Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 46

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

Me too

[edit]

I like straight people too, particularly my wife as well =) That made me laugh.--v/r - TP 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A drink for you!

[edit]
Fresh for you!
Bottoms up!

Thanks for The Offer

[edit]

Drmies- thanks for stopping by our course web page User:Hakeleh/BI432 Spring 2013 and offering a hand. I've done this project once before with an advanced course on hormone disruptors (still need to clean things up there, too!) User:Hakeleh/BI513 Fall 2011. Excited to do it again, but of course it always takes checking on how the students are doing with their pages! I'm giving some pep talks today in class on how to get their initial work into better shape. If you had ANY inclination to drop by their project proposal pages and make a few comments, that would certainly spur them and help them realize how open their work is to the whole world! Also- thanks for posting the note on the education site- I really need to get my links set up with them. I also want to connect in to biology projects to try to entice other help for the students. No time now of course, have to get ready for lecture! Hakeleh (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Hakeleh--"hormone disruptors"? Isn't that a redirect to Cockblock? Please see Dennis Brown's comment on college professors, above, in the section "D Brown suggested I come to you". That's what they think of us. Thanks for your note; I'll check in and see. Best, Drmies (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi again Drmies- Wow- I can see how one could get totally pulled in to WP! All of my students, pretty much, have added a link to their user pages next to the topic list near the bottom of the BI432 course web page. Just a way you could get to them with your welcome banner! They are going to have a wikipedia working group on Thursday during class time (I'm out of town next week), and I want to set them up with a punch list of the things they need to do to tidy up their proposal pages and get more links to and from our course site, their team member pages, etc. I'll follow up with Sage...Hakeleh (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just responded to you on my talk page and just wanted to practice writing on someone else's talk page. I really appreciate your help! Thank you! Haned6011 (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
A candle, yesterday.

Hello,

I'm sorry. Not leaving an explanation was not helpful of me. I removed the language links on the FA because Wikidata went live on the English Wikipedia last night and language links are now coming from Wikidata. Sorry for the confusion. I expect more confusion on language link removal during the next days and me not leaving a note was not correct. Again, apologies, and thanks for your work. Feel free to contact me at wikidata:User:Jens_Ohlig --Jens Ohlig (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gotcha. Thank you so much for your note; I'm about to go look at the link you gave. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following code goes in your common/vector/monobook js file. It will place a link, right below the article's title, to the corresponding wikidata page.

// d:User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js
importScriptURI("//www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript");

Before removing interwikis, make sure all of them have been added to wikidata. Some article's don't have corresponding wikidata pages. Bgwhite (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bg--but I'm not about to mess with anything. Whenever I touch anything more complicated than a candle it breaks. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but then you touched Andy and Giano??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have kids and a wife, it doesn't get any more complicated than that. That reminds me, I need to start faking to be sick so I don't have to do any Valentine's crap with the wife. cough. Bgwhite (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm looking forward to doing some Valentine's crap. Not with your wife, of course. You sound terrible; I hope you feel better soon. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness for online flower ordering (and a 12 hour time difference in my favour). Was able to get them delivered on time and on budget. Also, did you know... that I am visting my first -stan in March? A short connection in Kyrgyzstan on my way to Istanbul (not Constantinople), I will also be overnighting in London. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading yesterday about four, five and six-foot tall rose stems (or is that branches). They have to grow them above 10,000 feet, so they are grown in Ecuador. They were only $300 for a dozen of five-footers. I'm kinda of jealous of your travels. Sometimes I really wish I went into mining engineering as the department was in the same building I studied in. I'll always remember a student saying he just got him a $70k job in Elko, Nevada and one of the two brothels gave a discount to people working for the mining company. Bgwhite (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody would like to present me with a dozen of above 10,000 feet roses, either online or in person, they could definitely have their way with me. [/me tries to figure out how tall that is in metres. Can't believe her eyes.] Bishonen | talk 22:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) By the time I moved to Nevada they had closed the brothel near where I was staying. Although I did drive past the Moonlite BunnyRanch (and others) on the way to Carson City. When we first got there Mrs. K thought it would be a good idea to take my son (not quite one year old at the time) to see the rabbits...until she realized there likely would not be any. As for the roses, I will take a dozen (if you are offering). --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Two-Faced (Tankard album)

[edit]

You may want to comment at the merge proposal. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're crazy, man

[edit]

??? Which of them is it you think is an admin? [/me tries to think which of Andy Mabbett or Giano would get the most opposes at RFA. Becomes dizzy. Gives up.] You're crazy, man. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I was a "Save page" push away from saying the same thing earlier, Bish, but realized he was probably talking about User:Ddstretch. Not to say he isn't crazy, of course. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tee-hee. I very much doubt Andy would match Giano's support for Arbcom though. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He slunk (slinked?) over to BN on Christmas when no one was looking. But I don't really know Ddstretch, so I shouldn't tease them. Admins teasing people they don't know well doesn't seem to go over really well today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Floq is right, as usual, on all counts. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, I'll have to add Floq to my list of admins who are always right. Will Wikidata make it easier for me to maintain that list?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1] (because I don't understand Wikidata, I had to do it the old-fashioned way.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand Wikidata. I read the introduction and the faq and found it to be woefully uninformative and a bit hypey.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait till infoboxes are tied into Wikidata. That is going to be some real "fun". Bgwhite (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still none the wiser as to what Microformats are, other than something developers like to play with. I occasionally think about asking for a real world example that my grandmother could understand, but fear I'd just get my head ripped off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Developers like to play with all sort of things. I'm sure your grandmother would understand that and disapprove.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is Wikidata? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You tell us. You posted at AN as if you knew what it was, or maybe I was reading too much into that "Ha!".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My message was perfectly valid. Note that you can make a perfectly grammatically correct and meaningful sentence without knowing what the words really mean. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Perhaps you could create a grammatically correct sentence without knowing what the words mean, but the only way you could create a meaningful sentence without knowing what the words mean is through dumb luck. I will now go retreat to my corner or maybe I'll create a Floq-like category called admins who are pushy. Nah, too many of those, I'd get lost in the crowd.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion reminds me of an old coworker.
Coworker: "I can use any word in a sentence correctly!"
Me: "Really? How about aku."
Coworker: "I can use the word "aku" correctly in a sentence."
Me: Facepalm Facepalm
True story! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upper fornication

[edit]

Something to ponder? The grade I listed Ely Almonry, a late 12th-century Carrstone rubble building with Barnack Stone dressing, is built above a c. 12th-century fornicated undercroft. A present-day restaurant, the upper fornications are supported by ribs springing from central octagonal columns each having moulded capitals and bases.

  • Historic England. "Details from listed building database ({{{num}}})". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 15 February 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  • "fornication". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  • "fornication". Merriam-Webster (online). Merriam-Webster. 2013.

--Senra (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AllRovi movie template

[edit]

Hello, per discussion with an admin, I decided to close the RfC for {{AllRovi movie}} and to post the template at TfD. The posting can be found here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so

[edit]

... if our IEG proposal ends up getting funded, we may end up forcibly enlisting you to support a class at AUM. Just a heads up. :p Oh man, I really hope eventually outreach efforts are successful are increasing the portion of serious Wikipedians who are also serious academics; the combination makes me happy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

[edit]

IP editor 69.231.45.122 has not stopped edit waring on the Lolita (1962 film) article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to talk page issue

[edit]

You are correct- I shouldn't have tacked on that comment to a tread that did not involve me. However, this guy (Machine Elf 1735) appears to be evincing a pattern of tendentiousness, or apparent tendentiousness, throughout a significant part of his edits; going through the history on his talk page demonstrates support for this assertion. I won't post any other personally directed comments. Thanks. Randomocity999 (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your note. I'll tell you something from experience: Wikipedia is a place where you can walk away from a dispute, and sometimes that's the best thing. Now, the other editor engaged with you in discussion on that talk page (Begging the Question?), and if you two can keep it cool and factual that would be great. I wasn't really happy with how they were engaging with you either, by the way (or with other editors on their talk page), but I hope that both of you can work it out to agree, or disagree, amicably. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the character assassination resumes five minutes later. Drmies, what have I done to that user to deserve this? I would sincerely appreciate it if you would please clue me in as to what might give someone the impression that my general conduct on that talk page is something to be unhappy about? My first edits from last April are here: Talk:Begging the question#Proposed merge; then August here: Talk:Begging the question#Examples; and finally, from January and this month, here: Talk:Begging the question#Bad usage of "more generally". I certainly meant no offense or disrespect to the OP of that section... and there seemed to have been none taken. I don't mean to argue that you're wrong, I'd rather hope you'll be candid and forthcoming, but perhaps the principle of charity bears mentioning? To be pleasantly engaged in a competent discussion of deceptive rhetorical tactics and fallacious logic may sound like the unpleasant kind of "argument"—but then again, as evidenced more recently, if it quacks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.—Machine Elf 1735 08:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm on my talkpage... be happy, stay off it.—Machine Elf 1735 10:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Machine Elf 1735's character is demonstrated from his or her actions on this site; curiously, the individual has chosen, in the last 24 hours, to disregard the talk page debate here and here, revert the article to the language in dispute (while threatening with [WP:3RR] and including an edit summary of a footnote which misstated and misrepresented the content of the source), and blank his or her entire talk page with the edit summary of "HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY," further limiting the channels of discussion in hopes of an amicable resolution. It seems that the pattern this user is taking is to call for civility and reason whenever it suits him or her, but when it does not, to call others "assholes" and to patently disregard their input and polemics, whether or not they hold validity, employing turgid rhetoric to, ironically, denounce "deceptive rhetorical tactics and fallacious logic" (verily, the irony is two-fold, since the user commits the very fallacy whose article page here is in dispute, i.e., declares his or her interlocutor in error because said interlocutor is employing "fallacious logic", without any greater explication or defense of that statement). That being said, however, I believe the article in question has now reached a state agreeable to both, though any subsequent spurious edits will be analyzed and doubly checked to the maximum extent of my power. Thanks for facilitating the issue to a quicker resolution, Drmies (at least, I hope it is resolved). Randomocity999 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say something in general. Being an obnoxious asshole (or acting like one, for our US readers) is not in itself a punishable offense. (I hope I don't have to point out, to our general audience, that I'm not accusing anyone of being an obnoxious asshole.) One is encouraged, even required, to act in a collegial manner, but that's a hard line to draw. If someone's comments cross the line, there's recourse, but I don't think that's happened here yet.

Now, if someone's personality seriously gets in the way of article improvement, then that needs to be dealt with but usually the best way to do it is to a. bring in more eyes and b. improve the article with a consensus. In other words, by dealing with content, and the way to do that is usually via WP:RFC. If you two agree, at least to some extent, on content, then the problem is over the moment you two disengage, as irritating as that will feel. (It's the equivalent of "yes dear"; Bgwhite (talk · contribs) is an expert on that concept.) There's a bunch of editors I have issues with, and there's one or two I'd like to suffer from a serious flare-up of their hemorrhoids--and I try to avoid them and the articles they work on: they's plenty more articles here. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MachineElf, just one quick comment (I hadn't seen your response here). I am not really complaining about your comments to other editors on that article talk page, but rather on your own. You seem a bit happy to engage in what we call battlefield behavior here, and I think you may have found a match here: both of you seem a bit short-fused. It's fine to blank your talk page, of course, and I don't object to "happy happy joy joy" (I'm a big Ren and Stimpy fan myself), but man--let's not forget that we don't have to act like barbarians just 'cause it's the internet. Now, let us all move on: happy happy, joy joy. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, please show me one diff, just one, where I "seem a bit short-fused" or uncivil towards Randomocity999, either on my talk page or anywhere else. If you can find no relevant justification for such complacence, will you please see that the WP:OR Randomocity999 reverted 5 times explicitly contradicts the sources in the article... perhaps even put a stop to his harassment? I've yet to meet the admin who would... please, impress me. I'm not brawling like a thug, I'm asking for your help, and leaving you to your unspoilt talk page in peace...—Machine Elf 1735 02:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here. "As you've been informed"--where supposedly "move interruption to end of thread", an edit summary, should suffice for informing. That's what I commented on on your talk page in the first place. I can't really fault you for calling out "NPA" and "harassment" on your own talk page given their original response, but at the same time I think you know that tit-for-tak is rarely productive. I'm not willing to make any kind of call on OR etc; it's not mine to make until I know the sources, which I don't. That's not necessarily an administrative matter anyway, but one for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, for instance, or, as long as you all are still active on the talk page, WP:RFC.

Now, I assume you mean that Randomocity reverted and inserted OR? The "OR" part is not for an admin to decide. What I do see in the article is that you two are both at the same place as far as edit-warring is concerned: both of you have reverted each other four times. Either one of you is welcome to file a complaint about the other at WP:ANEW, and chances are that you both end up being blocked for edit warring. If you really want me to look into it, I can: both of you are warned for edit warring (edit warring is edit warring even if you're right). Any further reverts will be followed by a block. I will give you both the opportunity to handle it on the article talk page, like adults, because I will protect the article for a week. Moreover, both of you should stay away from each others' talk pages for the next seven days: the only edits I will allow you to make on the other's page is a notification of some thread on a noticeboard, such as ANEW, Dispute resolution, or ANI. Good luck to both of you. The moment you reach an impasse, or really just before it, seek dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be apparent to the editors at WikiProject Mathematics that the WP:OR's absurd... why not simply let them handle it?—Machine Elf 1735 04:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with them, then; ask for their opinion, but please do so neutrally (see WP:CANVASSING). Drmies (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the protected edit wasn't an attempt to restore the OR, it's fine like it is as far as I'm concerned.—Machine Elf 1735 05:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was fine as well, which is why your last revert surprised me. I saw your note on the talk page regarding this- at present, the intro statement in question is sourced and coherent, i.e., not original research or tendentious. Randomocity999 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random poetry question

[edit]

There's a poem I've heard by some famous poet which lists a bunch of beautiful things in the world, and the poet comcludes by asking how he can dare not believe in God. I don't remember the poem's title or who wrote it, nor can I quote it well enough to do an effective Google search for it. Any idea what I might be thinking of with that terribly vague description? LadyofShalott 03:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←A Poem for the Lady:

Roses are red
Bacon is red
Poems are hard...

