Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 47

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

DYK for Stefan Matschiner

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Rotary Club of Milton

[edit]

Hello user Drmies. I am the original creator of this page. Thank you for your concerns. I have worked extensively with user GATechnical and several other users to make this new entry compliant. The page was originally rejected for not being unique or notable enough to warrant its own page. Much of the detail added relates to notable supporters over the years who are of great prominence including Walter Gretzky, Douglas Porter, Johnny Bower and many others.

The level of detail is meant to chronicle the club's history and is not intended to be promotional. Perhaps we can work on any of the semantics you find questionable. The detailed chronology is a factual representation of work completed. Service clubs by definition are agents of good works, so to construe a listing of good works as promotion is misguided. No offence.

Notable supporters alone I understand is not enough to justify a club's own page. However, the Milton club in particular is unique and notable among worldwide Rotary clubs for its demographics. The greatest of these demographic trends is increasing club membership while worldwide service club membership is decreasing, especially in North America. All of this is fact and supported by references in the article. For your information here is the notable attributes:

Situated in Milton, Ontario, the fastest growing community in Canada since 2001 (71.4% growth 2001-2006 and 56.4% growth 2006-2011), in one of the largest population concentrations in North America, southern Ontario's Golden Horseshoe, giving it explosive potential for membership growth (in six months club membership has grown by 30%). This is bucking worldwide trends as many clubs' membership numbers are in complete "freefall". Selected to be one of fewer than 200 clubs worldwide (0.0058% of all clubs) to participate in a Rotary International pilot program that supports member diversity by allowing the club to hold two weekly meetings via a satellite club instead of one (a breakfast meeting and a supper meeting) to attract different types of members (small business owners vs. commuting professionals). As a result the Milton club's membership is now 35% female and 17% visible minorities. Prior to 1990, the club was 100% white male Rotarians. For its early adoption among Rotary clubs and widespread, effective use of social media (Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, Website, etc.) For selecting one of the youngest club presidents in Rotary International for the 2014-2015 year who will be aged 31 by the time he holds office. Worldwide members under the age of 39 years old make up only 11% of total global membership.

From a purely objective standpoint, this club deserves its own page. Over two months of edits and justifications have been made in support of this page, not just by myself, but others as well who are unaffiliated with the club. I cannot see a flood of individual Rotary clubs being able to justify their own pages if that's the concern.

Thank you. Rod McLachlan (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stante pede

[edit]

Really? Ya always gotta make me go look stuff up? Ya couldn't have just said "posthaste"? Latin..German..Spanish..bla-bla-bla. Geesh. Too much work around this joint. — Ched :  ?  20:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I looked it up myself to see if I would problematize anything, and saw that we have one meager occurrence. I'm telling you, though, that it's a perfectly normal expression in the motherland! Drmies (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

[edit]

I don't really know what I've done to leave this chap feeling aggrieved (I probably deleted an article about a YouTube artist he created under another account. Or something.) but seeing as he's just carried on with the hoax theory rubbish, I've indef blocked him. If you think this is a stupid idea, feel free to unblock as an older and wiser admin. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New favourite word... Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My father was fond of using it. He loved Italy, and it was his version of the Non du père. Would you believe we didn't have that redirect until just now? Das gibt's doch nicht! Drmies (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hash

[edit]

Perhaps you could look at Perfect hash function and the editor whom I keep reverting and let me know your views. I'm about to block him, but I'd feel more comfortable doing so after someone else has looked at it. A few noes. He removed warnings from his talk page. He left a dissertation on my talk page that I removed because, among other things, it left an unholy mess. One of the things that really ticks me off is not only citing to himself (repeatedly), but when he added all those cites, he put the one pre-existing cite that wasn't his publication and moved it to the bottom. I suppose that shouldn't be dispositive, but it certainly doesn't help his credibility. Finally, the template warnings I've left him aren't the best; it's really a hybrid between spam links and self-promotion, but because the pubs aren't actual links, I've been using the promotional warning. A bit lazy on my part. I should probably have personalized the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. This deserves a prize. I don't know, Bbb--I don't have the frustration of having had to deal with this editor and I can certainly understand your feeling the need for a block. Competence (in Wikipedia matters) appears to be lacking, yes, but I don't know if I'd block. Look, I just came out of two long classes and am not the most rational person at this moment. Maybe someone else can be nice enough to have a look: I have the feeling I can't see straight right now, possibly because I can't see straight right now. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, he just left a demanding note on my talk page that I reinstate his edits immediately. I guess I didn't do it immediately enough for him because before a minute had elapsed, he'd reinstated his own edits. I could warn him about edit-warring, but although I haven't breached 3RR, I'm not much better than he is on that score. I know shit about the subject matter, and I'm not sure I have the energy to deal with him. I supposed I could report him somewhere - not sure where is best - but probably won't. Maybe one of your talk page stalkers will jump in, or maybe User:Glrx, who reverted once, will come back. I hope your vision improves. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need admin review

[edit]

Sorry, Drmies, I picked you because I saw you're currently editing. Could you please review the statements made by User:Lowkeyvision in this sequence of diffs? I believe that they probably merit revdel'ing, and that the editor should be warned. I'm quite involved myself, however, and so I can't act, and could very well be clouding my judgment. But I think that accusing 2 groups of being comparable to Nazis and the KKK, and asserting their absolute guilt of terrorism despite a lack of conviction on that is a problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, actually, I'm watching the Colbert Report (I'm a friend of the show). But you know. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well. I suppose I'm a nay-sayer tonight. I don't think RevDel is appropriate here. Your editor is clearly soapboxing here, but I don't think it's "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive". I'll leave a note saying that. Sorry, Qwyrxian, if that's less than you hoped. Maybe Bbb is finished with dinner and will deliver a more stern judgment... Drmies (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima talk page access

[edit]

Just to let you know, I have posted the result of the discussion on the Arbcom noticeboard talk page.[1] The result was not to grant talk page access. The page has become very active, and I did not want you to miss the response. Thank you for your kind words. Risker (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Risker, I just saw that and left a note (a redundant one, I suppose) on Ottava's talk page. Thanks for letting me know. As an aside, I read a whoooole bunch of other stuff on that page. Can it be true that someone was blocked for linking to Wiki...acy? I mean, fo shizzle? Maybe it's too late and my brain is impaired. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a long and complicated story and has more to do with *what* was linked and the message that accompanied the link. Speaking personally, and having been around long enough to have seen the damage caused to the project by the original BADSITES practices (not to mention the rebound popularity of the "forbidden" sites), I am not particularly in favour of knee-jerk removal of all links to such sites. On the other hand, I'm also pretty much opposed to providing them with much of a platform here, particularly given the poor quality of their blogs and the discourse in the forums. Unfortunately, WO has never really been terribly valuable as a criticism site, unlike Wikipedia Review in the 2008-2011 era. It's been pretty obvious for a while that a lot of the links people were adding that led back to WO pages were being inserted in the hope that they'd recruit more readers and participants. Guess they've got their wish now. Risker (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TY from me as well Risker. I know I can be a real pain in the patuckus .. but I really do appreciate everything you do. — Ched :  ?  05:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: Ched is a royal pain. Woof! Drmies (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ...yea .. tru dat ... and Thank you to Drmies. The efforts you go to in caring about others is a joy to see. (now hopefully I can find some OS person to suppress that) — Ched :  ?  06:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive forms

[edit]

