of this from JSTOR? I have a plan for a root artice and since it appears that I will yet again be on the wrong end of an ANI report in the next day or so, it will be good to have something peaceful to work on! - Sitush (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding

[edit]
The Outstanding Barnstar
Thanks for your outstanding additions to Punta Brava. Most articles can be improved with the addition of a little nudity. SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP question

[edit]

Could you talk a look at Paul Pless. I'm not sure if this should be deleted or not for BLP violations.

Also.... Punta Brava?? You worked on an article that translates to "good slut"? Well the correct Spanish word is "puta" and not punta, but most of us gringos hear it and say it as punta. I just don't what to think. I am deeply disturbed. Is the next article you are going to work on called goed slet? Bgwhite (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found another one. Anatoly Moskvin. It is "breaking news", but it is on the sordid side. Bgwhite (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, that's not a clear-cut case of a 1E violation, in my opinion. What I propose you do is nominate it for AfD... Drmies (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm...maybe it is, maybe it is. See, he could be independently notable as a historian, which is what I was thinking, but I am not so sure about that given the sources I was able to find. Nominate it, and let's see what happens. With this one, your sort of testing the waters. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Paterno

[edit]

You stated that my comments about Paterno retiring at the end of the season are incorrect. I have a verfiable source, it is called the Associated Press. Also, it is on the USA Today's website where they quote directly from Paterno's son, Scott. Scott gave an interview to the Harrisburg paper this morning. I just did not get an opportunity to mark the citation before you made your incorrect comment. I would appreciate it if you were to do some due diligence on your part before you make a comment like that on my talk page. I will now go back to that page and provide the reliable sources. You need to learn to be patience and do some basic fact checking before you make a claim like you did. Thank you.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Camuto

[edit]

Regarding [6], one of the options we give article subjects or their representatives who email OTRS is for them to list the article for deletion (we of course do not guarantee an outcome in their favour). This is what she is attempting to do, but unfortunately appears to be having some difficulties listing it properly and is causing incidental disruption as a result. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I agree with the attempts--which is why I turned down the AIV request to block her as a vandal. I do agree with the reporter that actions were disruptive (hence the warning, also given the somewhat high-handed communication), of course, but I didn't see the need for a block. Still, even if she had been successful, the AfD would have been squashed as an easy and speedy keep, which it is. I left her a note pointing to the foundation--perhaps you can leave an additional comment? I gotta run off. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I hadn't realized it had made its way to AIV. The problem is that when she emails via OTRS she will be invited to nominate the page for deletion - it is an option we give to all of the OTRS subjects in these cases (regardless of the likelihood of actual deletion). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Stark for an example from today. It will only lead her in a circle (she tries to nominate the article for deletion on behalf of the subject - she is told to go to OTRS - OTRS tells her to nominate the article for deletion...). Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick follow-up: I hope you don't mind, I removed your final warning as I was able to find an OTRS ticket relating to this matter wherein they were indeed given the option of nominating the article for deletion. I will continue to help guide them through the process. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all Ponyo. Thanks for helping find a more amenable solution. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Ljekperic

[edit]

This new article is popping up in my watchlist. Hasn't it been previously speedy deleted? (BTW, do I have a mean to check this myself without bothering an admin?) Cheers, — Racconish Tk 13:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, — Racconish Tk 18:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the suggestion ,— Racconish Tk 19:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punta Brava

[edit]

Added what I could if you care to credit me too..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do . . .

[edit]

. . . about this? Bongomatic 17:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pff--can I get an easy question? Make it comply with the MOS, that's a start. Nominate it at AfD as an essay (did you put that tag on there?)--but what will happen is that the squad will come along and dump five millions occurrences of the word in there and there will be no consensus at best. Or, take the topic seriously with the help of JSTOR or another academic database and see if there is something there (I don't see it, but it's not my field). Finally, consider a merge? I'm sorry Bongo, but I don't have an easy answer. One of these days I'll give a you a barnstar for getting your hands dirty in the service of the project. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. History is fun. The article was deleted as G12 and then again the next day (it was incorrectly nominated by Gaijin42 (talk · contribs) as G4--someone should take that user's speedy nomination rights away). It is now recreated and substantially the same, with similar copyright problems: see this, which is quoted verbatim in the article, with an attribution to something else entirely. I'm going to quash it; I've left a note on the (re-)creator's talk page. Thanks Bongo, Drmies (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Material overindulgence deletion

[edit]

I did reply to the comment, on the user's talk page. Some other editor subsequently moved my comment from the user talk page to the article talk page. I believe the creator ultimately got an OTRS for the content in question. I still have issues with the article, but am not sure what should be done, so i am leaving it be as the creator is new, and is definitely showing good faith in trying to improve and follow policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did see your note on the talk page, later--it just looks so odd to see all those questions on your talk without answers. It's helpful to keep Qs and As together, or make a remark like "answered on your talk page". I deleted the article since it was again a copyvio with improper attribution (as far as I could tell); I could not tell that they actually got clearance. Oh, you nominated it for CSD with G4, but it had not been deleted via discussion--G12 would have been better, methinks. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
at the time I nominated, I thought that since it had previousy been CSDd that it would then qualify for g4. I have been subsequently corrected. I answer othe user page of the person who asked me something usually, especially for new editors, who might not be aware of watch list etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny!!!!

[edit]

No need to opine, but this is hilarious. Bongomatic 01:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Searson

[edit]

Can you please caution this user about using edit summaries like this? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. Sorry, no--it's not so bad, and I think the spelling indicates that it's not intended as a personal insult. You can do it yourself if you like, but I don't think that's really called for here. Sorry to disagree with you, but I guess there's a first time for everything. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I have seen worse, but an edit summary like that shows disrespect for fellow editors. At any rate, I am not going to pursue it. But, I hope it is not an indication of worse to come. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_21&oldid=1142977786"