I found out what the poem was: "I thank You, God, for most this amazing" by e.e. cummings. It's no wonder nobody figured that out from my description. (I'd heard it once, several months ago, and just remembered a general impression of what it was about.) LadyofShalott 22:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lady i swear by all flowers that I was looking into cummings after your inquiry, but before I could find the specific one you were seeking, I got distracted by my favorite poem of his, which includes the classic line And death i think is no parenthesis. My distraction was caused by my discovery that I've been misquoting it for years, saying "parentheses". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I like that one; I don't think I've read it before. I should probably read more of his work. LadyofShalott 04:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And death shall have no dominion. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive infoboxes and navboxes

[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks that 11 navboxes in an article is excessive? And look at all the infoboxes. I'm sure there are other articles which are worse in this regard as well. Where can I sign up to join Wikipedians Against Excessive Box Use (WAEBU)? LadyofShalott 04:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes...this past week I happened to look at least twice at the user page of some old timer (no disrespect intended) who fulminated against user boxes on their user page. But I can't remember who it was--it's not Giano, but it's someone like that, someone who's written a bunch of real good stuff. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I don't care about user boxes. As you know I have a bunch myself. For the most part, I think you can do what you want with your user page (there are limits, but the number of userboxes isn't one in my mind). There's a big difference between user pages and articles though. Should I be yelling at kids to get off my lawn? LadyofShalott 05:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is actually a policy against giving cover songs their own articles. Somewhere on Wikipedia there is a discussion about allowing it, specifically because there is no article on Elvis' version of Hound Dog (song). Ryan Vesey 05:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I can see why we'd want in general to avoid having an article on every single cover of every single song, but I'd think existing policies of notability and parent article size versus how much there is to say about a particle subtopic would be sufficient to deal with that. LadyofShalott 05:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • At a minimum the infboxes without the song in them should be removed (I think). In otherwords, the k.d. lang version of the song just played on my iPhone, about an hour before I tuned into this conversation. --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about an article just about the covers...or a list, List of cover versions of Hallelujah? --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Common sense, IMO, dictates that the hound dogs stay where they are for now. The article is (currently) less than 30,000 bytes and can easily accommodate all the content. It can always be split afterward, if e.g. the Elvis version starts taking up 30 or 50 k. I hate these cover lists, BTW, and trimmed it considerably. Who hasn't played "Hound Dog"? I wish we'd rely on secondary sources: if it's not discussed (not mentioned) in reliable sources, then it's not of value. Oh wait, we do rely on secondary sources, except that we don't. Oh, this just in: one of the Kardashians tweeted that one of the other Kardashians is a hound dog. Stick it in the article, quick. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's practically what the article is right now. Is there really a policy against splitting out most of the content to an article or list as kelapstick proposes?  davidiad { t } 13:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • We do have such a policy, applicable across the board--it's WP:UNCOMMONSENSE. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The multiinfoboxed article is about a song, about which we are told, seemingly in all seriousness, It is the subject of the full-length book The Holy or the Broken: Leonard Cohen, Jeff Buckley & the Unlikely Ascent of "Hallelujah" (2012). Perhaps there's something about the song that encourages extremes of padding. Within its boxes, the article does attempt to tell the reader much blather about charts. I don't think I've heard the song and therefore don't propose to read the article; however, if I did read the article, I'd be grateful that the "chart" blather was all in boxes and therefore not distracting. ¶ Oh no, wait, it's not all in boxes. Quote: Leonard Cohen's version attained the number 36 spot. Such exquisite phrasing! ¶ Somebody ping me if a cover by Screamin' Jay Hawkins turns up; I'd listen to that. Now excuse me while I attain my bed spot. -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song)

[edit]

Hi Drmies. I wanted to seek input from you on something, since you regularly work at WP:AFD. I nominated the article Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song) at AFD because it did not seem to satisfy notability guidelines. My guess was that a merge with the album article was probably the best solution, but I was not sure, so I opened the discussion. Two editors have said it would be better to discuss the possibility of a merge on the article's talk page. What would be the best course of action here: withdraw the AFD and take this to the talk page, or let the discussion run its course and see how it ends? There may be a rule on this, but I'm not fully sure. Thank you in advance. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway it's in violition of WP:GOODTASTE Basket Feudalist 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a bit of a pinch. It's fine to have a discussion move toward merger, but to start off proposing one probably isn't the best idea: Michig has a point there (Michig, BTW, really knows his stuff). We usually don't start with a merger proposal unless there's something that needs to be forced one way or another. But it's running now, so you might as well continue; if you explain to Michig that he's right at least in principle, he'll understand, no doubt. One more bit of (unasked for) advice: leave Aaron be; don't respond to his comments. I suppose he created the article and is pissed. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting both here and there. Upon looking at Michig's contribs I see they too are well acquainted with AFD and I trust them. I surely won't repeat my mistake; now I know. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to hit yourself over the head, Penguin. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I took your wording too literally and it wasn't an out and out merge proposal (unlike one I saw at AfD today). Don't worry about it too much - no harm done. A lot of mergers are really uncontroversial and see no opposition, so I'd hate to see them all listed at AfD, but as Ryan suggests below, controversial mergers or those that get reverted sometimes need a venue to reach consensus, but at the moment that venue isn't (officially) AfD, although contested redirects seem to be less controversial when taken there. --Michig (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was a tad doubtful since much of the information was already covered in the album article. There's WP:PM, but that's for the more controversial mergers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael v. Guy

[edit]

Hey Drmies, this is Drmargi. I've reverted your second edit at Rachael and Guy, etc. I'm not sure whether you noticed, but after your first one, I reverted and started a discussion. I agree occupation is a pretty silly way to describe who they are, but given this is a celebrity show, it's nice to know why they're celebrities; I haven't a clue who about half the people in season two are. I've suggested in the discussion that we look for a better way to head (or perhaps handle) the column so that there is some information about who these people are, especially given a good few might charitably be described as B-listers. As for the charity linkspam, I'm neutral on that, since it's another editor's handiwork. I removed other superfluous baloney earlier on (can't recall what, I think it was the order of selection.) --Drmargi (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still scratching my brain to come up with a better heading. Notability and significance don't quite do it. Maybe collapsing the two columns is the way to go. --Drmargi (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile the charity linkspam is gone. --Drmargi (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Class project cleanup.

[edit]

Drmies, just wanted to follow up on a discussion about a group of articles created for a class project. See User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 16#Curious about some new articles. Some of those articles are still out there. It looks like you moved most of them to the professor's userspace. Was wondering if I needed to PROD or anything the others, because they don't appear to meet any notability either like the other ones, or if you would just move the rest whenever you get a chance.

No rush, just wondering if anything anyone else needs to do first. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the reminder. I was kind of hoping I wouldn't be the only one stuck with the job, but it seems no one else took any interest in sharing that load. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell you what, I'm tired of it. None of these editors ever came back, the instructor ceased caring about it, and it is very unlikely that anything will ever be done with them. I'm going to delete them under A7 with a link to Dennis's archive: there's plenty of justification there for deletion since they don't make a claim to any importance. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Janicello

[edit]

Hi Dr, just a note to say that this has been percolating again. Hope all is well. Cheers, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest Loser

[edit]

Oh okay. Got it. Thanks for the help. They keep coming back vandalizing any Biggest Loser article. I don't know why. Can you page protect these articles too?:

These are the recent articles persistently vandalized by unknown IPs. I'll keep patrolling the other related articles, and report any problems in the page protection page. Thanks again!--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Well, the IPs are not unknown, of course: their number is known. They all direct to Israel. I've blocked one already, just know, and I've protected a bunch of articles. Please see User talk:JamesBWatson also; they blocked one of those IPs a while ago. Maybe they have a better idea on how to handle this nonsense; I wonder if it's a now-blocked editor who's socking. Keep an eye on them, let me or James know--and if a registered account starts making the same edits that's interesting too. Really, we need an SPI, and/or a possible range. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably watching, but just to make sure, I have answered your post on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks James. Addendum: really, thanks--I am very impressed and I appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bon appetit?

[edit]

We all know you like a bit of bacon, Dr Mice. But how about a bit of Ham (Wall) with jelly)? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will try and keep things separate! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I was just watching Kevin Bacon on Leno--apparently he and his brother (yes, the Bacon Brothers) will be playing this weekend at some "Baconfest". And a guy called John Ham will be there as well. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you care

[edit]

List of Crash Course episodes has been created. LadyofShalott 18:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close

[edit]

Hi Drmies. I think I can explain what the re-lister (Michaelzeng7) had in mind here. The issue is whether the article should be: a) merged; or b) redirected.

You wrote "we have three editors here who propose merging, and it seems like a good solution in keeping with precedent."

But precedent (which you in part base your close on) seems clearly to favor a redirect, not a merge. Overwhelmingly so, from what I have seen.

Secondly, the text that would be merged has been challenged. We don't recreate challenged uncited text. One could always create the same text with inline citations, in accord with wp:v. But strictly speaking, that is something other than a merge, which suggests simply moving the material over as-is (and wp:v is against the recreation without inline citations of challenged text).

Finally, as to the three editors -- one made clear that he proposed merging while misunderstanding nom's position ("Since the nominator accepts a merge"); nom indicated clearly in response that he was not in favor of a merge ("I do not support a merge. Nor have I so indicated."). So the basis for that !vote is less than solid. And the final !vote indicated both merge and redirect ("Merge (redirect)"), so the preference for merge is not clear there either.

I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus is, but since you seemed surprised that our fellow editor relisted, seeking greater clarity, I thought I might point out where I think the editor was reading the !votes properly.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Epeefleche, thanks for your note. Let me quibble. "Precedent" is what gives rise to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and while you may be right based on your observations, that guidelines does not distinguish (statistically or otherwise) between merging and redirecting; they are listed as alternatives. I'll admit that DGG's comment about the nominator accepting something is odd, but you did say a redirect would be acceptable. Now, you also know that "Merge/redirect" is a commonly thrown out vote in an AfD, and Kudpung's vote is just a variation thereof. Moreover, a merge leaves a redirect, no? In the end, then, the discussion is (or should be) just about what content if any should be merged. Gadfium seems to suggest there's something worth merging, and neither DGG nor Kudpung specify, but I suppose that at the very least it could be mentioned in Avonhead that there is such a school. Isn't that enough to call something a merge, satisfying even the nitpickers that "merge/redirect" (often a distinction without a difference) has in fact taken place?

    Yes, I am still a bit surprised at the relisting: of course the three participants wanted the content merged, but they don't have to dictate what content should be merged. That's an editorial decision. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies, for your thoughtful note. Sure -- good faith, friendly quibbling can sometimes lead to great insights.  ;) Some observations.
First, you refer to SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and call it a guideline. It actually is not a guideline. Rather, it is an essay. This distinction is not unimportant. Essays may, I understand, reflect the views of one or more editors (including the views as to what common outcomes are), but they lack the force and guiding power of policy and guidelines. I'm told that the reason it is not a guideline is that it has been impossible to gain consensus for it to be a guideline.
Second, the essay is not in the least a "this is what you should do in the future" essay. It is strictly an observation (by one or more editors) as to how they have observed "most" AfDs on schools have closed in the past.
Third, this "non-guideline view of one or more editors", reflecting what they say they have observed in the past, happens with "most" such AfDs, does not bear on the issue of this AfD. This AfD has support (at this point) mostly for a redirect or a merge. Either would be in accord with what those editors who support that essay say mostly happened in the past.
I also have a view as to what has happened in past AfDs on such schools. It goes a little beyond what the essay says. My view, from what I have seen, is that such AfDs are far, far more likely to close as redirects than as merges. In no way are those alternatives anything close to equal, in terms of our actual "common outcomes" at school AfDs.
I still have the same thought as to the merge !votes, and appreciate your taking note of that issue.
Merge/redirect actually isn't tremendously common at school AfDs. But where it appears, I take it to mean that either approach would be fine. Just as I as nom said either a delete or redirect would be fine. My point on that !vote is that it does not stand for the notion that only a merge (and not a redirect) would be acceptable.
If one were to only mention in the target that there is such a school -- that would be the precise outcome from a redirect, as I've seen them post-AfD. Merge suggests -- especially when the text has been challenged, as here, that there is text (inline-supported if challenged) to be moved over, which is not the case here.
I think under the circumstances, a merge close was not the best. 1) The !votes were unclear on which had consensus support. 2) The essay in question provides zero assistance. 3) The actual precedent of actual common outcomes -- if that drives our decision -- drives us to a redirect, rather than a merge. Without question. 4) The text is all challenged and lacks inlines citations and could not be merged in accord with wp:v in any event, unless one created new information in the target (inline cites), which would not be a merge but a creation of new material in any event. 5) What you describe as a reasonable result -- just mentioning the school at the target -- would be consistent with a redirect, and would not raise any of the issues raised by a "merge" close, at odds with how most AfDs of such schools close in actual common outcomes, leading a merger to inappropriately merge material that violates wp:v.
Not the biggest world beater issue, I grant you. But given the circumstances, I can see why one might either: a) close it as a redirect, in accord with actual common outcomes; or b) let it remain open, for more input.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But look at the votes. Gadfium: "Merge to Avonhead". DGG: "Merge as suggested. This didn't have to come here--doing a merge like this is standard procedure for primary schools." Kudpung: "Merge (redirect) per DGG. Standard procedure as per the long-standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES". How could I have closed it any other way? That's three merges and one with redirect included (and, again, merge and redirect overlap, since one could conceivable merge zero content: no one said "merge and delete"). Unless you want me, the closing admin, to argue that all those three participants got it wrong? Drmies (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, you needn't have closed it. It had been relisted. You could have awaited further clarification from the murky !voters, or additional !votes. There was no imperative to close it. Second, the DGG !vote was less than solid -- as it had a clear misunderstanding underlying it. If he was saying "what the nom said," then he was supporting a redirect, and not a merge. Third, the Kud !vote went both ways (and even relied on an essay that went ... both ways). So, counting DGG both ways, and Kud both ways, you had a tie. Fourth, as we don't count !votes equally, but look at their basis, if we look to "actual common outcomes" the !votes for redirect should prevail, as the actual common outcommon that is more common is overwhelmingly redirect, not merge. Fifth, what you did allowed what in fact happened -- the merger recreated all the uncited, challenged, zero inline citations material at the target. That does not happen of course when you close as a redirect. The more I look at this, the more firmly I think that it should have been left open for further input, as it had been by Gad, as we had only one clear merge !vote against one clear redirect, and actual common outcomes overwhelming support a redirect, and the close led to a recreation of uncited wp:v material at the target as feared.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take the content part up with Northamerica1000, whose idea of merging differs from mine and presumably yours. It's an editorial decision to decide what to merge, and if you can improve on the article by removing unverified and unwanted material (and you can), you should. It has no impact on the discussion. As for my close, you are welcome to take it up at WP:DRV. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think North did what I expected (feared) an editor might do, directed to merge material. I can't imagine him taking the view "I was told to merge, but I'll just do what a redirect does, and only reflect the name." So, he made the point as to the natural understanding of what he should do, based on a "merge" close. The close was in fact in stark contrast to actual common outcomes at such AfDs. Overwhelmingly more closes are redirects than merges. No reason was suggested why this uncommon approach should be taken. I could say "The common outcome after a close is that the close is either protested at DRV, or not." But that does not mean it is as common for it to be protested. It is likely ten times as common for it to be a redirect close. I'll not take it up to DRV. Not because I don't think it would have been better for you to allow the relist to continue. I do. But if you are not interested in doing so, after a good faith review of this discussion, I don't want to trouble you or the community with it further. I have a lot of respect for your work over the years, and I don't want to have a lot of us spend a lot of time over something at this level, if you are disinterested in relisting it for a close after further comment, upon reconsideration.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think most editors would have handled it differently--just sticking it in, with a separate section, as if it were the only school, leaving the others in the lead, that's bad article writing. Tell you what, drop Gadfium a line, and I won't stand in the way of anything. They have a couple of years more experience than me, and may be interested in this matter. Thanks Epeefleche, Drmies (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for bearing with me and considering this thoughtfully, and demonstrating open-ness to rethinking a matter. I've left a note to Gadfium as you suggested. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here is the conversation that I had with Gadfium, as you suggested I might do. As well as a conversation with the relisting editor. I leave it in your hands. You know my thoughts (and perhaps were not aware that redirects are far more common than merges as an actual outcome), but I don't want to make a mountain out of molehill, so I'll just leave this for you to decide what to do. Best, and thanks for your openness to chatting about it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Singer