I have been told that "Lentz' icons" is correct "at least in American English". Thoughts? Is this one of those not grammar, but style arguments? LadyofShalott 16:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, want to think about fully protecting Robert Lentz? Two other editors have (I think) each hit 3 revert in another matter. Because of my involvement (albeit not in that particular argument), I should not use the tools. LadyofShalott 16:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tell me to use my tool and I comply gladly. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just caught your double entendre. My fevered brain is slow on the uptake today. LadyofShalott 17:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
? Me? Drmies (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order: not that I know of (and see this). Of course. Yes. To answer the last: there is convention, which is an aspect of style. It suggests that "back in the day" an apostrophe alone was enough after a sibilant--one finds this in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, "Possessive Puzzles"--but the modern way of doing it is simply adding apostrophe+s (see Essentials of English Grammar 14.6). The Oxford English Grammar, 11.32, confirms the combination of the two and adds that Moses and Jesus are two exceptions since they already have two sibilants, and "traditionally" also Greek polysyllabic names that end in a sibilant (Aristophanes, Socrates). But in true descriptive fashion it also cites "Dickens' novels" and "Jones' children". To answer the real question, I have seen no evidence that this is allowed or current in American English, but "grammar", of course, provides no real answer. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This site indicates the division of thought about the issue now, apparently, but recommends against the usage of an additional s: [2]. This would be consistent with the usage taught to me in an American elementary school, which was that the apostrophe alone would be used after an s or z. But I still use "whom", which is rarely heard now. Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see that recommendation at all--in fact, it seems to suggest the opposite by pointing out that it's "some writers" who advocate s-lessness. As far as I know, if there was any standard in the US, let's say in the days when you were in elementary school (wild guess), it would have been Strunk and White, and they do advocate the s. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If only that were true, as I find that MOS:TIES gets quoted by many editors of a British or Australian persuasion in articles regarding their compatriots. But I can respect the MOS:RETAIN, certainly in this minor matter. Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I usually choose to simply defer to the Lady, on the general principle that we're all fallible/fallen but she's more beautiful than me and a librarian to boot. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hah, Drmies. Fair point, Daniel. FWIW (if anything) I'm also American, and the elementary school rule I learned was that a single word always takes apostrophe s; it didn't matter the ending letter/sound. <shrug> LadyofShalott 20:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it's worth, prescriptive grammar being almost always open to repudiation, there are two rival schools of thought on the possessive of words ending in sibilants: (1) Go consistently by form: if the word already ends in s, add only the apostrophe, otherwise add 's (Jesus', Felix's) (2) go by sound: if you say an extra syllable, add -s, otherwise add only the apostrophe (Jesus's (for most people, but pronunciation varies), Felix's, Lentz's, but Socrates', Moses', Melendez'). The false assumption that everyone says words the same has led to some of the conflicting advice, but version (1) has spawned an even more consistent version, the one the Lady was taught. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unblock

[edit]

Deliberately and repeatedly linking to the same article that outed an editor, then pretending he didn't know what a functionary was referring to when they asked for him to stop, is trolling. MZM knew exactly what he was doing; any other editor would have been blocked for the same POINTyness. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, thank you. What editor, say an editor like me, who cares about what articles look like and stuff like that, would want to touch any of this ArbCom stuff with a ten-foot pole? I read somewhere (won't say where, or who wrote it) that "[Editor X]'s gross misconduct here is more than ironic, given his vehemence in the [Editor Y] appeal case that [Editor Z] be banned for identifying to [Founder of Wikipedia W] [Editor Y]'s employer". We're running a soap opera here. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not wanting to is a pretty sane response :) I tend to think of the role of arbitrator as "we deal with the drama so you don't have to." The majority of editors don't ever get involved in arbitration and happily tinker away improving articles, collaborating effectively and solve disputes on their own, and not giving a damn about the latest kerfluffle, and that's a good thing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...for arbs :) --regentspark (comment) 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, for the project. We're supposedly here to build an encyclopedia, not to be a model community or a fucking debating society. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, RegentsPark, I'm more bothered by the professional drama mongerers, who may well have created the need for a Ministry of Truth. One ArbCom member was blasted somewhere for not having done much in the way of article creation--sure, but we have dozens of editors who frequent the boards, including the ArbCom boards, and don't write shit either, and the very fact that one can refer to "content admin" means--well, we all know what it means. David, I hope you see I'm not necessarily blaming ArbCom for the ArbCom stuff. I do think you should unblock MZ, by the way; I think in the long run such blocks do more harm than good. Actually, I know they do. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just kidding guys. Thought that was obvious. (Some of my best friends are arbs!) Sorry. Couldn't resist another quip!--regentspark (comment) 20:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's enough kidding out of you. RegentsPark, do you know that my first meaningful wiki-conversations were with you? It came out of disputes regarding Arundhati Roy. I'm glad at least one of my first encounters wasn't with an asshole, and I sure hope I didn't come across like an asshole to you. And as if pointing the way toward my future on Wikipedia, discussions about that article involved now-banned users and sock masters like Bharatveer and Mbhiii. Thanks for the help, way back when and still. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WODU‎

[edit]

Could you mark this page for deletion per "Not an actual radio station per FCC records, does not enjoy the same notability other stations under WP:NMEDIA and prior consensus." Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfCs

[edit]

I left a comment at this talk page DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Wow

[edit]

You know that discussion where someone refuses to listen...? All I can say is wow. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I said I was done so I won't look at it again. Hey, MQS, nice of you to drop by! How have you been doing? Still kicking it West-Coast style? I had a new thing for dinner, a Korean dish, consisting of raw fish, hot rice, super hot sauce, and two metric tons of lettuce. I feel so healthy I could puke! Drmies (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tasted as good as it sounds, huh? LadyofShalott 02:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the thing, Lady: it was cheaper than what Mrs. Drmies ordered (score!), and I impressed her with my consumption of greens. But it was a chore. Odd, how eating 63 chicken wings (and bacon and cheese-covered fries) is easier than a big bowl of lettuce. But it was a fun thing to eat and it looked very colorful. Rosie ate the tofu and seaweed in her miso soup and Sip ate a tempura-fried sweet potato, so we made progress today. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

[edit]
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two e-mails Drmies.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read 'em both. Thanks for being on the ball. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as a thank-you for helping remove that, here's something that needs little uncovering. With thanks to Bbb, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have I mentioned I'm not straight. Hahaha. But thanks. As an artist I can still appreciate beauty in any form. --Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops--sorry, I thought you were a girl... Drmies (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I updated my gender a while back. (That makes Dennis laugh)--Amadscientist (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny: I expressed a similar desire to Mrs. Drmies the other day. She just raised an eyebrow; she no longer laughs at or with me. I see that you and Dennis are still in the bunny phase--lovely! (Messing with Dennis is one of my few joys here--besides peeking at 99's nipples.) Drmies (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through my watchlist...

[edit]

and I wonder if you'd realized that Category:Historical rape victims was G4 deleted 4 days after creation. LadyofShalott 19:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know why that bothers me so much. I had another look at some of the arguments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#Category:Rape_victims and I don't buy the counter argument. Have you seen Category:Crime victims? I think that a discussion from 2007 really shouldn't be our guideline. I mean, some guy says, "blp concerns; not a defining characteristic of a person; it's an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". That would apply to any category involving people--and the tabloid comment was pulled out of somewhere where the sun don't shine. Apparently we can handle all kinds of BLP categories, including Jewishness, blackness, gayness, even gender (!), but not this one? There's some talk in the closing statement about Dekkappai (talk · contribs) who mentioned research--that was not played up enough. I think the category should exist even if solely for that reason: who were victims of this crime, in a given time and place, etc? Surely teachers have assigned, and readers and students have been interested in, cases like Lucretia and Artemisia Gentileschi and Tamar (2 Samuel) and Bathsheba (see [4]) and et cetera. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly it's a category with which we'd have to be careful (as is that case for lots of categories). I'm not convinced by the deleting admin's statement that historical rape victims is identical to rape victims because "all rape victims are 'historical'". I don't think that washes. LadyofShalott 00:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, Good Olfactory has given their blessing to recreation. Now here's the thing. What about that name? From where I'm sitting (across from the history department), "Historical" is a perfectly appropriate adjective for what I have in mind, but I wonder if that's universal. If I do recreate it I'll expand on that note. Any opinions on the name? Talk page stalkers? IP 99 et alia, do you have an opinion? Drmies (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... dead for more than a century... that would be a somewhat sparse category considering our systemic bias. On a side note (somewhat tangentially related... very tangentially), I can't believe we don't have an article on the njai. Surely you, Drmies, as a Dutch man, are familiar with the njai? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and as I knew would happen, the category didn't last a day at Cassandra.  davidiad { t } 22:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope ... misread the diffs on my phone ... I still expect objections.  davidiad { t } 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this