[edit]

Professor Drmies, meet Professor Singer. Happy Professor's President's Day.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Kriseman

[edit]

Did you say swimming? Lucky bastard.

I could use your input here, as I'm getting close to edit warring a well-meaning user who's accused me of vandalism for 'un-bulleting' the resume and trying to turn it into an article. Who says style isn't everything? Also I think the user has other issues, like use of primary or unreliable sources for many articles, but that's another rabbit hole. Bring a flashlight. Very best, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your edits. I've made some changes and tagged it. It's now on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the follow-up by both you and Lady of Shalott. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Bbb, have you finished season 3 of D.A.? If not, we'll compare notes later. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We recorded the season finale last night and plan to start watching it tonight. I keep trying to avoid spoilers on the web (not easy). So, later. Btw, did you see the profile of Maggie Smith on 60 Minutes?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Missed it--was it interesting? I read somewhere online today where a wag was miffed that all her mots are being compared to Oscar Wilde's--they maintained that one could hear better lines on an American sitcom. There's a thought--Seth Macfarlane writing gags for Downton. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was mildly interesting. I didn't think she said anything particularly wise and certainly not Wilde-like. She mostly looked uncomfortable and bored, but it's the only time I've seen her when she (supposedly) wasn't acting. As for the D.A. finale, we've now finished it, so if you feel like coming to my talk page to compare notes, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If D.A. means Downton Abbey, I'm also watching it; I saw episode 4 last night. I'm watching it along with a friend who has introduced me to Doctor Who. After that episode (DA3.4), she asked if I wanted to watch another of those, or DW. I decided I needed to watch DW rather than continue on straight with another episode of DA. LadyofShalott 00:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the sticky web of public tv; now we're watching Doc Martin, too. If they can ever get Savannah Guthrie and the rights to Yankees games they'll own me. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what y'all are talking about. I'm watching a bunch of very stereotypical bears be silly on an HGTV show--kind of sad that that's the only channel where you can see gay couples, but soit. I mentioned Downton Abbey in my sophomore class today but no takers. Then again, most of them hadn't read "The Miller's Tale" either and that was on the syllabus. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amused that you are fluent in Dutch and write 'y'all'. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I lived in Atlanta, I could never get used to Jews speaking with southern accents (bicoastal bias). And Atlanta has/had a sizeable Jewish population, many of whom are not transplants from the northeast.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've lived here long enough, sir. Hey, DYK I'm about to get dragged off to ArbCom cause I answered some guy's grammar question? I'm psyched. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a good or bad thing, and should we form a support group? 99.136.254.88 (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say, 99. So far I'm not so worried. What worries me a bit is that the second season of DA isn't on Netflix, and Mrs. Drmies finished watching season 3. In other words, I'll never get to watch any of it, because there's no point. Ah well. But a support group is always welcome. In fact, I'm planning one for in a couple of weeks, where we'll be supporting each other in the drinking of Bock. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see: [2]; no wonder they call it tense, but who thought people would get so exercised over that? Well, I'll be happy to chime in as a character witness, though I don't think it'll come to that. Every year a gallery with which I'm affiliated throws a get together at their home base, in your neck of the woods, but it's too far for me to attend, and I'm afraid of traveling below the Mason Dixon anyway. So I'll drink an ale here and wait for the ground to thaw. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a shame. Birmingham? It's quite safe to travel there these days, I assure you. Did I tell you we had a drive-by shooting on our beautiful, white, middle-class street? And, as was to be expected, it was the estranged father, with an automatic rifle. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eghh. That sort of thing was a concern when I lived, drove and worked in NY, especially in the 80s and 90s. I did see cops unholster their guns a few times. Now I worry about some goddam deer running into my car at night. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, aggressive deer have never made for a good movie. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does your local public library have DVDs, Drmies? If so, they might have Downton Abbey Season 2. (We do.) LadyofShalott 23:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read through that whole subjunctive discussion, and someone's behavior is excessively aggressive. IfTheTruthWereOutThere is a self-described sockpuppet. I wonder who the master is. LadyofShalott 03:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what they had to say as a howdy-do to Duoduoduo is something else. Plus, they're out of their league, as they quickly discover; Hoary is also a grammar prof, haha. I don't know about sock, though, in the strict sense of the word; more likely a blocked account or a failed cleanstart. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you linguists know anyway? You answer requests for citations with expensive books; those don't count. Clearly the only acceptable citation is a >$20 book that agrees exactly with Truth's POV. LadyofShalott 04:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy of pogroms in "See also" section in the article Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre

[edit]

Please see this. Best, Konullu (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

same ol same ol on National Radical Camp

[edit]

Since last time you lectured me on reverting POV pushing IPs SPAs, I'll let you deal with this.Volunteer Marek 01:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Volunteer Marek, I see you didn't like my lecture, whose topic, incidentally, was edit warring, not reverting. Why would I have to explain to an experienced editor such as yourself that there's a huge difference between the two? I'm not here to stop you from reverting--I left you a note because I didn't want to see you blocked for edit warring. In light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krzyzowiec/Archive, you could drop the blocking admin for your former counterparts a note, who might well block on sight per DUCK: I don't have the expertise in this subject matter to make that call (Krzyzowiec is hardly the only Polish antisemite right-wing nationalist around). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know of any others? Volunteer Marek 03:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, I am not sure what you're trying to achieve. If you're trying to rub me the wrong way, good luck: you can't hold a candle to my seven-year old. If you want me to help you, well, I don't think that's what you're here for. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, it was a serious question. Maybe you're inferring to much from it.Volunteer Marek 04:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

91.189.0.206 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Hello, Im Lilek. "Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to National Radical Camp seemed less than neutral to me"[reply]

  1. The party favoured aggressive eliminationist action against the Poland's minorities
  2. ONR openly encouraged anti-Jewish pogroms, and became main force in the organization of anti-Jewish violence
  3. Some, on the other hand, actively helped Nazis
  4. Some authors do not consider it as a fascist political movement, whilst others suggest its ideology had fascist elements or even consider it as a 'nazified' movement.

For first and second You have referred to books about fascism in general, not about polish national movement in 1919-1939 which was very specific. As I can see, mentions about this movement do not refer to any books, declarations or reports from this time in Poland. In fact, Aristotle Kallis author of "Genocide and Fascism; The Eliminationist Drive in Fascist Europe" refers mainly to other author Jerzy Holzer (additionally, to his book from 1977 and every kid in Poland knows that historic books from time of PRL should always be doubted ;)). Much more useful would be "Krew i honor. Działalność bojówkarska ONR w Warszawie w latach 1934-1939" of Miłosz Sosnowski, which describes properly agressive activity of Radical National Camp, taking into account whole historic context. In fact, in Poland before 1939 there was no Jew pogroms... all political and ethnic groups fought with each other on streets and universities. Especially on universities. But never to death... Third point does not add any objective or academic fact. So-called szmalcowniks were divers betrayers from random groups, random families, their crimes were never justified by polish official parties or groups like ONR. National Radical Camp was anti-nazi. How did it come that You haven't read about it, Dear Drmies, since it was written in many texts of ONR members? Or maybe You did, but then why don't You refer to them? And why on earth have You considered refer to Jan Mosdorf's book "Wczoraj i dziś" not neutral? It is there when he says:

"We [Polish nationalists] are not fascists, nor Hitlerites, for we are a native Polish movement, independent of foreign views. Additionally, we do not see ourselves as fascists or Nazis due to the many weaknesses, and even sins, these movements carry. These are not examples we would want to follow."- Jan Mosdorf "Wczoraj i Jutro", 1938 Mosdorf, Jan (1938). "Wczoraj i Jutro". ISBN [[Special:BookSources/ISBN 83-921586-0-1|'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000006-QINU`"'[[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/83-921586-0-1 |83-921586-0-1]]]]. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); templatestyles stripmarker in |isbn= at position 1 (help)

I haven't even added my opinion... but a simple, actual clarification of suggestions that You served as facts. On the other hand, how on earth anti-socialist and anti-totalitarian party would get 'nazified'? in 3 months of its existence? Have You noticed that You are talking about organisation formed in Poland - whose mortal enemy for 1000 years have been invariably... Germany? ONR never identified with Nazis. ONR never declared collaboration with Nazis. Nazis killed ONR members, as You have written Yourself. Also deletion of my mention about sanation can't be explained by being "less than neutral". Opposition of ONR to Piłsudki's policy was a very important element of their activity! Much more important than anti-semitic opinions. By the way, if You claim that some of ONR members had seen Jews as main threat to Poland, why don't You quote? Some? Who is "some"? Because again, objective historic sources (like words of ONR members themselves) call Hitler and Nazis the main threat. Why haven't You included it in the article?

I'm sorry that I have edited Your article about "ONR presumed as Jews killers", basing on books treating actually about Radical National Camp as it really was, not as it "was considered by 2 authors that aren't even talking about this topic".

So, other books to propose:

  • "Krew i honor" Miłosz Sosnowski ISBN:978-83-926091-9-3 (Blood and honour)
  • "Polskie korporacje akademickie w latach 1918-1939. Struktury, myśl polityczna, działalność" dr Patryk Tomaszewski ISBN 978-83-928698-3-2 (Polish academic corporations in years 1918-1939)
  • "Jan Mosdorf. Filozof, ideolog, polityk" Mateusz Kotas ISBN: 9788360048375 (Jan Mosdorf. Philosopher, ideologist, politician)
  • "Wczoraj i jutro" Jan Mosdorf ISBN: 83-921586-0-1 (Yesterday and tomorrow)
  • "Od ONR-u do PAX-u" Zygmunt Przetakiewicz ISBN: 978-83-925284-5-6 (From ONR to PAX)

Biographies, reports, quotes, articles... less than opinions. I swear, I had no intention to cause any "battle". Sorry for taking care of wikipedia's reliability. :) 91.189.0.206 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I am learning how to do it, right now. I'm so sorry, I'll try to do it as fast as possible. :D[reply]

Last time I tried dealing with this stuff, I got threatened with a block. So like I already said, you'll pardon me if I'm less inclined to deal with it this time around. You can take care of it, if you feel like it. Good luck figuring out which of the above sources are reliable, which are not, and what other tricks the IP is trying to pull. I'm not going to spend my time doing free work AND being threatened at the same time.Volunteer Marek 20:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, last time you were edit warring and anyone who reads my "warning" to you knows what the deal was. You weren't "dealing" with anything: you were simply reverting and I gave you a fair heads-up. Now you are invited to prove on an article talk page why someone is utterly wrong and by doing so you can establish a record that non-experts like me could possibly fall back on. I can't do that: you know the stuff, I don't. You can play high and mighty all you like--really, play victim all you like--but it's not to anyone's benefit. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plochere Color System

[edit]

Hi drmies - you've given me assistance in the past on the appropriateness of Wikipedia entries I've worked on, so I'd like to ask you to cast an eye over references to the "Plochere Color System", found all over wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%22Plochere+Color+System%22&fulltext=Search

This seems to be an attempt to give credibility to a commercial product: http://plochere.com/

regards Benklaasen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Ben. That's interesting. I found, in Raspberry (color), an editor who introduced that phrasing in the way it seems to occur in many articles (with a now-dead link): Keraunos (talk · contribs), here. I'm not sure what to do with this right now, perhaps some of the talk page stalkers have any ideas. At the very least it seems an unreliable source to me, though perhaps in that WikiProject it's perfectly acceptable to have commercial sites as sources (strikes me as odd). Perhaps, for now, it's best to drop a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color (and maybe a friendly note on that user's talk page) and see what develops, if anything. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:115.186.162.181

[edit]

Could you please block 115.186.162.181 for violating the 3RR rule after being warned and adding unsourced content at Charsadda. Thanks! Vacation9 17:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SISTAR

[edit]

Hi drmies,

I am not a PR for Starship and I wasn't aware that I was adding any PR. I came to add that they won 1st place on KM Music Triangle program today to the list of TV music program wins. I noticed that there were several instances where Hyolyn's name was mis-spelled from her Official romanized spelling per Starship. I also corrected some minor grammar errors and instances where their the group name was not capitalized. I did add a paragraph to SISTAR19 section which may or may not be necessary but it fit in with the existing paragraph. I do think that we should leave in the TV music program win section as that is taken pretty seriously in K-pop world.

Thanks,

xradman —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your note. Unfortunately, what's important to the fans is not, in this case, important to the rest of the world. This is simply not encyclopedic information. It's not reliably sourced, and these are not competitions of any kind of real value at all. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gosh, you are mean to the K-pop fans, aren't you, Drmies? I guess you expect them to comply with core Wikipedia policies, like reliable sources, verifiability, and the neutral point of view? How unfair can you be? What a stick in the mud you are! When will you loosen up? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry Cullen--I have no excuse for my behavior, and I can't even promise I'll improve. It's old-fashioned Southern moralism, I suppose, which is fond of criticizing while turning a blind eye on its many own faults. In all seriousness, if you thought MMA or rassling was bad, K-pop is much worse. I sometimes think there's only two or three editors, one for each production company, with a million names: many of those accounts have only a couple hundred edits and are intimately acquainted with formatting from the get-go. And there's an article for every group, every sub-group, every lyricist, every producer, every manager, every Christmas compilation, every concert tour, every video single. In one article I removed (yesterday) a table of fan club appearances in shopping malls. But let's give Xradman credit for this edit. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what you may think is not important to the world is important to someone bothering to look up SISTAR on Wikipedia. As far as this not being any sort of competition, it's as much competition as is Billboard to the music. These winners are based for the most part on digital and physical sales of their songs.xradman —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3abos blocked

[edit]

Hey Doc. As you may recall, I agreed I wouldn't edit User talk:3abos last time around. But, since several users showed an interest in trying to rehabilitate him (which I have no objection to as a matter of editor retention principle, even if I don't have much sympathy for him), I was wondering if you'd want to drop by and tell him that he can probably get himself unblocked if he agrees to an editing restriction in the homophobia topic area. I'll concede that he's done a little bit better at not accusing everyone who disagrees with him of heterophobia, so there's a chance he might actually listen. Of course, if you think it's time the community cuts its losses on this one, I'll pat myself on the back for doing the right thing, and move on. All the best. :) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Though having just stalked your contribs, perhaps you don't want to have to be helping out two homophobic editors at once.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a nice page full of helpful commentary...I'm not sure what I can add to it. Can they stay away from LGBT topics in the broadest sense of the word? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, go pat yourself on the back. And get back to your homework. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falling in Reverse

[edit]

Hey, so there are numerous users vandalising the Falling in Reverse page by removing former members and editing the genres in the sidebox. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd[reply]

  • What is this, ANI 2.0? Drmies (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be careful with what you call vandalism. The sources that were removed in that edit aren't exactly strong. [Later:] OK, I have fully protected the article for three days until you all can figure out what to do. Let this serve you as a warning against edit-warring: DO NOT EDIT WAR. You are well over the line, having reverted four times, and this is clearly (well, "clearly" to any uninvolved editor) not vandalism. I could have blocked you on the spot but I won't since you were reverted and the article is now locked anyway, but next time you revert you will be blocked. (Same goes for some other editors.) I'm going to post a warning on the talk page for all y'all.

    Again, YouTube and interviews are very weak in terms of reliability. If stuff can't be verified with reliable sources (see WP:RS) it probably shouldn't be in the article. Good luck figuring it out: you all must reach consensus, or protection will continue and/or editors will be blocked for warring. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's fair enough, where can I start a discussion in which we can all come to a decision? Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd[reply]

Thanks, I put a message on the FIR talk page and I think it's a good idea. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd[reply]

We've come to a conclusion. If you look on the talk page. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd[reply]

The link was their official myspace page, they made an album for each member and it had Oskar cited as one with his own photo album, and it was uploaded by them. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd[reply]

CloudForge

[edit]

Hello Drmies, Thanks for visiting the CloudForge Page and contributing. However with the removal of the Products (Not features)that are available on CloudForge really devalues the quality of this article. I have reviewed these changes with others in the industry and they agree with me. CloudForge is the conglomeration of these products. Without mentioning these products, CloudForge isn't clearly represented and the article is not accurate or value. By removing what CloudForge actually does, you've devalue this article. the article now doesn't really say what CloudForge is or does in a clear way. I disagree with your edits. I will give you a suitable time to respond but I would like to undo your changes and retore value to this article. Nickb79 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Nick. Thank you for your message. I did indeed remove information that appeared to be promotional, and I removed a list of features that add nothing to the encyclopedic quality of the article, though undoubtedly they would be of interest to possible clients (and in that same edit I removed, per WP:ELNO, some links that aren't warranted by our policies, and this link is of course of a promotional nature). If reliable sources report on the kind of information you'd like to see included, that's another matter, but those sources should meet our standards and should be independent of the subject.

    Now, I'm not surprised that "others in the industry" agree with you, but I think others in the Wikipedia community will agree with me; they are happily invited to weigh in if they happen upon this discussion. And I don't wish to be disrespectful, but you do not have a lot of edits on Wikipedia and consequently I'm inclined to think you may not be so familiar with our policies. Plus, all your edits are to this article or to related articles. Finally, it seems that there's a Twitter handle which looks a lot like your account name here, and the name of that Twitter handle in turn seems to also be the name of someone who does marketing and support for the company. I'm not going to include the links; I don't think I need to. In sum, I think that you should be very wary about editing this particular article lest it be slapped with a COI tag and scrutinized even more. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)My observation has been that consensus among the editorial community is that if there are more than three products, they need to be summarized with examples, rather than listed individually. If the products were merely listed, I would consider it "better than nothing," but given the prolific over-use of sub-heads, I feel it was "an improvement" to delete it entirely. In a perfect world, someone like Drmies would research the products in secondary sources and replace it with a well-written, properly-sourced paragraph, but in practice we are overwhelmed with promotion. If we clean up after promotional editing, we only encourage more of it and affirm that we will clean up after it. Instead, we've gotten to a point where anything not within acceptable limits is deleted on-site.
This presents other problems. Drmies gives the impression that Nick is being targeted as a PR editor (probably not entirely untrue), which sends the message that he needs to conceal himself better in the future. An edit-behavior has been identified (SPA), which can easily be modified in the future by editing other articles first, which is a common practice.
Instead, I implore you to do the opposite and follow the instructions I have provided. Grow thick skin, work really, really, hard to be neutral, learn our rules, ask for feedback and do the hard-work it takes to do good work here. Just take Drmies comments as a firm slap on the wrist, take a deep breath, and try again, this time from Talk and with disclosure. CorporateM (Talk) 03:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've been given some good advice here, Nick. There is a difference between what belongs on a company's website - where they are, of course, selling themselves, and what belongs in a neutral description about the company. It's not a trivial matter to learn the difference, and there is grey area. Work on a variety of articles, and ask questions. One thing to beware: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - you have to balance learning by example with studying the policies. If you think another article contains exactly the kinds of stuff that have been removed from the article you were working on, you're probably correct, and it probably also needs to go. Wikipedia is very much a work-in-progress. LadyofShalott 03:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I have noticed just now. The article is a good candidate for deletion. The article only has one secondary source[3] and the rest are press releases. A Google News search[4] is empty. Nick, for context, all the material on Wikipedia is suppose to be sourced from neutral, independent and credible sources, such as journalists, authors, academics, etc. When no sources exist, we have nothing to source, so the article is merely deleted. CorporateM (Talk) 03:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CorporateM, I was thinking of you while looking at the article and writing my response: WWCMD? That Nick is connected, so to speak, is not a reason to be extra-wary of their contributions. Of course we don't really want people to be in hiding. But with that particular edit pattern one would have come to that conclusion even if their username was LadyoftheCastle. I don't mind working with people who are associated with something, but it is also my experience that editors who come here only because they want to work on the associated article are not usually well acquainted with the rules of the game. Oh, CorporateM, I don't usually put those kinds of articles up for deletion because it's not a field I'm very familiar with. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CorporateM, as I said on your talk page I am very appreciative of your advice and references. It's great to have that information made available.
CorporateM, Drmies - Nothing malicious or promotional was intended by this article. All I am trying to do is to contribute to a topic that I am the world expert in. No one knows more about this than me. Can we look at this article in a more constructive way, collaborate around the content? Let's not attack, threaten or mark this page for deletion. I am happy to learn and work with others to improve the content. You know who I am, you've tracked me down. I am an open, transparent person. Can we work on this together? Do we need other citations? Let me help you find them. I hope we can work together on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickb79 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, sure we can. But the name of the game is reliable sources. There is a second name of the game, but it has more words: not every detail of a subject is relevant (see WP:FART) even if it can be verified. The things that you had listed are candidates for inclusion if they're commented on as relevant in reviews, etc. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, all the content on Wikipedia must be backed by neutral, credible and independent sources not affiliated with the company. If there is not enough source material, than we can't cover the subject. The deletion tag will start a discussion on whether enough sourcing exists for it to be possible to have an article on the subject. If you can provide a few more sources like this one where the company is the subject of the article and the journalist has covered them in substantial depth, this would provide a compelling argument to keep and improve the article. I will always help anyone who asks, so feel free to call on me anytime if you need more instructions and advice. CorporateM (Talk) 04:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It's a vicious cycle. PR person has a COI, doesn't understand the rules, and will write in a promotional tone by instinct. Wikipedian is justifiably horrified and correctly points out the issue is related to their COI. PR industry claims they are singled-out and victimized, because that's what it feels like from their POV. None of the parties are doing anything we could reasonably expect them to avoid, but the basic dynamics create a poor situation.
The only way I can think of to break the cycle is to provide enough instructions so PRs can self-police. If they are adequately equipped to tell their bosses what our requirements are, than the community doesn't have to.
I have 100x the experience of most PR people, yet even my volunteer edits are sometimes criticized as promotional.[5] My proposed draft for YouSendIt was beat up pretty bad,[6] although it wasn't that different than how I would have written it normally, at least as a first draft. I think PR people will have a hard time here on general principle, even as volunteers. What I want to see is more of us taking on the challenge. CorporateM (Talk) 04:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That draft looks pretty good to me. Do you know I have 100x the business experience of ordinary English profs? And now you get 10% free on your next order if you call in the next ten minutes! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Huh? I think something just went over my head, or maybe the edit-conflicts fried my brain. I guess either way it's time for me to get off my soap box (or maybe it's just a red coach) and go to bed :-D CorporateM (Talk) 05:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouSendIt

[edit]

If you think the draft is ready to go, do you mind moving it to article space or giving me a {{request edit|G}}(for "go-ahead")? I plan to submit for Peer Review afterwards to get feedback on where it still needs improvement for a GAN. CorporateM (Talk) 13:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I made a bunch of sub-templates for Request Edit with Noun a while back to mimic AfC.[7] It now has decline templates and such as well, just like AfC. I'll wait a couple days or so before following through to see if there are any objections. CorporateM (Talk) 15:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NYU Poly

[edit]

Hi, thank you for starting to do the much needed work on the article, but I think you just messed up the reference list C:--Surfsbruce (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an editrequest on the talk page. If you see this and fix it before somebody else, please close it.  — daranz [ t ] 08:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your message to me on my Wikipedia page

[edit]

I don't know who you are, and I am new to this site.

You wrote a message to me saying that I provided wrong information about Eddie Money. If I remember correctly, his birthdate was listed as being on March 2, and I changed it to March 21. For a quick source, if you go to Eddie Money's official site, under the heading of History, it will give his birthdate.

Now, why are you coming on my page and saying things like, disruptive editing and vandalism. First of all, I have made but a couple edits in the span of a few years to any pages on this site before in my life. Second, you make out like I am doing something wrong by making a correction that I believe to be right. Why are you saying that the birthdate is wrong? Where do you get that information? I would love to know. If you believe the birthdate is now wrong, can't You change it? I am very confused. It seems like You are the one who is disruptive, so I may block you somehow once I figure out how to.

Thank you and good day. Debra71 (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Debra and thank you for your note. While dropping the kids off at school I've been trying to figure out why I left you a level-3 vandalism warning when at the most an introductory "unsourced information" note would have been enough, and then I remembered what I saw in the history: right before and after your edits are edits by another user, Johnny Squeaky, one who had been problematic and ended up getting blocked. I figure that I clicked on the wrong talk page link and didn't check to see if I left it for the right user. My apologies and rest assured: for an edit like you made you shouldn't have been warned and you certainly wouldn't be blocked. I hope you accept my apology for this error. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Drmies for your quick reply, and it's no problem. It's true, I haven't done much editing on this site, and I don't quite know what I'm doing. I will try to put some type of citation or source reference if I ever make another change. Although, I don't know what warrants a good citation or source. I got my information from Eddie Money's official site which is also on his Wikipedia page. The only change I made was to his birthday. I know even books get birthdays wrong, so it is hard to know the best source. On Youtube are some videos of him performing on his birthday which seems to be on March 21. Despite this, there did seem to be conflicting information. Some sources said it was on March 2 and some said March 21. I wish someone could just ask the guy. Would save time and confusion. It just seemed to me to be March 21.