[edit]
Look for the birdie

Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Threat_from_Administrator Apparently it is a threat to tell a clueless SPA editor that persisting in a fruitless, pointless and baseless accusation might have consequences. Fladrif (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't criticize another editor's spelling, grammar, punctuation or diction. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that you proofread anything before hitting "Save Page". Nor is there a Mendoza Line that requires that one's IQ exceed one's weight. There isn't even a requirement that one's IQ exceed one's age. Fladrif (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
99, you're making reference to the tits in my edit notice, no doubt. Fladrif, fortunately my IQ still exceeds my age, but not by much. I figure I got three or four more years. It's a tricky position anyway, since one is crushed from both sides, my IQ dropping by at least ten points every year: "I dare not move my dim eyes any way, / Despair behind, and death before doth cast / Such terror." Drmies (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No criticism of spelling intended, as it's not a cardinal sin anyway. And don't brag, Drmies. I'm quite certain my IQ's lower than yours. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) While you guys go on and on about birds and tits (as usual), has anyone ever looked at the "instructions" at WP:EAR? Does it say anywhere what kinds of problems are appropriate for the noticeboard? It does have a bullet about what NOT to post (typical of Wikipedia, btw), and even that is wrong, as one is not supposed to post conduct issues at WP:DRN (I'm gonna change that bullet).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WK is a saint, a know-it-all saint. :-) Thanks to both of you. I'll have you know that on my own I found the editnotice applicable to EAR and changed that as well (same change).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left a trail of breadcrumbs to ANI for Wombat.[6] Popcorn? Fladrif (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fowl language, eh? Clucking hell. - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, all, have a look at the category question above and see what you think. Crisco, you're supposed to know something about content; consider the name please. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll never forget this one, from when I was a kid [7]. Couldn't believe it, and who'd a thunk it: a Dolphin flipping the bird. By the way, Drmies, you actually let Mrs. read the posts on your talk page? Man, if Ms. 99 read mine it'd be curtains. I tell her I'm sexting with Ukrainian emigres. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAIRFLIP

[edit]

What was the term we use for, you know, the editors who retire in a huff and then unretire and then et cetera? I'm asking cause Mrs. Drmies is on a Baby Board (it's hilarious! I just learned about unicorns that shit rainbows!), where they use the expression "hairflip" for those who run off leaving lengthy messages and stuff. I wonder if we could start employing that term here. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? LadyofShalott 02:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Yeah, my unicorn poops rainbows"--that's what you say when someone talks about how perfect their life and babies and marriage and all are. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's an image that begs to be painted. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me remove inapproriate content from Al Ahliyya Amman University page

[edit]

Dear Dermis, I am trying to remove some inappropriate or unwanted content displayed on the Al Ahliyya Amman University page, which is intended to create a bad image about our institution. So please review the content which I have removed and accept the removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.167.139 (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOSFLAG

[edit]

From this link, we shall notice that each participating player was registered under the member associations (country), is this still inadequate to prove they are represent for the country rather than present individually? --Aleenf1 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't change matters. In many of those cases the national association may be involved, one way or another (if only for compliance with doping regulations etc), but that doesn't make it national representation in the way that the Olympics or a European/Asian/world tournament is. Note also that, if I read it correctly, you can have double teams with players of mixed nationalities. BTW, I have no intention of going through all those articles to pluck out the flags. Also, The tampan is still active as an IP editor; you may have noticed I blocked another one, and reinstated the first block on the registered account, now for two weeks. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can have mixed nationalities for doubles event, but it doesn't make sense if the players not represent for country. Read this, each tournament organiser (host association) will send an invitation letter to member associations rather than player itself, than only player can submit the entry to represent the member association. Make sense? --Aleenf1 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, first thank you for all of your help with User:The tampan. It is greatly appreciated. Second, regarding the flags, when players are announced at BWF Super Series events they are announced as "representing Denmark", etc. I do think displaying a players flag twice, as was done at 2013 BWF Super Series, is too much and you were right to remove them, but for the individual articles I do believe they belong given the BWF announces them as representatives of their country at BWF sanctioned events.--MorrisIV (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Morris--thing is, all athletes always get announced with their country, but that doesn't make it a national representation in the sense of MOS:FLAG. This matter came up in regard to MMA events not too long ago, and you can see the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts: search for "flag" and you'll find at least two mentions--one for infoboxes for individual athletes (I've removed a couple for badminton players already) and one for tables with results, where references is made to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons] (or, MOS:ICON). Now, I can grant you that there is much more international organization in badminton and other sports than in MMA, but I still do not believe that this is of the level of Olympics or World Championships. Plus, I read MOS:FLAGBIO conservatively. I am one of those editors who finds those flags needlessly distracting; they serve no purpose but evoke nationalistic feelings (hey! there was a Dutch player there!) and their colorful aspect takes away from the things that matter.

On a related note: the Badminton WikiProject has nothing on the topic. Maybe you guys should take this up and establish a guideline. There is an important RfC (yet to be closed), at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons--and if I do a rough reading, I see consensus leaning my way (you know now what my way is). Obviously, I won't be closing this RfC. :) Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Request_for_specific_linked_examples_for_further_discussion indicates where it might go. Anyway, take this up with your project and see what develops. It's a good idea to have a guideline, whichever way it might go. Thanks to both of you, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, consider keeping me posted if you run into The tampan editing from an IP address again. It's very irksome: I'm sure they could be a positive editor if they'd stop screwing around being incommunicado and persisting in rather stupid edits (they keep changing a Muhammad to a Mohammad, necessitating a redirect, for instance). Maybe one of you can bring them to the table. If they persist, it's an indef block waiting to happen, and semi-protection for all those articles they're working on. They need to abide by the MOS and by consensus, and they need to start doing edit summaries and communicating on talk pages. Chances are, it's another fifteen-year old who is bashful about communicating in a non-native language, but zealous enough to disrupt on a grand scale. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly written in the guidelines, that flags should indicate the sportsperson's representative nationality. I have never seen an international sports competition on TV, in encyclopedias, simply everywhere, where the nationality is not listed. --Florentyna (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only thing that says is that the flag should indicate the representative nationality in case of doubt, dispute, et cetera. It doesn't say that there should be a flag, and you shouldn't be surprised to find that our guidelines aren't the same as those of other places. Then again, I don't see a lot of TV competitions where flag icons are used so frequently (well, excessively abundantly) as in some articles here. Please read the guidelines more carefully. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Log the block

[edit]

Please don't forget to log the block of CSDarrow.--v/r - TP 17:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gotcha--thanks. BTW, it seems that my block was pretty mild compared to some others... Drmies (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. It is what it is. It's called uninvolved admin discretion for a reason and so your block can't really be determined mild because it's within the acceptable range :). I don't know your experience in enforcing article probation, but in the future you might check the log first. This one doesn't, but some probations specify a minimum restriction as well.--v/r - TP 17:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Issued

[edit]

Hey Drmies, hope all is well withy ou. Just wanted to give you a heads up that I issued a warning to User:186.207.133.169 after this edit. It was clear vandalism, so I issued what was essentially a Warn1 warning. I hope that this doesn't cross over any of my restrictions, if it does, I will revert it posthaste. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Homer! Always nice to see you. I had to do a bit of re-reading, including User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive12. Vandalism was one of the sticky points, but I think that your edits have been sufficiently boring (by which I mean not generating drama) that we can trust you with it. If needs be, re-read that discussion, as painful as it may be, keeping in mind that there were dissenters even last time, when I brought this up at ANI. If you can continue to live with 2R, and can be satisfied with giving templated vandalism warnings and the occasional report at AIV, then that's fine with me. I've been thinking about rollback--perhaps you can go through the normal channel to regain permission: that really should be a decision made by others, not by me. Thanks, and take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL! My friends always said my liking radio stations (and radio station articles) were boring, now I have written proof. :) Though I never thought they were "sufficiently boring". LOL! :D Anywho, I don't think there will be a repeat performance by that editor or the need for further warning. I figure it was a bored kid using a proxy to removing things from Wikipedia. I will, though, forward any future edits to the page to you so I don't get close to 2RR, just to play it safe. :) Take Care and Have a Good Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance With Disruptive Editing

[edit]

I may not be in the right place, so please forgive me if you are the wrong admin to seek out. I was brought to your page because of a warning you sent to User:Johnny Squeaky for disruptive editing and personal attacks.

The point in dispute is the IPC section in the Medgar Evers article. User:Johnny Squeaky is trying to tag the section as trivia when it is in fact a presentation of some significant works that deal with Evers' death. Two other editors and I have removed the tag, and I have pointed out to this editor that there is a functional consensus not to include the tag. I have tried to engage this editor on the Talk page (under "Edits June 2011" because that is where JohnnySqueaky posted his remarks) and asked for a response, but he keeps overriding the reverts with assertions about IPC sections that are, at the very least, neither welcoming nor collaborative.

I am not requesting a block on this editor at all but rather an intervention in the editing of the article. There is a de facto consensus against this tag, and JohnnySqueaky is ignoring it. I'm not sure that this is an area in which you could be of help, but any assistance or advice you might be able to offer would be appreciated.Sensei48 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mi Es

[edit]

Ĉu fakte vi nomo estas mallongigo de "Doktoro Mi Esperas"? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Oranĝa Miĉjo[reply]

help requested

[edit]

Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin has a new SPA ranting excessively. He actually has some decent suggestions, but insists on making accusations of a cabal and bias. Hes single handedly doubled the length of the article talk page currently, with highly repetative rants and accusations. Could someone send a warning and some guidance his way? the suggestions from the article editors seem to not be going anywhere in that regard. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll be glad to, but it'll take me a while: dinner is ready, and then it's bath time etc. Is Dennis on the clock? Drmies (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • will check. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, you mean Betsyross--I though maybe you meant the IP. Whoa, yes that's a lot of ranting. I'll drop a warning of some sort, but it's likely you're dealing with another crusader who's already lost to the cause. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also left a note, then removed the double breaks on that talk page. It was making my eyes sad. Been a long hard day, going to grab a beer, hop into bed and watch an hour of TV with Mrs. Brown. This is the center of the peak of my busy time of year, I'm a bit cranky, so you don't want me around here too much anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Dennis. Hey, I'm watching Woody Woodpecker with the girls--they love it, and I enjoy it too. Take it easy, and give my regards to Mrs. Brown. Did you get the CD I sent you? Barry White's Greatest Hits? Drmies (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obvious sockpuppetry from the betsy, if one of you would like to intervene. Based on the other policy violations, id go for an all around ban myself, but I suppose thats why im not an admin :) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, yeah, sure. I left the new one a note. Let's see if Dennis feels like blocking tomorrow. If y'all hadn't jumped on the latest comments, I'd just have reverted it as soapboxing. I don't know, Gaijin. I suppose you could start an SPI, which would have the advantage of making the next one easy to get rid off. Maybe I'm just tired of dealing with a**holes; damn, even my kids were nicer than some of the people I ran into here today. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betsyrossmadison did you drop your admin bit? (Just wondering why you keep defering to dennis) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Dennis is a real man, unlike me. Also, he has a sidejob at SPI, and he's a nicer guy. No, I blocked, I don't know, a half a dozen? a dozen? accounts and IPs today. It's like being an executioner--it gets a little bothersome after a while, and after a day full of bullshit I tend to stay on the safe side. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned you at ANI, Drmies. I think we are done helping them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like music articles?

[edit]

Well then, I've got a puzzle for you: Is Killwhitneydead notable, and likewise the mess of articles covering their albums? None are sourced, and all appear to be impressive copyright violations, or just blatant ads. Does the entire crop merit speedy or a group AfD? And how's the new fence coming? 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You and deathcore? Never figured you as a fan of blast beats. I just bought a 2x400W amp, so I can handle it. I'm inclined to say scrap 'em all, after a quick look. I found Gunmetal Angel in one of the histories, and they know metal; my go-to guy is always Blackmetalbaz, whom I usually have to pull out of semi-retirement, but he always comes through. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw--I won't pile on. Hey, I redirected all those albums. The Stocking Stuffher thing (what an offensive title) had a nice cover. Put the band article up at AfD and see what happens... Drmies (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One caveat: if a band has a couple albums with a notable label, they're notable (so we had to keep Creepmime, despite the complete lack of secondary sources). But the notability of Tribunal Records is not yet a given--and a label is notable (you guessed it) if it has a couple of notable bands on their roster. Ha, that's how you build a walled garden. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or you could just, ahem, register. No, speedy won't fly. Tell you what, I'll do it, since I am not convinced of their notability either. But you'll have to do the work on it. DYK that I actually ordered a Creepmime CD, just so I'd know? It sucks! That's how much I care for this place. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ball's in your court, 99. Have fun with it. I'm going to drink some more delicious beer. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per: walled garden, the founder of Tribunal Records is the lead singer of Killwhitneydead. It's the bountiful circle of life. As for research, I find myself constantly having to purchase books on nudes in art as part of my work. We all make sacrifices, you know. Enjoy the beer. You've earned it. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes lately I really wonder if I should hand the admin bit in. Then a really hideous username comes up on the screen, and I zap it. Maybe I just need to unwatch most of the drama boards. Or just not edit while still recovering from the flu. Bah humbug. (several edit conflicts. Also, your talk page is >300kb, Drmies. I might as well get out all my grumps.) LadyofShalott 03:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah? Well, at least I got the girls to bed, cleaned up the kitchen, did the dishes, prepared Liam's bottles for tomorrow, and folded a bunch of laundry. Your kitchen, dear Lady, still smells of the curry you made Saturday. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better now, Lady? Give me half an hour and I'll be there to clean up your kitchen, make you some hot cocoa, and tug you in. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good night's sleep may do wonders. I gotta run upstairs and look after a sick Mrs. Drmies. There's one more ANI case that warrants investigation, "Threat to an editor", and I hope that someone will look into it; it won't be me and it won't be you either, dear Lady. Natti natti, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood

[edit]

Yes, I understand what you mean. I got your message and understand that those comments showed poor judgment and lack of maturity. I shall not make comments like that again. Thank you and have a great evening. OGBranniff (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OGBraniff

[edit]