I understand your response. I click on the wrong links all the time. Also, I'm sorry I didn't give a citation or source. I would have to find some good ones like from an article or book. Have a nice weekend.

Take care

Debra71 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sit here. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I'd rather sit here, personally. My wife may not permit it, however. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Drmies, I'm certain that you saw my message to Debra on her talkpage before you replied to her :-) By the way, if you're in the mood for a block, I've heard that I'm apparently liberal with the button (which surprised me, but hey ... what's life without surprises) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that, Bwilkins, and it was nice of you to leave a non-templated note. I'm not in the mood for a block, really--once is enough. You know, I missed it completely: Bbb had kindly unblocked me before I logged on again. (So much for the imminent danger that I posed to the project. And this is why I hate civility blocks: they're usually stupid.) Drmies (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Drmies has to have some "character" in order to defame it. Bgwhite (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! You make a good point, Bg. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So--neither one of you managed to get a date for this lovely Friday night? Drmies (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have you know that I went out with two old friends to have a drink and laugh at the drunkards. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Charming. Did they hug you and said they would have wanted their son to be just like you, if they had one? Drmies (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feb

[edit]

Those sources and not reliable because the attendances are not accurate. 24.212.195.135 (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Money

[edit]

I thought administrators never, ever admitted a mistake. I thought other administrators always defended their infallible compatriots, and inevitably threatened to block, ban or bludgeon any newbie who took exception to what an administrator says. I thought that users with less than 5,000 edits were always wrong. What is going on here? Are administrators really allowed to apologize? Shocking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I heard a lengthy radio interview of your pal Garry Wills on KQED radio in San Francisco today. News flash: he doesn't think too highly of recent Popes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what James Carroll thinks on the topic. BTW, I don't like the name of his article--novelist? Drmies (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that he is better known for other things. (historian) perhaps? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call him a historian--I think that term should be reserved for academics with some training. I moved him to James Carroll (author): the more general term is more appropriate. Thanks Jim, Drmies (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scots language

[edit]

Enlighten me - what's ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3? PiCo (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*hic*

[edit]

So... *hic*... buddy... want some? — Crisco *hic* 1492 (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Scout cookies anyone?

[edit]
A young human person of the female persuasion selling Girl Scout cookies to support her local troop.

What would the shipping be on 20 boxes to Canada? --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • DYK... that until today, English Wikipedia did not have Category:Nail polish? LadyofShalott 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • $53.95, K. Now, pick the flavors. Caramel's the best. You can PayPal me the money. ;) Drmies (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems a little high for the US Post, I am not entirely kidding about cross-border shopping for cookies. I will be in FL in March, how long do they sell them for? Maybe I can pick some up there too. Will you make a trade for some of this? Lady, ever more shocking is before today Commons didn't have a category for Peameal bacon.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what I found on usps.gov, K: Priority Mail International Large Flat Rate Box. One box is 9 ounces; see if you can find a better price. Mrs. Drmies says they sell them until March 17, depending on the local organization. Seriously, I'll gladly ship you some! Drmies (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmmm....Looks like 10 boxes can't be shipped by standard first class, but six can. I am in no rush to get them, as I will not be returning to Canada until the 8th, and I would hate to get there and have them all eaten! What types on on sale? --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wait--how did you get that? I only noticed the 20 pound maximum for that rate. Anyway--let's see, we have caramel, peanut butter, peanut butter patties, lemon creamy things, mango cream (no "mango" listed in the ingredients), thin mints, shortbread, and "thanks-a-lot" (look it up). And we can order more. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • <Homer Simpson impersonation>Ahhh, juicy Samoa cookies. Droool</Homer> I used to buy a three cases (12 boxes to a case) of Samoas. Give two cases to the undergrads and freeze the rest for a year-round cookie fix. fyi... Carmel deLites and Samoas are almost the same cookie, but made by different companies. Carmel is milk chocolate, less calories and fat. Samoas are more of a darker chocolate. Carmels are more common in the east, while Samoas are more common in the west. Keebler's Coconut Dreams are the same cookie and can get them year-round. Girl scout cookies are also sold by Amazon. Bgwhite (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←Check your email for the order, I priced the shipping on 6 boxes to be about $25. I don't think I can get food shipped from Amazon to Cannuckistan. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasim ahmad junior

[edit]

Er?, this seems clearly an autobiography! — Abhishek  Talk 17:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Karstadt

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I just wanted to say a big thank you for your edits to, and the rescuing of, Rudolph Karstadt. I agree, that was a bad reason for a prod, and I was feeling a bit pissed off and tired earlier, which is why I thought to myself "well, fuck you" (not actually intended directly at Redsky89, who I, for the record, think is a great and usually very helpful wikipedian!), and with today being the lazy, snowy Sunday that it is, couldn't be arsed to sort the problem out and too hastily G7'd it. So thanks for helping sort it out – that was very kind and made me smile. By the way, nice birds – in case you were curious, I've been feeding the local German tits all winter, and they've been lovin' it! Here in the region there are lots and lots of Great Tits, quite a few Blue Tits, even the odd Blackbird. They seem to like peanuts the best. And since you seem to have a great sense of humour, judging by your userpage, here's a peanuts video for ya! Cheers again! Jared Preston (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Jared--I figured there was something going on, and Karstadt seemed to notable to let go of anyway. Yes, I like tits, but I like blackbirds as well; I used to see a lot of Rusty Blackbirds and I love their sound. I am not that familiar with the German type, although I once loved a pair of very impressive German tits. I remember they had relatively small beaks but big, plump, firm, warm bodies. I also didn't know your man George Dawes, so thanks for the introduction. One often forgets how inimitable (for better or for worse) British comedy is. Well, let's see if we can bump up old Mr. Karstadt from stub status. He meant something; I saw a few things that indicated he made a ton of money in the 1920s from inflation, of all things. Perhaps we can learn from him. Thanks for the note and stay warm--FWIW, my kid jumped in the pool today and we didn't need to thaw her out afterward. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder, on second thought, if I don't have a conflict of interest: I may have bought some underwear and t-shirts in a Karstadt back in 2006. Please don't tell ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's only COI if you're still wearing 7 year old underwear (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an old-fashioned calvinist, Bwilkins. If it still covers my ass (somewhat) I'll wear it. I'm not some rich PR person like Dennis Brown, or a goldminer like K-stick. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic wording

[edit]

Say, Dr (and talk page stalkers), what is an encyclopedic wording for he pees his panties? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Hernandez page

[edit]

Hi, how could I change the content that I added to the Jose Hernandez page to make it more acceptable? I'm new to all this. Thanks! --Azninva5in (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, in general, don't copy and paste, and don't sound like you're somebody's manager or PR agent. "...is recognized internationally as the most innovative force behind mariachi music" falls well foul of the requirement that we write neutrally. I'll put a template on your talk page with a few guidelines. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm still a bit confused...does wikipedia show you that I copy-pasted content into the page? Because I typed it up in a word document (it's original content) and then copy/pasted it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azninva5in (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OH I see. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't even realize that wasn't original content. I was just given a word document with the info and told to add it in, and that it was original content. My apologies!

Educational institution edits

[edit]

Help please. How do I best handle the following?:

An educational institution IP, 212.219.116.68 (talk · contribs), has recently been making archaeological topic edits to three articles, Witchford, RAF Witchford and Haddenham. On Friday I reverted their edits (Witchford revert, RAF Witchford revert and Haddenham revert) and left explanations on article talk-pages (Witchford talk-page notice and Haddenham talk-page notice) and the IP's talk-page. Today, the IP has re-added the material with citations, although many of the citations are hard to WP:VERIFY and other citations are not WP:RS.

Thank you in advance --Senra (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, erm, you appear to have reverted a good faith reversion (with explanation that it was a school project which turned out wrong) to Witchford --Senra (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I should perhaps just shut up) But, I now feel the school's recent Witchford and Haddenham additions are WP:UNDUE. See also RAF Witchford --Senra (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did revert, because the IP had not commented. It is a talk page matter, though, and if you wish to revert me (and the other edits), go ahead, with a link in the edit summary to the talk page discussion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my own view which, I think has been subsequently supported (independently) by this reversion by 86.132.56.148 (talk · contribs) (geolocated to British Telecom in the UK), I feel I should revert all recent edits by the school and am looking for support for that view (I will obviously note the reversions on the relevant talk-pages as I did before) --Senra (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Witchford and RAF Witchford reverted here and here; Haddenham cleaned-up here and here --Senra (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to move the text recently added to Witchford and RAF Witchford to user drafts of 212.219.116.68 (talk · contribs) so that I can work with the editor(s) of this A-Level school report to add material suitable for the encyclopaedia as I have offered here --Senra (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "move" is a technical term, as you know, and not a useful thing to do here (there is no history for the individual edits to preserve. I'll copy it to their sandbox, but they could do that themselves as well. Senra, this Witchford thing is starting to sound real familiar, as if I've been down that road before; there may be more in the history. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope familiarity is not breeding contempt towards me here. I do believe I am acting civilly towards 212.219.116.68 (talk · contribs). Following the recent edits and reversions to Witchford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), RAF Witchford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Haddenham, Cambridgeshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (all near the school), I have left messages on article talk-pages (see above) and the IP's talk-page (see above). In addition, I have kept their Haddenham text whilst cleaning it up and even suggested how the references could be improved. I still think the Witchford and RAF Witchford texts are undue, as well as other things wrong. Not sure what more I can do except to say I did at least get them talking on the Talk:Witchford page whilst directly ignoring their threat to "Thank you for the feedback and I'd ask you please to edit my entries rather than remove them without thought (as they are still adding plenty of information) or I'll just have to re-upload... continuously...". I think sanctions would not be helpful in this case. Nevertheless, continuously uploading a school project is surely wrong. If I have gone and done wrong, then please be explicit --Senra (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Senra, you misunderstand me. I was merely pointing out that this seems like something I've dealt with before, a year or more ago, but I can't find it in the history of this article. It was a very similar thing--with an article on a town, one on an RAF base, and a bunch of what appeared to be amateur research. For the life of me I can't come up with the name. BTW, I also am not thinking of sanctions at all: we're dealing with a goodwilling new editor with more zeal than academic knowledge. You saw my note, I'm sure--I copied all that material in a sandbox for them, but I wonder if much is going to come out of it. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some clever person can search my contributions to filter out "RAF"...I just had a look at the category for RAF bases, and it has 39 subcategories so I'm not plowing through that. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. Please forgive my misunderstanding. This event is making me tetchy. Indeed these IP edits are being made in goodwill but until they discuss properly, I'm under stress :( Taking a short break --Senra (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look

[edit]

Could you please take a look here and tell me if it looks ok? It is currently #1,803 in the queue for Pending AfC submissions. Some backlog! Thank you for any advice or help!! Doc2234 (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CONCERNING WIKIPEDIA PAGE OF RIVER ALEXANDER

[edit]

I am River's mother. River is 13 years old and did not make the wikipedia page that exists. A friend of his made it without asking, and there are several things incorrect on it. His birthdate is INCORRECT, and a few other minor things. Also, since this page was made without us asking, we would like to at least continue it by updating his tv/film credits and keep it up to date...if this cant be done, then we would like to delete it. I dont understand how someone else can make a wikipedia page for someone, but the actual person the page is about cannot edit it. What do we have to do to edit it? Do I need to send you a copy of my 13 year old son's birth certificate to prove what his actual birthdate is? And how do you add tv/film credits if you aren't allowed to use iMDB as a reference? How did the other person who made this account add a credit? I called the person who made the account and he said that I could edit it myself, but when I tried, you removed them. Please help me as I am frustrated because this page is regarding my son (who is a minor). If you say that I am unable to edit it, then I would like for it to be COMPLETELY removed. I appreciate your help. Thank you. Sincerely, Sonya Dee Lewis, birth mother of River Alexander Aguirre (born November 29, 1999). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverAlexander1 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ma'am, it's late and I can't answer every point right now. A few quick ones: no one says (or should have said) that you or the subject can't edit it. It's usually not a good idea, but it's not in itself forbidden. IMDB is not considered a reliable source (see WP:RS) and cannot be used to reference everything, but film and tv appearances are not a problem, usually. No, no one wants or needs to see a birth certificate. A date of birth can be cited if it is found in a reliable, secondary source. IMDB does not qualify for that, as another editor indicated. By the way, I didn't remove that date of birth, I only removed some External links--see the relevant policy at WP:ELNO (in short, one "personal" link per article, and unreliable sources, like that About the Artist page, may not be linked).

    Now, as far as I can tell, the only information that's been consistently removed is that date of birth; please don't add it again unless it can be cited with a reliable source. Thank you, and please ask me again if I can be of any help. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's not here, man....

[edit]
Really good stuff growing here
Ahem, those are ZINNIA flowers...

One of several of my gardening sites, with radishes, onions, scallions and lots of flowers getting ready to be planted outside once North Carolina thaws. I'm actually going to try to grow cucumbers inside at home, although that requires hand pollinating daily. I just want garden fresh cucumbers year round, the garbage at the grocery store is pitiful. I rather like gardening. Plants don't talk back or lie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credit where it's due

[edit]

I think someone is trying to steal your magnum opus Dr. M. :) Richerman (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:|

[edit]

Aoki Mariko phenomenon - Interesting...and here I thought it was because there is a Starbucks in our Chapters...--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←First tweet: Hey @ Madagascar, why you gots be all up in my shit? and @Mauritius, give me back my Zircon. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your kindness of copy editing my awkward English!! In fact, I am one of the main author of the Japanese Wikipedia article like this. I highly appreciate your motivation. So please feel free to ask me any questions that you may have. My talk page is always open for willing partners! --GU9udoy6Kg (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • すごい。 傑作です。 Um, Japan in general may be the land of the Aoki Mariko phenomenon, but in my own part of Japan something similar is more likely to be triggered by sights such as this. (This may have something to do with the difference between Japanese and [my own] non-Japanese intestines.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Holy shit, Batman, that was one hell of a resume. You ought to be sued for depriving someone of free publicity. GU9udoy6Kg (that is an awkward name to type...hope I got it right), you're more than welcome: don't worry about language and keep writing. No one I know (except Hoary, maybe) could have contributed this and for that I thank you. Feel free to add to the article.