February 27, 2013 isn't "recent", friend? How do we, then, define "recent" on Wikipedia? That question being asked, I do approve of your gentle but firm efforts to reform the reprobates. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Recent" in terms of "block to prevent further disruption", which is the kind of thing ANI does. Also, my dear Cullen, I just stepped on a slug, not ten minutes ago. Do you know what that does to a man? (or a woman too, I suppose.) I no longer believe the universe is benevolent. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you know, I live in Northern California. You may not know that I live at the edge of an open space district of several hundred acres, inhabited by all sorts of interesting critters. When walking in the dark from car to front door, or the reverse, I will often hear an unmistakable "crack" as a snail's life ends under my sole. I console myself with the realization that other snails are being born, all around me. When it is light, I watch for them. Thanks for the clarification, which makes sense. As for the benevolence of the universe, it allows you and I to live for the time being. That is good enough for me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might not have seen this, although March 7 might not qualify as recent enough any longer either. Quale (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I didn't see it. It's fairly recent, but the only real offensive thing is the edit summary, but that refers to content and not to a person. That's a pretty important difference. But look, as far as I'm concerned the case is closed, and bygones should be bygones. Future infractions (but they'd have to be serious breaches of civility, not like the cruft comment) can be deemed blockable. For now, OGBranniff said they'd refrain from offensive comments, so let's take them at their word and apply our good faith policy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Admin:Drmies, I appreciate the warning you issued as result of the ANI. Just couple things: 1) I think it's easlier to let bygones be bygones, when one isn't the subject of the deprecating comments, for me, I'm not willing to let a bygone be a bygone due to this, for which there was no apology, and no notice by any Admin. This user has also called me "stupid", "lazy", "hypocritical blowhard", "kid", "junior high schooler", and "idiot", without provocation or retaliation from me in kind, and even after I've asked him to stop with the insults and names. 2) The problems with User:OGBranniff, alluded to by Quale at the ANI, extend beyond civility, but a lack of understanding of policy and a bullishness regarding what he thinks he knows, coupled with pointy agendas. Examples are his insistence Jimmy Wales would back him re his "sluts" comment and arguing WP:NOTCENSORED, and the superficial job he has done submitting 18 AfDs on British chess players without doing any of the prescribed legwork, without any article Talk discussions, without flagging any of the articles, and exaggerated claims and thoughtless insults regarding the existence of the articles in his noms (e.g. that women players aren't inherently notable; neither are Correspondence grandmasters; a claim a professional British poker player and author writes books "nobody buys", etc.) So for me, I see a pattern of just abuse of process, causing disruption. The user came on board also with a bad experience from independent website www.chess.com, knows the management people there, and has taken aggressive action eliminating any trace of that website in WP articles. (He also was blocked as a result of dialoging comments towards editors he deemed were coming from that website.) He also has tried to garner support from User:Forgot to put name, and User:Mkdw, in effort to construct some sort of cooperative battle-barrier in anticipation of perceived grieved chess.com users coming to WP to reverse his achievements eliminating references. I don't know about you, but all of this I see as battleground, and misuse of WP. Ok, thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ihardlythinkso, this comment is of course unacceptable (but, again, they're old and thus not really actionable on ANI). I can't judge the chess.com claims--whether they're better than a MySpace page or not; they may be, though I don't see an editorial board, for instance. Anyway, the point about chess.com is not for discussion here. As I suggested elsewhere, consensus in the relevant project is the most useful tool for countering such arguments (if "arguments" is what they are--no doubt the two sides would see that differently), and a previous block is a tool as well. But all of this really points toward an RfC/U where, armed with a. consensus and b. diffs that disruptively counter that consensus (again, if those exist--I don't want to presume that I know) one can make a case of ongoing unreasonable behavior. A discussion on the talk page of the chess project can lead to that, also to avoid the charge of canvassing, ganging up, etc. I hope that helps. BTW, if it is true that the editor claimed that women chess players are to be somehow treated differently, that's a pretty crappy kind of claim. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Drmies. The reason I said that is because women chess players are treated differently. Female players have their own titles and the requirements to attain those female titles are lower than for the standard chess titles. It's much the same as women being allowed to tee from the "red" markers (which are closer to the hole) in golf. For a purely non-physical sport like Chess, however, the different standards for women mean that the women, in effect, are being treated differently. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OGBraniff, I am happy if I misunderstood. I hope that you are editing productively and inoffensively, and that you are well. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, everything is copacetic here, thank you and I hope you are well also. OGBranniff (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for feedback

[edit]

Sorry about the slug.

I'm looking to get some informal feedback, before I try posting something at Village Pump Ideas.

Any chance you could suggest how to improve Top_ten_editors? Someone has already suggested that identifying the editors with the most edits as the "Top" editors might not be wise. I get that, and look for better wording, although the linkage to Top Ten lists is appealing to me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Sphilbrick--thank you for your concern; the talking cure seems to be working a bit. I'll have a look--I'm sorry that I'm not yet familiar with the concept.

    OK, I'm familiar with the concept now. I think it's an interesting thought. I only recently clicked on "Contributors" in an article history, and it's meaningful information. That said, I also think that the number of edits isn't necessarily the most helpful thing. All too often I have to go back to add a [; I seem to miss that key stroke very often. Now, if you look at one of Malleus's FAs you'll see that those edits are in fact worthwhile individually, and conversely, Mandarax, with his gnomish edits, makes one edit per article and improves it immensely (and not always just in a technical sense). But the basic information of a top-ten list can be quite helpful; what it means may vary greatly from one article to the next. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full agreement that the list of the top ten, as measured by edit count, often won't match what we might consider to be the ten best contributors to the article.
However, I am going for low-hanging fruit. In fact, I'll use you as exhibit 1. You have more experience than 99.99935% per cent of editors, and even higher in the list of readers, yet, if I read your comment correctly, you didn't know how to easily find a list of the top contributors. If you didn't know that untill recently, it is quite fair to infer than almost everyone reading does not know either.
So while it would be nice to deliver a carefully constructed list of the best contributors to each article, with 4 million articles we could start today and not be finished until, well, by then there would be 10 million articles, so if we do anything bespoke, almost by definition, we will never be done.
On contrast, delivering a list of the top ten by edit count is something a bot could do. So, not wanting the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and knowing that the perfect, or even very good is literally unattainable, I propose that we do something crude, and easy, which would deliver a lot of value.
As a compromise, I'll accept that a better list could be created in some cases. Not million, but perhaps we could start with a modest subset, such as FA articles, or Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 or Wikipedia:Vital articles or the top viewed articles, and do something specific for those articles.
I want to do something that gives useful information to readers, who often ask, "who wrote this?" and give some credit to hard-working volunteers. I think this could deliver on both, without a major effort.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote slightly to excise the word "top", and to include your point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm curious to see what this will look like. Thanks, and thanks for your efforts; please keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

[edit]

Adding useful biographical information, or spamming? Talk page stalkers' thoughts welcome. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks spammy to me. LadyofShalott 15:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me, too, though some days I'm more circumspect in pulling the trigger. Would you recommend removing the mentions as both references and external links? Thanks, 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I recommend looking carefully before you put your foot down outside the kitchen door. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The external links definitely need to go. Whether that information is interesting enough to be incorporated into the article, I don't know, but it certainly shouldn't be doen the way he's done it, in a separate line all its own with another external link in the middle. (Also, dude, it's just a slug. I've stepped on 'em barefoot before; yeah it's not the post pleasant thing ever, but c'mon.) Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh, eeww. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • WK, I've done it barefoot as well. FYI, this comes after a night in which 3/5 of my family was puking. I mopped the downstairs bathroom just an hour ago. Can you imagine what puke looks like when it comes from the upper bunk bed, and hits the lower bunk bed, and all its bedclothes, and the linen drawer underneath, and inside of it, and even under it? That was at 2AM, and I didn't have my glasses on. Also, when I rinsed out a bucket of puke at 8AM, I discovered that my seven-year old still doesn't always flush the toilet after dropping off the Cosby kids. So, I've dealt with almost every kind of slime known to man these past 12 hours. Hey! I should make Jello--it's excellent for sick people, and how appropriate! Drmies (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remove agent's listings immediately. Wait: that's all they're doing--that's a spam-only account. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a rough night, though there must be some small enjoyment in the telling of it. Otherwise, meriting a barnstar for actions well beyond those expected of an admin. If Ms. 99 asks me to so much as wash a dish I invoke the importance of my work here, which has worldwide ramifications. Needless to say I'm very popular. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klavierspielerin

[edit]

Since you seem so keen to undo my edits, I'll unwatch the page. Hope you're happy; nothing like being more right consistently than other editors. Tchuss. Icarus of old (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

[edit]

Drmies, I would like to voluntarily give up the rollback right for the time being. As you know, I often edit with a "smart" phone touch screen. When reviewing my watch list, it is common to accidentally hit the wrong tiny button with my large fingertips. Visiting an unintended page is no problem. On the other hand, rollback accidents are irritating and embarrassing, so until I get a better mobile device, I would like to give up this tool. Can you take care of this for me? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider it done. A rollback accident is indeed embarrassing. I'll give it back any time you like. Thanks, my dear Cullen, and I hope you and yours are well. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Writ Keeper noticed this transaction, and offered me some spiffy CSS code that keeps rollback off my watch list but still enabled on other pages. Wow, how cool is that? So, when I need it, I will still have it, but accidental usage should be reduced to near zero. Just another reason why your talk page is a great place. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow. Writ Keeper is a magician. I wish he'd delete the main page in my name. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • For what it's worth, if your rollback of my comments here a little while ago was in any way troubling, it needn't be. We've all made similar mistakes, and as long as they're quickly rectified and constitute a small fraction of one's edits, nobody takes them to heart. Parenthetically, my comments weren't vital to the encyclopedia anyway. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going to make the same watchlist suggestion, which works everywhere, but I have an additional safeguard just for your mobile devices. If you add the following to your common.js (or monobook.js or whatever), any rollback attempted from a mobile device will require confirmation:

        importScript('User:Mandarax/ConfirmMobileRollback.js');

        MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

        • That's pretty neat. I usually disable JS on my browsers (it slows page loading considerably otherwise, at least on my phone), so I tend to stick with CSS-only solutions for my phones. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • a. 99, I rolled you back? My apologies. (If it's over a week ago I probably don't remember.) b. What on earth are you all talking about? Keep your CSS and JS and FFS to yourselves, please: this is a happy place. c. A real nice teacher got all the puke out of my youngest daughter's hair: now we've all got it except for me. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy a stroll down memory lane?

[edit]

Hey Drmies! You don't show your face round the India stuff as much as once you did. Fancy a change? The last sentence of this talk page edit says "I wish if any other admin can come forward and say something on this !" If you or some other admin lurking here (since an admin is what they are insisting on) wants to trawl through Talk:Ezhava#Please_Edit_this_article_ASAP and the subsequent sections then opinions would be appreciated. Yes, WP:DR has been suggested. So has WP:GS/Caste. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems likely that at least one other admin has also commented as a consequence of this request; perhaps, two. I've no idea if it will make any difference but some people were asking for the views of admins and now they have some. Most likely, the claim will be that all are part of a Great Conspiracy Theory but, hey, that's what I pay you for. That last is intended as a joke, stalkers: no financial or personal gain has or will occur because of this thread. The stock market may go up or down. The only sure things in life are death and taxes. If you jump off a high cliff then you'll likely kill yourself. Like me, Drmies likes the occasional beer. Et cetera. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI template

[edit]

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continue Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Superman-Clark Kent/sandbox please?

[edit]

He isn't the only one who does this (Creates alternate history userboxes) and I'd like a larger discussion. Do you think there is appropriate, or would you rather see it elsewhere? Also, I believe that Wikipedia:User pages is the appropriate guide.Naraht (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait--you don't believe he was just practicing? A larger discussion is fine with me though I'm not sure if it's necessary: it will depend on how many of those sandboxes you've run into. Have you put any up at MfD? And if you want to keep that MfD running, make a comment there. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe that what he was doing was creating an Infobox for displaying elsewhere and I'm interested in a discussion as to exactly what in Wikipedia:User pages is the key reason under which it could be deleted (and I don't think there is one). I'd have gone with Oppose if the MFD had remained open. In short, if an Infobox is created for Abraham Lincoln presuming he completed his second term rather than being assasinated. I'll make a comment there.Naraht (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Naraht--Wikipedia:About the Sandbox offers users leeway to experiment. But when such experiments veer into the non-historical, fantastical, imaginary, etc., then, in my opinion, WP:NOTWEBHOST comes into play, where I find the shortcut WP:UP#GAMES--I wasn't yet aware of that particular section. It seems to me, then, that Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not might be a good venue. But I think that UP#GAMES section covers it sufficiently, though one might always quibble about the term "extensive". I brought a whole bunch of user pages to MfD a few weeks ago where that would have been a good shortcut to use. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheDutches/sandbox, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:IDZeroNo/I.Z. (now deleted--a set of pages related to a highly non-notable artist), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nicholasiswhoa/sandbox, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Worstcook/sandbox ("Fantasy Survivor"--there's a ton of those), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DiRkdARyL/Sandbox/Survivor: Tocantins (possibly a draft), and especially Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hornean/Archive/Favorite United States Major Sports Championships and other associated sub pages for {{User|Hornean]]--Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hornean/Archive/Favorite TV Shows and a ton of others I nominated on 16 February and all of which were deleted. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

A stub just for me. Other may have their wikidays, but I have a stub for myself, now. Thank you very much. If you ever come to Brussels (which seems not so improbable, me thinks), just ping me, I owe you at least one drink of your choice, and yes, even champagne. Lectonar (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Glad to be of service. I'd never even heard of it. I'm drinking one of Belgium's best, right now: Delirium Tremens. I have fond though blurry memories of Brussels, since I brought some really good hasj on that school trip, almost 30 years ago now. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, although I am not really a beer drinker, let me point you to the products of Westvleteren Brewery. I have acquired a gueuze tooth, so to speak, and I enjoy a strong beer from time to time, always going for one of the trappistes. Actually, I get chided for that by my German friends/colleagues, who always tell me that a beer not brewed according to the all so holy Reinheitsgebot is not even worth being used for cleaning the floor. Lectonar (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aafia Siddiqui

[edit]

The last time you were involved in this article was in conjunction with a sock (since blocked). Now we have a problem with a new WP:SPA who keep insisting on adding material that is unreliably sourced (he clearly has an agenda). I've reverted the editor 3x in 3 days and left escalating warnings on his talk page. That hasn't stopped him. As he said on my talk page, he has to add "KNOWN fact[s]." I suppose I could block him (that was my threat) but don't feel comfortable doing so without another admin's view of the issue. I could also go to BLPN (the article is very messy and I keep thinking that one day I'll sit down and go through the entire thing with a scalpel). Anyway, if you have a moment ... --Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo

[edit]
 Hello Drmies, Eduemoni↑talk↓ has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing drama-mongering

[edit]

A serious question - how do we reduce drama-mongering on Wikipedia? There's clearly a class of Wikipedians who exist primarily for the drama, the debate, the politics, the testosterone and adrenaline of the fight-or-flight-or-fuck response. What I'm interested in is cutting them off at the knees and leaving them out to wither in the sun, leaving content editors to continue to build an encyclopedia. Is there any way that you see that this can be done within the constraints of Wikipedia, or are we doomed to continue with unending cycle of drama-high drama-exhaustion which have been the norm ever since I can remember?

I've thought about closing down drama boards, I've thought about blocking editors whose contributions to Wikipedia space vastly outpace their contributions to article space, but I don't know what the answer is. I just worry that if we keep going on this way, eventually the project is going to implode when the weight of the irrelevant overwhelms the weight of the productive. Any thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I do think that we need to protect our functionaries (Arb, CU, OS), or there will be nobody left to do these jobs. I mean, I've criticized Arbs before when they've done something worthy of resigning, but the way that CU and OS holders have been treated, I wouldn't be too surprised if nobody wanted to apply during the upcoming appointment round. --Rschen7754 06:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's literally a thankless job. The same is true of admins - and I thought that well before I became an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respect (most) admins because they do a really difficult job; I respect (almost all) Arbs because they do an entirely impossible job; I would like to meet many of the drama board regulars and ArbCom commentators at a party, so I can sucker punch them in the gut and lay them up for a couple of days, so we'd get some respite from their constant crap - that's how angry they make me. In the long run, I'd rather find a way to reduce the drama, defang the commentators, and lower my blood pressure, while maintaining a healthy colloquy within the community about the administration of the project. How? This is a genuine cri de coeur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it's only a website. Maybe you should consider some time away from the screen. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We should get rid of all male editors under the age of 25. We'll probably lose a fair number of admins but that's the price one pays for testosterone reduction. Actually, I've found a good way to reduce the drama at ANI is either (a) ignore the topic or (b) close it immediately (and block anyone who reopens it). You should take a look at this discussion - I mean, really, someone always has to respond to the endless repetition of the same points. Many Wikipedians feel that the only good argument is one that is interminable.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) As you get older, you'll find that time goes by more quickly, which makes no sense, and you'll regret not enjoying the slower temporal progression of your youth. And if that sounds mildly patronizing and a bit pompous, suck it up. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who's in the past focused on adding content, and now primarily sifts through recent changes, I think undue drama is just one component that's a drag on the project. Vandalism, soapboxing, and promotion are all immense timesinks. Chekhov likened the usefulness of art critics to the artist as that of flies to a draft horse; so too the legions who abuse the site constitute a perpetual disruptive buzz. I've long thought the solution needs to be draconian: shut the site down to all but (arbitrary number here) between twenty and fifty thousand serious and able contributors worldwide, some assigned to specific topics, others 'free-ranging', and others overseeing the project for quality and neutrality. Paying them would be nice, but if the site is recognized as reflecting consistently high-level scholarship, some who won't dip their toe in the stream now may become interested as volunteers. We'll still need admins, if only to check the egos of academics. Yes, this means an end to 'anyone can edit'....thank goodness. If we're serious about quality trumping speed, then the project won't suffer if it waits a few days before posting news on a professional sports transaction or an actor's demise. Apologies for going on a tangent that departs from Beyond My Ken's point, but the issues are interconnected. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now my youngest daughter is sick at home. She's very cute (incredibly cute), and she's feeling well enough to chatter incessantly: it's impossible to get anything done. Mind you, she's not here "to improve the project"; in this allegory the project is my work and she has her own agenda, which in the grand scheme of things is much more important of course. That latter part does not apply to the dramah mongerers, the professional boardgamers, etc., but that doesn't take away from the allegory. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. BMK, we have an "up" on ANI, it seems. That's one thing, and it can be dealt with. A couple of admins get busy and handle things quickly, and the board is quieter again--I've done it, Bbb and Dennis and Crisco and others do it as well on a regular basis. ANI problems arise for a variety of reasons, though--some of them (see Ihardlythinkso's remarks, above) because they're not really ANI problems, or aren't presented as if they are, at least not initially. Much of the "juvenile" drama happens elsewhere, BTW--see, for instance, the wonderful contributions of Johnny Squeaky, with the attendant incessant lawyering, whining, and complaining about abuse admins. A problem with such cases is that if the admin is attacked personally they are less likely to take decisive action since that has the possibility of being perceived as retaliatory, which is the only reason I haven't blocked him indefinitely yet.