        Now, having said that, if we want to get this strange phenomenon on the front page we'll have to do some more work, and unfortunately I forgot most of my Japanese (I actually took 101 and 102, Hoary, and learned to write katakana and hiragana! But now I really only remember a dirty song about a tanuki). Are those articles available online? Are any of the many sources in the Japanese article available online or, Hoary, can you get to some of them? I picked a couple of the ISBNs last night but did not manage to even see the books. I will be more than happy to help organize and format, but I can't do translations and searches in Japanese and the article needs a couple more sources. We have a few more days to get this going for DYK. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'm afraid that there seems to be little information which is available online. I'm willing to make a serious effort to add to the article. I'm so sorry that it'll take me enormous time to write in English. I'd be most grateful if you could offer voluntary translator. Thank you again. --GU9udoy6Kg (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Special-Order Barnstar
This is all the reason I need  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

[edit]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of forever and ever for being an evil vandal who fooled us all for years, before finally revealing your bad intentions today. Bad Drmies. Go to your time out corner. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the humor-impaired: the above is a joke. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by a administrator random passer by, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good punchline (see the bollocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review 'cause orange makes me think calming thoughts.

Drmies(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason:

Unblock me or you'll get what's coming to you. Drmies (talk)

Decline reason:

Look at this. Not only have you been vandalising of all things, but you've been scaring away people daring to put unsubstantiated allegations on ANI too! Have you been out bashing those baby seals again? Seriously, step away from the lump hammer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please call a plumber, as blocking really causes havoc with the drains. Cheers.

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by a SUPER ADMINISTRATOR, who accepted the request. No other administrators may review this unblock, as SUPER ADMINISTRATORS will overtake the cabal. Do not remove this unblock review 'cause green is my favourite colour.

Drmies(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason:

Unblock me or you'll get what's coming to you. Drmies (talk)
Check cleared, will enjoy my new Ferrari. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocking Super-Administrator: Please check for active termites on this user after accepting the unblock request, before he's allowed in the house.
This car is property of Crisco 1492. So keep your bloody hands off.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please remember to send the check first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by sending too little money, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you shall live. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cursssses... So if I send more, you'll block him again??? Basket Feudalist 13:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of forever and ever, for being a stingy English professor who won't listen to JKT 48, who fooled us all for years, before finally revealing your evil intentions. So cheap. So go on now, shoo! Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions to my account. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been superty-duper blocked from editing for a period of through sickness and health, through good and bad, for as long as you shall live, for giving me the most freedom I've had in years. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions in the shape of a big dollar sign. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, and why the bacon in the fridge should not be discarded, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first and know that it's more painful than divorce. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by a bad assed dude, who pities the fool who got blocked. Other administrators may also review this block, if they think they've got what it takes.

Drmies(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason:

Unblock me so I can get my Ferrari keys. Drmies (talk)

Decline reason:

You just got yourself a whole load of trouble there, you crazy fool! When admins start hasslin' decent people, I make it my business! Mr. T (talk)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, you forget it, you sucker, I got no time for jibba jabba.

Removal of complete sections from articles

[edit]

Okay, I've been told that I should talk to you about the removals. Could you explain why you did it? That was really discouraging.

  1. Yes, I knew that here were too many videos, but they were placed there before we had a discussuion about that at Cute (Japanese band) last May. I am sorry, I should have removed them.
  2. I would really, really like to let the covers stay in the articles because I think they are important.
  3. You removed all the external links. They could't possible be spam cause they were official links, links from Oricon and overviews of the singles by the person who wrote and produced them.
  4. The tags you placed. Without an explanaition these tags are useless. If you really cared about the articles, you should have explained what parts were wrong or non-neutral on the talk page. I think the AKB48 article is okay. It was written using available sources.
  5. I didn't like the Subunits section in AKB48 myself. I think it was terrible, badly structured, and ugly. I want more people to stay involved, that's why I didn't delete it. By deleting you show to the people who have edited it that their contributions are not welcomed. And that was an easy section to edit without knowing English well. Again, "too many details" (or something like that) is not a good explanation for the removal. The section has been already discussed on the talk page, when a person wanted to split in into a separate article. It was decided that it should be sourced and expanded first. I hoped someone would rewrite it, then I would get rid of it by creating a separate article.
  6. I posted to ANI because the way you did it really discouraged all interactions with you. It was like you didn't want to discuss anything. You removed complete sections, you showed your power. Now I'm afraid for all my other articles and I think I should leave Wikipedia. That's the truth.

(Not all the articles you "pruned" were written by me, by the way.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moscowconnection, I had totally forgotten it was you. In this plethora of articles, you can't possibly expect me to post an exhaustive note on every talk page explaining edits that should be obvious; keep in mind that one of these bands had like 50 singles in a row. In general, all the ones I tagged had an abundance of trivial information--trivial from an encyclopedic point of view. If an article on a single (pick any one of them) has the complete track listings for a half a dozen different releases (and you know this is the marketing department putting those different versions out for the collectors), and it has paragraphs and paragraphs of listings of which team members "performed" on which versions of the alternate tracks of the collectors' editions, and it has almost a dozen links to YouTube videos, and it has a half a dozen alternate covers--AND it has at most a couple of sentences of actual verified prose, then we're dealing with a fan page with excessive detail, yes.

    I believe this is all common sense, reflecting the consensus of Wikipedia editors, though I'm sure the K-pop and J-pop fans will disagree. But I'll give you one example of how such articles actually break policy: Wikipedia:NFCC#3 tells us that non-free content, such as album covers, can only be used minimally.

    One more thing: I'm speaking as an editor. You brought up my admin status in that ill-conceived ANI thread (which, fortunately for you, was closed very quickly) but that has nothing to do with any of this. Seriously, if you claim you're afraid of someone, you drag them to the court of public opinion? I don't really mind, I'm not worried (at least not in this case, haha), but you should really find different means of conflict resolution. Thanks, and happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, those external links. It's really up to you, the editor, to decide. It seems obvious to me that there were too many. I don't understand what some Oricon link is adding (remember, external links must be reliable and they must add something significant to the article) if the Orican chart position is already linked in a reference. Whoever that song writer is, whose "notes" were appearing in a bunch of those singles (and mind you, I only tackled a couple: there's dozens more), if those notes add something significant bring them into the article--but really, what articles need is information verified by secondary sources. If all those articles have those links, one can only conclude that they articles are made according to a set format where the content of the link has little to do with anything. Videos--whatever, pick one. I'm sure you can find some editors who will agree that such linking is OK. For one. But what other conclusion, other than "fansite", can be drawn after looking at those articles? Drmies (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tracklists. This is not done for collectors. It is done so that people buy more CDs. If you looked at the articles, the tracklists of different editions are different. If someone wants all of the songs and all of the music videos, he/she has to buy several versions. Western articles don't have several tracklists, but Japanese artists do. It's absolutely the same, there's just several times more of the same. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of participating members. It's like a list of personnel. If a Western artist included a duet track on an album, I don't think you would remove the info about who sung the song, leaving only the title. If AKB48 has 90 members who are divided between many tracks, the info should be included too. Again, it looks excessive simply because there is much information needed to describe a release by AKB48. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Covers. See the reply about tracklists. It's not just covers. The single is identified by all the covers together, there is no main one. In the case of AKB48, all the covers are usually very similar, so there's no need to include every one of them. But sometimes the covers are desinged as a set, to illustrate different tracks or different aspects of the group. If Western artists don't do that, it's not a reason not to include the info. The most important covers are the Limited A Edition and the Regular Edition, by the way. But Oricon identifies a release by other covers too sometimes, there is no definite rule. The Wikipedia fair-use policy says "one item", not "one cover". If there are covers of DVD singles in some articles, they should be removed, though. Cause thay are another item. I added the covers a long time ago, I don't remembers now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
External links. Tnere were too many links, and probably 2–4 links would be enough: 1. an official profile from helloproject.com; 2. a comment from Tsunku, the producer; 3. if applicable, an official profile of the Single V (a DVD single; it charts too, by the way); 4. If applicable an announcement of the fan club DVD single. It may look like there are too many, but I'm not to blame if there are several releases. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Producer/writer's comments. The comments from Tsunku are important because people who know Japanese will get lots of untrivial info from there. Tsunky explains what the song is like, what it is about (including what he wanted the song to say and what were his artistic intentions for the choreography). He sometimes says which members did well and how the group progressed since the previous single vocally, etc. The comments are very detailed and are promotional only in the sence that they give the fans more things to think about and discuss. I don't think he says stuff like "it's the best song ever, go buy it". Western artcist do that, he doesn't. (The link from Up-Front contains the same info, but the Japanese Wikipedia adds it too. The links to Oricon contain the same info too, but also list the chart position.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ANI. As for ANI, I have explained that the way you did it... It was really like you didn't want to discuss anything... So I thought that you simply had to be said that you shouldn't do it like that anymore. I am sorry if it wasn't the right thing to do. (Now I will probably reply only tommorrow.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You presume that every factoid is relevant. It is not. Who cares how many editions and with which songs? It's marketing, and you bought into it. Who cares what the writer/producer had to say? That's not what we include in normal articles, and we shouldn't here--unless such commentary is published in secondary sources. An announcement of the fan club DVD single? Why? Why should everything be listed? It makes for illegible articles that contain so much crap that there is nothing to read. You need a heavy dose of WP:SECONDARY, besides a good reading of those fair-use guidelines. Drmies (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Metallica_(album) has a list of personnel. I bet the list of personnel wasn't discussed anywhere. Articles about The Beatles' releases use inlay csrds as sources too. It's completely the same. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the tracklists, instead of giving, say, three largely overlapping lists, you can give one list for Version A, then say something along the lines of "Version B omits song Alpha, but adds song Beta. Version C doesn't have songs Beta or Gamma, but adds song Delta." Then in one track listing plus two short sentences you've included all the information that would have been in long track listings - in a more comprehensible manner. LadyofShalott 06:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC
I'm actually trying to convince an editor at the Japanese Wikipedia to describe each release in prose like that, but this still wouldn't replace a normal tracklist cause the text would be hard to understand. Other editors and me already use the "collapsed=yes" option for DVD tracklists like this: Maji Desu ka Ska!#Tracklist. But Morning Musume started to implement the same marketing policy as AKB48, so their tracklists became more complicated. If the tracklisting template allowed to hide of change songs with a click (like, you click on "Limited A" and a several song titles change), it would be great, but it doesnt. I think there's nothing against the Wikipedia guidelines here. It would only delete some info from Wikipedia or make articles harder to understand. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for the multiple covers, your argument notwithstanding, that's just not what Wikipedia policy allows. For an analogy, I believe lots of comic books will put out the same issue with multiple covers, but only one is allowed here. LadyofShalott 06:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you too say so... Maybe... But I'm not sure cause these all are covers of the same item. The item charts in single charts as one item, for example. Different volumes of manga are separate items, they are released separately, they chart in Oricon book charts separately too. Considering that some covers are designed as a set (as in the case of Momoiro Clover Z) and that Oricon uses different cover to identify a release in different places, and that the Wikipedia fair-use policy can be interpreted as I interpreted it in the discusson about the Momoiro Clover Z cover, I don't understand why it is necessary to make a better article worse. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I specifically said the SAME issue, NOT different volumes. The SAME issue of comics is released with different covers. (I have no idea if this happens in Japanese manga, but it does in Western comics.) LadyofShalott 07:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Different editions of the same comic book definitely exist. For example, compare [8] (standard edition of volume 10 of Kami Nomi zo Shiru Sekai) with [9] (limited edition with DVD). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(to Drmies) I don't think your suggestions at User talk:Stefan2#Are you stalking me? that I should be blocked are justified. I have acted well within the Wikipedia guidelines. And, by the way, I haven't uploaded a single cover since the deletions by Stefan2 started. Until now, I've been just defending what I uploaded earlier, simply defending my articles. (You, on the other side, have definitely looked at my later contributions. I will reply much later. What you did may look or may not look like a show of power, but I feel that Wikipedia is a lost cause nevertheless. I have honestly tried to make Wikipedia a little better, so that people come for information here instead of Generasia, J-ongaku, Stage48, DramaWiki, etc.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You've just hit on a key point, though I don't think you know it: we don't want as much detail as those other wikis. We're a general purpose encyclopedia. This is exactly the same as the fact that, say, Encyclopedia Britannica contains less medical information than a medical encyclopedia, or less biographical information than the individual biographies written on people, or even less historical information than a high school history textbook. It's actually a great thing that those other wikis exist; we, however, serve a different purpose. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but who are "we"? I think "we" want the details and they are absolutely necessary. The people who contributed to the articles think they are necessary. The information is sourced. Bye now. This is ridiculous. People worked on these pages, and they are being destroyed simply someone doesn't want the articles in Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple comments/questions on the Manatsu no Sounds Good! edits (that's the only one I've looked at):

  • Why did you remove the original Japanese language track names?
  • Is there any actual policy guiding what should/shouldn't included in a musical release's article? I couldn't find anything in MOS:ALBUM that suggests that when multiple versions of a release exist that one should be arbitrarily chosen and the others excluded. Looking at a few random album pages, including all versions of releases (deluxe editions, "iTunes bonus tracks", etc.) and crediting all personnel featured on a release seems absolutely standard.
  • Even if including the specific details of each version of the single are excessive, surely just mentioning that there are multiple versions should be acceptable? I really don't understand why you deleted the line "The single was released in 3 versions: Regular Editions Type-A and Type-B and Theater Edition."
  • When you did randomly choose one track list to include, you probably should have labeled it to indicate which one you had chosen.

I also find AKB48's marketing annoying, but I don't really get the policy basis for the edits. Cckerberos (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has made sure you are aware of Talk:AKB48#Alert: AKB48-related articles are being destroyed, which they really should have given that it's largely about you and your edits. LadyofShalott 19:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, there is also a post about this at ja:Talk:AKB48#英語版ウィキペディア and at various wikiproject talk pages on English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"research students"???

[edit]
Tanuki! What nice balls!

NMB48#2010 - Is this marketing BS, or was something terribly lost in translation? Or maybe this was someone's idea of "cute" vandalism? In any case, I think they just mean members. LadyofShalott 04:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe. What is "tie-in"? For the hell of it, count out the ratio of prose vs. listed bullshit in that article. I'm sure that's a record for a non-list article. And "election"? Every time to go to the studio or visit a mall it's a reality show to see who gets in? Drmies (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, on the topic of "for the hell of it"--look at their singles. You know how some albums are nothing but tracklists? Many of those singles are nothing but memberlists, haha. The worst of that batch is this article, Virginity (song), which is nothing short of laughable. Look at the infobox for the B-side: these people have no idea what we're trying to do here. But at least it doesn't have nine covers and thirteen videos, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the Japanese version of the page, it seem it's a little bit of both. "Research student" is a straight translation of the Japanese for the candidates for full membership who haven't made it yet (it sounds less weird in the original, but is still a little over-the-top). Probably a better translation would be something like "members-in-training". Cckerberos (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cckerbos, do you not see how silly this is getting? Members in training? Elections? What's next, pyramids? (Like on Dance Moms.) But I'm glad to have you aboard on my beautiful talk page; perhaps we'll meet elsewhere shortly. Since you seem to be an oficionado of Japanese culture, I'll post an image here of a perhaps familiar animal to liven up the joint a bit. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess I've somehow offended you. Or are you confusing me for someone else or something? Cckerberos (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I'm not offended at all--what makes you think that? Are you not familiar with the marvelous tradition of the Tanuki? It's a very happy animal. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Would you please make the change, Cck, as I have zero Japanese? I just know that research students, even if a literal translation, does not work in English for this context. Maybe trainees? Drmies, you are a glutton for punishment, aren't you? (re: afd on virginity) LadyofShalott 04:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Cckerberos (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings

[edit]

I must add that it is entirely incorrect for you to be removing the various alternate tracklistings from the various pages. The CDs appear to come in various editions and each one has a different track listing. However, you are right in calling it redundant when only one track is modified between versions. I've modified one of the articles you gutted to be a median between these issues.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the removal of the songs' titles in Japanese was also a bit excessive, as noted above (or on some other page I can't remember).—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ryulong, I said somewhere (on some page) that the restoration of that Japanese title is fine with me. Anytime you want to find a median, that's seeking consensus and I have no problem with that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quid pro quo?

[edit]

Hey Drmies, I just closed your ANI discussion. WP:ANI#Guy Macon and Anon editor has devolved into Amadscientist and I quibbling unnecessarily and the anon has become clearly flustered. Think you could close it as no action taken? Usually I can (in the words of my mom) "be the bigger man" and quit responding, but I really don't feel like it at this point. Ryan Vesey 05:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, and thanks for the fact that you are among the administrators who I can trust to disagree with me. I certainly wouldn't have asked you if I thought there was no chance you would take action that I disagreed with. Ryan Vesey 05:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)The closing seemed appropriate even if I disagree with both of you on the finer points. I do believe that Guy was not acting fully appropriatly but the IP was exagerating and acting much worse. For what its worth, I don't see it as appropriate to become uncivil and resort to name calling on the ANI board in the manner done.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey Amadscientist, there's not always a right even if there is a wrong; sometimes there's wrong and wronger. (I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment.) But one must look at the "initial offense", if something like that can be determined, and try not to let a heated discussion in which people get tempted to let their tempers flare lead to a decision that's punishment for worse than what caused the discussion to begin with. ANI is an invitation to drama, of course, and sometimes it's best to just put the lid on. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope

[edit]

Sorry, I'm new. Different Presbyterian churches have taken exceptions to Ch. 25 of WCF (e.g. PCA). The original document is still held by many. To go into detail of what countries hold the Pope to be the Antichrist and what do not with Presbyterianism would distract from the point, in my opinion. The point being, Lutherans are not the only ones to believe the papacy to be the Antichrist. Those who subscribe to the original writing of WCF are others. Chuckd83 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gave Replies

[edit]

So, if you care for my responses. I finally got them on my Talk page. Please visit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiposter1 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima

[edit]

Just curious, you did also post your message on one of OR's other talk pages, like the one I provided a link to? I honestly am not that sure that he necessarily watches his English wikipedia talk page since the indefinite ban. John Carter (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is aware of the thread on the AC talk page.— Ched :  ?  02:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John--no, I had not followed those links, but I heard from Ottava via smoke signals. I wish he were here to fix The Battle of Maldon, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--Ched, you and Ottava communicate? I'm really not sure what to do here. I don't know if I can rise to a vigorous defense, I don't know if I'm supposed to, I don't know if he wants me to, I am pretty sure I don't really want to make a lengthy and elaborate case. I said in that discussion that it's the principle that counts for me and I mean that, as inept and naive that may be. Ottava didn't tell me anything specific about what he wants or doesn't want. Maybe the ones that know and care should take over, if taking over is necessary. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, yes I chat with OR from time to time. I've never personally met him, but we keep in touch. Actually, ... I like the guy. But then I tend to like most of the folks I've met here. Sure I've disagreed with him at times, but it's never been an acrimonious event for me. But then I tend to disagree with just about everyone at some point in time if there's any extended interactions.
I'm really not sure what to tell you here, and I can't say I have a definitive answer as to the best way forward either. Don't sell yourself short on your abilities, you're one of the big guns around this joint; and with Iri, Bish, and a few other heavy hitters getting involved - I'd say there's a chance that mountains could be moved.
As far as what "HE" wants, only he can really respond to that. For me I've learned that I may not get any overly emotive gushing TY so very much hugs and kisses; but I can't imagine that he doesn't appreciate your efforts. I've tried to get him unblocked and/or some explanations as to why 1 year has automagically turned into 3+ years; but I'm not sure I'm anxious to relive the experience. I doubt that anything I'd say at that discussion would carry much weight with the all powerful man behind the curtain, but I will try to voice my support of this effort in some way. — Ched :  ?  17:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is one possible option which might maybe work here, although, admittedly, I don't know if it has ever been tried, or for that matter even proposed. I'm very happily not that familiar with the prison systems of the world, but think that, if Ottava and maybe you proposed it, that maybe some coming up with some sort of "work release" program for Ottava and possibly other editors who are productive but perhaps have behavioral concerns might be at least a first step toward their "rehabilitation", as it were. Basically, they might be, for an indeterminate but clearly potentially finite amount of time, be unblocked on the condition that they limit their edits for the indeterminate and unspecified future to a predetermined limited range of articles or pages, and that they limit their interactions with others to matters exclusively dealing with the improvement of those pages or topics or whatever, and, maybe, that if in the eyes of one or more uninvolved admins they step over the line of acceptable conduct, either through conduct on those pages they have been permitted to edit or editing beyond their predetermined range, be subject to restoration of site ban with much less likelihood of it ever being lifted in the future. If they function well in this limited environment, then there is certainly a chance that their range of edits might be expanded a little in the future, on the satisfactory "completion", however that's decided, of input on the content they have been permitted to be involved with. And, if over a sufficient length of time they basically stop displaying the problematic concerns that led to their current situations, they might eventually get unlimited editing restored. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this is to Drmies?. — Ched :  ?  18:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or anyone else, actually, which I guess might include you. I personally have some fondness for Ottava myself, although I do think that maybe he might have a little more, ehem, youthful enthusiasm and possibly less experience with the world than me. I'm over fifty now, and I think personally that there is a decent chance younger editors like him might become a bit more, well, less committed to personal ideals, shall we say, than they might have been, which would probably help them a little in dealing with the environment here. Honestly, if it came to that, I'd be willing to propose the idea myself, if anyone thought that would help, but I gather both of you know OR and his history better than I do, and either of you would probably be a better choice to discuss the matter with OR himself. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, I actually don't know him all that well. From what little communication I've had with him I'm not sure that he would agree to this but I could be wrong. I think that for Ottava it's a matter of principle, an all or nothing kind of case, but again, I could be completely wrong. Your suggestion involves an acknowledgment on his part that, well, he was wrong or, at the very least, that other editors have a legitimate problem with aspects of his edits/behavior. (I'm trying to phrase this a bit delicately given the broad readership this might attract; I have no wish to be judgmental or unfair to any side.) His communications with me, which have been very courteous and friendly if somewhat impersonal, did not specifically address his own behavior or the ArbCom case (with which I'm barely familiar anyway) but mostly expressed a despondency toward the powers that be. In other words, I don't know what he'd say, but I'm going to send him an email and point him here.

At any rate, I need to look at the current discussion again; perhaps such a proposal has already been made, or perhaps the discussion is already over. Thanks John, Ched, Drmies (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I've only had very limited contact with him myself. If he does insist on a blanket pardon, which you seem to be implying, he probably wouldn't accept the idea above. Otherwise, I'm not sure that the suggestion really does involve any sort of acknowledgement of wrongdoing on his part, just accepting the apparent reality of the existing ban. There is certainly a degree of grudging acknowledgment of reality involved, that being acknowledging the reality of the existing ban, but that's all. Personally, from what little I ever had contact with him, he seemed an extremely good editor when he wanted to be, but also someone with very definite opinions regarding the way he thinks things should work around here, and maybe a bit too rapid readiness to in some cases jump to at least somewhat broad, generalized conclusions. Yeah, I made the same sort of mistakes when I was that age, but now I acknowledge that they were at least a little, well, precipitous on my part. Hell, I made lots of mistakes of that sort when I started editing here in my 40's too, and still do once in a whlle, probably, today. But I do think that a proposal of this sort has a much better chance of getting approved than any other is likely to get, and it might not be a bad idea to take the realistic approach for the moment, and maybe choose to fight the good fight for principles a bit later, when, if he can conduct himself well for a probationary period, he might have better luck of winning later. But, realistically, he would get a lot more attention and possible support for any complaints or criticisms of wikipedia he might have here than he would at the Wikipedia Review or other pages which not only get less attention, but also probably a lot less credibility in general. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding?

[edit]

Special:Contributions/Donny Squeaky to User talk:Johnny Squeaky A pretty obvious WP:DUCK. --Go Phightins! 01:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's an impersonator. That seems doubtful though. Go Phightins! 01:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Donny and Ronny Squeaky are Mangoeater - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000

--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Johnny? Go Phightins! 01:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Red X Unrelated --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That's bizarre. Go Phightins! 01:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We get pretenders all the time. For example User:Dannyboy1209 2. Ryan Vesey 01:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but this one just seemed to fit the bill. Whatever. Go Phightins! 01:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Pig Day

[edit]

Upon your return could you (and any other watchers of AN 2.0) please keep an eye on the article on the holiest of holy days. There have been two new users I have had to revert, and since it is today I can only see it escalating over the next 20 hours or so, a few extra eyes can't hurt. May the pork be with you. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added to my watchlist. LadyofShalott 17:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weber Shandwick

[edit]

I'm a little timid about interacting with my PR colleagues in a volunteer capacity. If I am too lenient, I am being favorable to them, but too stern and it could be seen as some kind of anti-competitive editing. Plus, any PR agency article I edit could one day have a business or employer relationship with me (no doubt droves of fellow PRs hate me by now).

Could you oversight me here? I was pretty excited to see someone actually use the template[10] I've been working on and experimenting with. I think I'll back off the Request Edit queue again and just stick to the template. I just started processing the queue because nobody else was, but processing a request by one of the largest PR firms makes me itchy. I will most likely do some work for one of their clients at some point... CorporateM (Talk) 14:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, your comments and evaluation look fair to me. I would have declined on the exact same grounds. That template might take off--nice to see something you made actually used! And the point about mentioning factual errors separately, that's a valuable note. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes!! And the template is only used on a handfull of articles, so that's a good indicator that people do read it, understand it and use it. It's much easier to decline the request than edit-war in article-space or for the promotionalism to go undetected. However, I see the WP:BrightLine debate as potentially preventing the template from ever being used more broadly.[11] I don't see a consensus on the issue emerging anytime soon. Thanks for taking a second look. CorporateM (Talk) 15:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

[edit]

Hi Drmies. My editing pal Ryan Vesey just told me about your comments on his talk page. I just read them. You're cool. Have a nice weekend! --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since your're an admin, I thought you'd be a great person to ask something. In Kenny Clutch, IP 46 will not stop disrupting the article. Every one of their edits has been reverted. The editor's IP address keeps changing, but they all start with 46 and are all in Minsk, Belarus.
I didn't know if there's any way to stop this editor from posting in the article. If not, I understand. Sorry to bother you with this, but thanks. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No bother, but I've been pressed for time today and still am, a bit. Damn meetings, damn kids. They seem to have stopped for now: it's the childish determination of they typical IP hopper. If it happens again we'll have to semi-protect (WP:RFPP) since there's no useful block here--even a Luddite such as me can tell that there is no reasonable range that could be blocked. Usually such people give up and if they don't semi-protection is the only answer. Thanks, and thanks for your kind words, Drmies (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and you're very welcome! 76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please explain to me...