    A major ANI problem, right now, is of a more difficult nature and I have no easy answers. The spillover of the Cla68 mess and the subsequent (or otherwise related) indef block of MZMcBride and possibly the resignation of Hersfold (seriously, who'd want to be an Arb these days?) generates more drama, and more important drama, than all the juvenile delinquents put together. Some jerk makes an ass of himself and occupies a bunch of people's time, that's one thing--but with Hersfold gone we also lost an admin, an oversighter, a checkuser, and Dennis will know even better than most of us how necessary it is to have a bunch of those on the clock. And what inevitably happens is that all the old grievances are rehashed. Editor X had a problem with Arb Y, which means that X must comment at length about Y in the case of Editor Z, which again prompts Editor A, who was blocked for having baited X in the edit war over article 1 two years ago, to et cetera. I don't want to name names, but there's a whole bunch of such commentary right now, and I think there's some in the Demiurge thread as well. How to stop that? And then there's something else: some people have legitimate beef with past ArbCom decisions, and have lost faith in the system, and those people want to be heard in related threads, legitimately or not. I'm surprised that no one has brought up Scientology, Santorum, or Fae in the recent threads--keywords in Wikipedia's version of Godwin's law.

    We could: a. close ANI discussions quicker, but only after thorough investigation (no one has as yet looked into "Threat to an editor by User:LarryTr7", including me). b. back each other up in handling the juvenile delinquents; we're doing that already but we could do more. c. keep ANI for incidents and maybe steer more substantial cases to AN. d. keep the non-As off of AN if you catch my drift. Not so simple:

    ad a. one might feel that complaints/incidents are brushed off; some feel that way already and it might get worse. ad b. this might well reinforce the idea of a blue wall, a cadre, a cabal--again, some feel that way already etc. ad. c this requires a kind of steering committee, possibly, to ensure that decisions are made quickly and fairly. ad d. see ad b., but worse, haha.

    I can't help but feel that the real problems are in the complicated cases (note: "cases", not necessarily "editors") from recent past and present and in no particular order--Malleus, Demiurge, Cla68, Fae, Jack Merridew, AGK, diacritics, Cirt, Youreallycan, SHIVILITY, ... Do I need to go on? The problem lies either in our governance, or in the execution and application of our governance, or in the perception of the execution and application of our governance. The problem is ArbCom, by which I don't mean the members thereof (I personally don't have a problem with any of them, and appreciate their time and energy for that thankless job) or even the way in which they collaborate--but ArbCom's relation with the rest of the editors/admins and means of operation and definition of duties. And that is something I know nothing about, besides that it's not working.

    To improve a situation, choices have to be made and not all of those are pleasant. To return to my previous allegory, in order to have some peace and quiet to record these ramblings I resorted to shitty tactics: I put on a DVD of the Kronos Quartet and told my youngest she could play iPad but had to do it quietly--so she left the room. Now I can work, but I'm deprived of her delicious presence. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No no, not at all. I agree with the spirit of your remarks, but there's a problem with the implementation (of a draconian version)--it would be the end of the joint... On the other hand, right now I'm advocating a kind of tinkering, and one may well ask if tinkering will suffice. I don't know, 99. I'm tired of all the nonsense and drama generated by the need for speed--some people called for my head over the Trayvon Martin ado, which still isn't finished, and look on the Sandy Hook talk page for some other recent time sinking. What you're proposing is a hardcore professionalization and that's been tried before; it didn't attract enough people for it to work. Oh, last time I said something about content in an apparently impolite manner I got my ass blocked, haha. How's that for drama.
  • Thanks. I'm under the weather for the second time in a month, and just hoping I'll be okay to travel and teach by the weekend. I think the best thing that can be done when a high profile/late breaking article is overrun by warring users is to lock it down and let cooler heads prevail. But then, we live in a country where people react to a chipmunk farting by loading up on firearms. I didn't know the 'professional' approach had already been floated. Another utopian idea bites the dust. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I really do believe that one of the fundamental problems underlying a lot of the ArbCom mess is that many editors - or at least many of the most vocal squawkers - really do not want governance in any meaningful sense. There's a profoundly libertarian streak which runs through the computer programming/online world, and it manifests itself here in the editors who object to pretty much anything ArbCom does. If I'm not mistaken, there was no equivalent to ArbCom in the original Wikipedia model, it was all supposed to (in some unexplained way) be self-governing through the interactions of the constituent editors, with Jimbo the benign god-king to be the final arbiter. There was no provision for the election (horror!) of a quasi-judicial body, because that would be too much like government, and libertarians don't believe in the efficacy of government. (I'm actually surprised that no one's done a poli-sci study of Wikipedia as a model for why libertarianism would be - as my son says - an "epic failure" at running a society were anyone nuts enough to allow that to happen.)