[edit]

What the hell does "B-side" mean in the context of CDs when one can typically fit way more than six pop songs on one side of one regular CD? LadyofShalott 18:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to an article? Singles, like Rolling in the Deep, are still listed with B-sides, so I assume it's more of a "we do this for tradition" type of thing. I'm not aware of CDs being released with B-sides, but it might be related to two CDs in one case. Ryan Vesey 18:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, see for example Virginity (song). There are a bunch of these articles where different versions of the singles are released, differing only by a song or two on the "B-side". How is this a useful concept now? LadyofShalott 18:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to be confused. It's combining single information with album information, I think. Ryan Vesey 18:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is correct. There are very many songs on the single. By the way, I saw your WP:HEY vote. I hope someone else improves the article. But if not, I will write several sentences eventually. It may look like I'm crazy about every song, but I'm not. I'm just defending them cause the articles are needed. I usually create stubs for AKB48 releases and I only put there the necessary minimum, just what most people actually read an article about a single for: what members got selected and what songs are on it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, these articles aren't "needed". What we need we can find at WP:CORE, and there's a ton of other things that we need. There is no way in which we're furthering any of Wikipedia's goals by listing every B-side and byline. You might argue the same about Kronos Quartet discography (a featured list, by the way) and the albums on it, but they stay well on the reasonable side of things. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you positive it's not an album? Ryan Vesey 20:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am positive. "Single" in Japanese is "シングル" (shi-n-gu-ru, four syllables), "album" is "アルバム" (a-ru-ba-mu), "mini album" is "ミニアルバム". These terms are written in katakana, so they are easy to read. By the way, each version has only 3–4 different songs on it and lasts only 24–25 minutes. Music videos can be very long, though. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"シングル" is three syllables but four moræ. Amazon lists "Virginity" as a single.[12] --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A-sides are the songs that are in the title. Everything else is B-sides. (Instrumentals are not counted.) For example, "Go! Go! Here We Go! Rock Lee / Otona wa Wakatte Kurenai" has two A-sides, it's a "double A-side" single, all the other songs are B-sides (or "coupling tracks" / "coupling songs".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I saw this question somewhere on this talk page: What is a "tie-up song" or "tie-in song"? A "tie-up song" is an advertisement song, a song that is "tied" to a product. If a song is used in an advertisement for something, it is "a tie-up song for" that product, "a tie-up for" it. Japanese people use many terms like this, terms that are constructed using English words, but don't make sense to an English-language speaker. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another synonym for the term is "CM song", CM for "commercial". More random useful unformation: "PV" is for "promotional video", which is the same thing as an "MV" ("music video"). --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume "unformation" is not a typo: I've used that word before. It seems to me you are tacitly acknowledging that our Wikipedia articles are intended ("needed") to give full coverage of the commercial bylines of the product. That is, by the way, as I expected. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, MC. That title song versus all other songs distinction seems useless to me. I don't understand why that should matter to anyone, but at least I understand the terminology now even if it seems pointless. LadyofShalott 03:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something that does seem confused - in light of these comments - about the "Virginity" article is the article's title. While the article is describing the "single" (as the Japanese apparently define it anyway), the article title says "song", which would not include any of the so-called "B-sides", but only the song "Virginity". If the article is kept, it needs to either be refocused on the one song or renamed to reflect that it is about the entire single. LadyofShalott 03:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on the deletion discussion page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(What I will say is entirely my point of view, unsourced.) When someone releases a double A-side single, it's like they are saying: "I wrote two good songs, two future hits, I will combine them in one release, and I will also shoot two music videos for them." A double A-side single is viewed like a release with two hits, which both will get airplay. Sometimes, someone releases a double A-side single, when two songs were intended as a set. For example, one song is a sequel to another or each song tells one side of a story or one part of a problem. Like, for example, in this case, where two songs were intended as a set: (And Drmies deleted many covers from it, while some of them were illustrating one song and some another). They also shot two music videos that could be combined together and were actually uploaded as one video on YouTube. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(And you know who did what to them. I did not put the video back simply because what happened was too discouraging to do anything. By the way, the article is only visited several times a day, so it's hardly "promotion", it is absolutely useless as promotion. People visited Wikipedia for information and told each other "Go to Wikipedia if you can't read Japanese and are lost on Japanese websites, everything is convenienty linked from there".) :D --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of "Go! Go! Here We Go! Rock Lee / Otona wa Wakatte Kurenai", one song as a rather incoherent song written to be an ending song (a song that plays during the end credits) for Naruto and another is a proper song with meaningful lyrics. If a song is selected to be used in an animated series, the song and the artist get a giant audience, so it was a good idea to release this single as an ending song for Naruto while leaving a proper song in the title. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When a song is released as a single, the song in the title is a future hit and the other songs are a fill-up. (I thought my previous replies weren't clear enough.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(More random stuff.) The song that is being released as a single is in the title. On Billboard, the physical sales of a CD single count only towards the title song. (If a single is a double A-side single, I don't know what Billboard does then.) But since Billboard Japan counts both physical sales and airplay and digital download sales and maybe now YouTube views too, it is possible for a song to chart on Billboard without physical sales. (Oricon counts only physical sales, it is a CD single chart, not a song chart like Billboard, therefore it is much more reliable. Oricon is the industry standard. No one knows what Billboard counts. Oricon also gets sales reports from more shops than Billboard.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who accused me of vandalism, brought me up at ANI, suggests that I'm scaring the hell out of you, cries that you're discouraged from doing anything, canvasses across the wiki-world to denounce my edits, continued to say, untruthfully, "I threatened to block you, and never apologized for any of it you seem to be feeling awfully cozy here. Please confine your explanations of these "meaningful" lyrics and the ins and outs of the J-pop TV and CD industry and your opinions on the goal and function of Wikipedia to various article talk pages. I understand your desire to answer the Lady's question, but you can't just walk into someone's house and make yourself at home after you shat all over their front porch and told everyone the house is dirty. You clean up the shit, all of it, and apologize. If you do not wish to do that, then you may only post here to notify me of more ANI shenanigans and what have you. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. (I didn't see where you explained that you didn't want to block me. I do think that your actions were too rough. But I truly apologize that I didn't talk to you and explained first. I was just too shocked that seemingly innocent things were being deleted when they could be left in the articles just the same. I admit that the articles are terrible. I create those stubs simply to provide some minimum of information. I suspect that articles like "Virginity" are being created with one sentence because the editors don't speak English well enough. It's still better to have an article than not to. The releases are very notable, people will come and read about them on Wikipedia instead of going to Generasia, etc. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. The way forward is to improve these articles by adding verified and meaningful prose. One of the participants in the AfD (Ryulong?) made a leap forward by condensing track information in boxes--that's a start. If member information is made less overwhelming, editorially and/or graphically, that's a good thing. I'll say this one more time and then I'm done: if the balance between prose and bare-bones facts (which seem trivial to me, and I'm a Wikipedia customer) is so overwhelmingly skewed, then something must be done. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for accepting my apology. The member info maybe can be shortened to just family names or hidden behind a spoiler. I will change the section header at "Talk:AKB48" about "articles being destroyed" and I will add a message that the matter is closed and that I overreacted and that we should create better articles if we don't want people to be shocked when stumbling upon them accidentally. I wanted to do it now, but I understood that my mind is not set on it. Thus, this may take a couple of days. (I think a break from editing is strongly adviced to me at this point.) Again, I truly apologize and I understand how you might have felt when you saw the huge lists. By the way, I also thought that the tracklists were hard to comprehend, that it took too much brain work to process them and to understand that the CDs differed by only a couple of tracks. (But I must say that when I wanted to add explanations of the differences between editions in prose to Momoiro Clover Z articles in the Japanese Wikipedia, another editor opposed me.) I am sorry once again. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Legg

[edit]

You may be interested in this: it started life as User:Flora85 which you took to MfD back in 2011, when it was kept because an SPA said he would develop it. He never did, JamesBWatson brought it back to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Flora85 (2nd nomination), but the conclusion there was that it was good enough, just, to deserve a try in mainspace. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to 192.5.110.4

[edit]

Hello,

You just posted some fairly crass comments to the shared talk page of an educational institution. Ironically, you were complaining about Wikipedia quality. I am not the person who submitted those changes, and I have no comment on them. However, I ask that you treat members of my school with common decency and respect. 192.5.110.4 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the members of your school should grow up, review the purpose of their education, and show common decency and respect to this encyclopedia :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bwilkins. It's the little stuff that's so infuriating. At least they made one improvement last time. Person who did not submit those changes, perhaps you can translate some book titles into English? Drmies (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, look at this one: Funayūrei#References. You know what this is, Bwilkins? Someone showing off their knowledge of Japanese, probably a non-traditional student or an untenured adjunct (someone old enough to use "carriage return"). They'll translate grudgingly but won't provide the bibliography since that's beneath them. Every department has one of those grumpy old men; in my department, it's me. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, if you don't mind my asking, what is your department? Go Phightins! 21:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
English, dear Phightins. We're all grumpy losers long before our time.

I spent a half an hour trying to get one of this damn references straight. I don't know what the hell they're using for references because of the insistence on using kanji when a simple English word would have sufficed. Pure arrogance, and from the tone used above I'd say it's the exact same person. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite web|1=和書}} is something only used on Japanese Wikipedia as far as I know. It is used to get one syntax when citing Japanese books (和書) and another syntax when citing Western books, but the template on English Wikipedia seems to ignore this. Some lost guy from Japanese Wikipedia, maybe? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not lost, I don't think--there's nothing wrong with their English. Stefan, if you could figure out what to do with those templates (and the references that lead to them), that'd be great. I tried once but only managed to screw it up. That article deserves to be much better than it is, by the way. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it was nice of Mr. Case Western to leave us some ISBNs. Unfortunately that's not much help: the first one goes nowhere. The second one is kind of funny since it gives us two options; I believe the second option to be a Dutch translation of Jane Suthering's Cool Desserts. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've translated a few of the references in Funayūrei. The links go to pages with those titles on Japanese Wikipedia. Usually people or publishers with an article on Japanese Wikipedia but no article on English Wikipedia. It seems that the one who added the links doesn't know how to cite multiple pages in the same book. See the lead, for example. It contains two references with ref name="youkaijiten". Same book but different pages in the same book. When the same book is cited multiple times, we need to make sure that the references work correctly and that you see the correct page count. Sigh, this is boring... --Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I was just going to remark on your work at Funayūrei. Nice. You're using a nihongo template which I assume incorporated both--I had forgotten about that and simply replaced the one with the other. Yes, this kind of work is utterly boring. In the good old days Uncle G would precook all those templates and I'd just cut and paste them. Anyway, there's one Tanuki title I couldn't find anything for. When the spirit moves I might try to match up the notes with the bibliography in English. Or maybe Mr. Case Western will have a change of heart, but I'm not holding my breath for that. Stefan, thanks for your help; I really appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tanuki#References fixed. There are still lots of titles to fix under Tanuki#Notes and in Funayūrei. You mentioned the ISBNs above. I can't find any evidence in any book database that the first book in Tanuki#References has an ISBN, but the databases might be incomplete. The other ISBNs look correct, but I see that the article uses ISBN-13 whereas old books normally would use ISBN-10. Not sure if that should be changed. Very annoying when someone uses "volume=下" since 下 means "last volume of 2 or 3". I had to search for the book to find that there only were two volumes in the series in order to translate that. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Genrin Yamaoka, an intellectual from the Edo period, concerning funayurei that appear as balls of fire or ghosts at sea, referred to Zhu Xi and the Cheng-Zhu school, brought up several examples of departed souls that died with resentment and remained even after carrying out their revenge, and concluded, "even by seeing something from 10 people, by sometimes going along with reason, you can also sometimes see it in ancient Chinese books (かやうの事つねに十人なみにあることには待らねども、たまたまはある道理にして、もろこしの書にもおりおり見え待る)"." - Fantastic sentence, better than most and worse than none... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a difficult sentence, obviously not in modern Japanese, which is why anyone would have difficulty with it.--New questions? 01:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the translation is a valid representation of the original, then neither one should be published anywhere. Actually, I'm beginning to understand it--though not the quote. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was, of course, referring to the quotation. I attempted to search around as to what the heck 待る could possibly mean but no luck. No luck for かやう either. It appears to be an author from the 17th century.--New questions? 02:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
待る is a typo for 侍る, a common verb in classical Japanese. Can mean いる, ある, です, or just -ます. かよう is the same as このよう. It's a little old fashioned, but you still see it occasionally. My take on the quote is that it means "Even though [funayūrei attacks] always seem to happen to commoners, you can also occasionally find references to them in the Chinese classics if you think about things in a certain way." But there's a fair amount of guesswork there. I'm not really qualified to translate classical Japanese (so, unlike whoever translated the article in question, I generally don't). Cckerberos (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole sentence is in need of work, not just the quote. This is why when I translated Ratu (band) from Indonesian there was quite a bit of rewriting involved. Languages have different syntactical patterns, and we have to remember the different expectations for different languages. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Craig McMorris

[edit]

Hi,

I don't know what the contents of the Craig McMorris article was, and in particular, if there was an actual assertion of notability made. I do know that this athlete is definitely notable. See his FIS record which shows competing at World Cup events, and at the World Snowboard championships. Could you please restore the article? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - When restored, I'll make sure that it is updated to make a clear assertion of notability, and comply with WP:BLP. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False Neutrality

[edit]

Hi There, You recently made a change to the Kings University College in which you took out information on past employment practices of the university. Interestingly, you justified your removal on the grounds of neutrality, however, I don't see your removal as advancing neutrality in anyway. You claim that my inclusion of information in the article is sensationalist, but I fail to see how. All I have done is include specific facts about the employment history of the university. I think it seems sensationalist because of the topic (LGBT issues) rather than the information. Please justify how the neutrality of the article has been advanced through the removal of this information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.171.212 (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, reinstate that again and I will block you for soapboxing. I hope that's clear. Second, you seem to want to prove that "place X has a history of discriminatory employment practices toward LGBT people" from one single example from 1991. You obviously have some kind of grudge, but Wikipedia will not be your outlet. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the improvements you made to the Kings University College entry. I see now that I was a little lazy with my background info. While I originally thought you were just a conservative ass, I now see that you were concerned with the improvement of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.171.161 (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you know. Thanks. The problem was that the information you provided suggested nothing of note, just an individual case, and as it turns out there was a lot more to it. On a non-conservative note, I'm glad they got rebuffed. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_46&oldid=1142555458"