    As long as there are editors who don't believe in the system, regardless of who's an Arb, there's going to be the constant undermining of the Committee's authority. It may perhaps be the case that in trying not to wield their power as lightly as possible, ArbCom itself reinforces the conditions that allow that undermining to continue. If we're looking at Draconian solutions, it may be that ArbCom needs to be more heavy-handed in squelching that behavior - but, of course, the backlash would be fierce, requiring more application of power, etc. etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the replacement of the potentially omnipotent (but usually benign) divine god-king by mere mortals with limited authority is part of the problem, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, libertarianism wouldn't fail quite so epically if we humans weren't such assholes. Omnipotent benign kings wouldn't be so bad if we humans weren't so stupid. Basically, people are a problem. Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, when the car breaks down, the part that fails is the nut behind the wheel. Which for some reason reminds me of what Churchill said about democracy, that it was the worst possible political system, except for all the others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Writ Keeper, I think it's pretty fucking funny to hear an administrator use that kind of goddamn language on my talk page, you fuckhead. I'm going to slap a civility warning on your pimply ass: you will clean up your motherfucking language or it's the end of you. Also, sure, you got a point--and this is why we need government of one type or another. But not gun control, of course. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that's just one more reason for Bbb to ban us all. We young'uns are so liberal--or is it libertine?--with our swears. Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just happy anytime I see the word "monger" in any context. It's also been fun recently seeing how many users are demanding to see material that oversighters have removed. I know we all believe in transparency, but when it comes to handling privacy breaches transparency is obviously a bad thing. The community, as a whole, can't seem to tell its head from its ass on these sorts of topics. They want their privacy protected, they want libel and innuendo removed from BLPs, and they want to know all about it. Somehow they don't see the contradiction inherent in that position. And <gasp> I didn't even get elected to this thankless job, I was appointed by the evil arbcom! (I was a candidate in the last attempt at electing OS and CU users. It was a disaster in that it was a secret ballot with very little discussion beforehand. We had something like nine pre-vetted candidates and none of us got elected, leaving us with no idea why.) And now it's become to much for one of the arbs and they have handed in every tool they had. I'm not at all certain they will be the only holder of advanced permissions who feels like it isn't worth it anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (added after edit conflict: my sincere sympathies to Beeblebrox, and to Hersfold.) Poor Drmies, maybe mocking a naïve viewpoint will be a fun distraction (and I'm going to declare upfront that I recently made my first and possibly last attempt to edit an article with Pending Changes in place - the interface defeated me and I got no sympathy at the noticeboard; some of us really are bad at this computer stuff) ... I have a rather different take on it. Yes, there are drama-mongers with nothing better to do than hang around AN/I. But overall, I see the main problem as bureaucratization. This is not supposed to be a professional gig (please don't limit editing to people who can prove their credentials. We'd lose almost all the new blood, including wild cards like me, and in fact almost all the Wikidragons and the highly valued contributors, like Malleus, were unknown quantities when they started) and familiarity with parliamentary procedure and forensic debate should not be required; they are precisely the wrong kind of model for collaborative writing, and they've become the de facto modes of interaction. I've been shouted down in a discussion because I "did not seek to persuade" the editor demanding changes. I find Arbcom pages incomprehensible, there's so much lawyer-speak and the procedures are so opaque. What happens at AN/I is an awful collision of those who have a problem - whether it's their fault or not - with those who know the bureaucracy inside out and those who think they do or who like power and/or want to be admins. Of course there isn't time for examining everyone's case in detail and of course we have to have a certain amount of trust in those who do know the case. But especially since WQA was shut down, and because of the reaction against "drama", AN/I either slices and dices rapidly and not always justly, or judders for an extended period with bad feelings on all sides. It's hard to overstate how off-putting this is for the common editor; nor is it an efficient way to deal with trouble-makers either by educating them or by minimizing the damage they do. It's the showiest, most bureaucratic and most arbitrary way to solve problems, and conflicts with the message that we want people to edit, and with the objectives of keeping both experienced and new editors. And the problem is systemic. I've been mulling over whether to put my head on the chopping block over something and have concluded I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of how to go about doing it .... namely: Requests for Comment closures are damned near irreversible, because consensus is sacrosanct here. However, determining consensus is a bit of a black art. (I intentionally blew that question on my RfA because I didn't want to allude to what I still consider a bad determination of consensus.) We currently have one (non-admin) editor of whom I am aware who has decided in disagreement with the guidelines that it is very important to close RfCs with a decision - more so than to be sure they are closed correctly. One close they made has apparently been basically ignored - but it's had the side effect of driving me away from a project, and I don't think I'm alone. I heard this last week about another of their closures where the RfC is apparently going to start again. There is no other recourse. This is bureaucratic procedures and those who have a high facility with or liking for them, impeding others' work. I have no idea whatsoever how to reverse this trend - I suspect the Foundation would fundamentally disagree with me, and I know process matters - but the more of this stuff there is, and the more we admins either tacitly or explicitly support this increasing lack of transparency/esae of use and increasing difficulty in getting things reverted, as opposed to using our tools and greater familiarity with the place to grease the wheels and quietly fix things, the more offputting Wikipedia is to those who primarily want to contribute. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well ,I do not know if this is already known widely, but I think it just might take a bit of pressure off WP:ANI....Lectonar (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breaktime

[edit]

R to Yngvadottir, somewhat randomly--I'm curious about that RfC; feel free to email me details. I used to close them regularly and they are very important; I should get back to doing that since the backlog is still considerable. Ha, speaking of drama--closing RfCs can be a real dramah generator, and when they're disputed they really take all the fun out of it. I think I'm becoming an old guy--we're complaining a wee bit too much about decisions that are made at the level above (and I do as well, of course).

I agree with the ArbCom procedures comment: I don't understand them at all and I've not contributed to much there. I posted a question on a talk page there asking about Ottava; that was as involved as I know how to get. I spent some time talking about ANI because it's a fairly easy fix, in my opinion, but as I suggested the role of ArbCom and its place in the community is, in the grand scheme of things, much more important--but I have precious little to contribute there, and no one is really going to care about my opinion since I have so little experience. Beeblebrox, if you could fix that, that'd be great.

I'd like to see some instructions/governance for AN and ANI. I mentioned somewhere a while ago that ANI also should be for administrators only, unless editors are asked by special invitation. ANI used to be treated like a kiddy pool for would-be admins, and in all honesty some of the best recent admins have come "from" there (I don't want to mention any names, since I wish to preserve the anonymity of folks like Mr. Stradivarius, Bbb, WK, Sergecross, DE12345whatever, Mark Arsten, Giant Snowman...). So maybe ANI does have its function in that regard, and should remain open. But AN should, on the one hand, be used more and, on the other, be strictly (more or less) for admins. OK, I'm rambling, and that's also because all the girls are here, they're healthy, and we're doing homework. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As usual, I appear to have my head in a tunnel. I did NOT know that Hersfold had resigned and I'm very sorry to hear it. Otherwise, I have read all of the posts above, and as much as I value the analyses of many of the contributors, I wonder if anything will actually change. I remain, as always, a cynic. On a brighter note, I'm glad Drmies's girls are healthy again. Where would we all be without the ongoing updates of Drmies's family?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd be nowhere, Bbb. They are in fact healthy. Here's a distraction from drama: my wife got a call from the PE teacher tonight. Apparently my oldest (7) has been taking cough drops at school--yes, it's like unto using cocaine. As it happens, cough drops are now regulated and must be dispensed by the school nurse, and only on a doctor's prescription (I'm not kidding). So my daughter wrote a note, trying to imitate my wife's handwriting, which said that it was OK for her to take cough drops. So, my 7-year old is guilty of forgery in order to obtain access to controlled substances. I'm kind of proud of her. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two important questions: (1) What cough drops was she taking? and (2) Did she have a cough? Of course, she can exercise her fifth amendment right not to incriminate herself. I think you should complain to the cough drop industry. Long live Ricola, the (imported) cough drop of the privileged.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) I have been silently reading this discussion for a while now and was trying to restrain myself from chiming in, but I must say that I started laughing out loud when I read that your seven year daughter forged your wife's signature so she could have a coughdrop. That's a pretty resourceful young lady if I do say so myself. Go Phightins! 02:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb, my head was in a tunnel as well. Malleus left the building a few weeks ago. I'd not been checking in on his talk page, and I missed the scrambling of the password. Go Phightins, I want that piece of paper and I'll secretly frame it. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, look at our current situation in real government. Is it really any surprise that we have trouble making things work? The reasons for those problems are basically the same. People typically lack open-mindedness.--The Devil's Advocate</fon> tlk. cntrb. 06:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by "our" you mean in the United States, the problem is essentially the same as I described above about Wikipedia, and it has little to do with "open-mindedness." The American system at the Federal level is biased towards two parties and systemically discourages having multiple small parties. Of the two parties as they now exist, one essentially does not trust government or believe in its ability to get things done, and therefore doesn't really care much about shutting it down or obstructing its operation, and the other can't get a strong enough grip on power to take bold steps to alleviate problems. Hence, deadlock, and constant bitching from the anti-government party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting discussion, my two cents. I believe much of the fundamental problem is the product of an "us" vs. "them" mentality between the administrative cadre (and its elected Super Administrative branch, ArbCom) and the bulk of "ordinary" editors. The former tend to see the latter as troublesome rabble and the latter often see the former as a social circle of self-important drone bees. If this analysis of the fundamental source of conflict at all correct, I can't think of single worse idea than locking out non-administrators from matters of site governance at AN/I and AN. Let's just look at what is really not working: ArbCom is a failure in practice because it is opaque, insular, cliquish, and slow. Making the administrative caste more insular, more like ArbCom, would be three steps in the wrong direction in terms of calming troubled seas. If people really want to fix the situation, they'd be advised to split up the administrative tool kit and to return to the authentic practice of the slogan "Adminship is No Big Deal." Keep the blocking buttons and revision deletion buttons tightly restricted and subject to RfB-level scrutiny. Break down the wall between "editors" and "administrators." That's part of the solution.
Second, there need to be better paths in and paths out of WP. POV warriors need to be shown the door more expeditiously. Those grumpy-but-productive sorts who have been tossed for this reason or that need a better path back than the dysfunctional current process, which treats editing around a block like some sort of capital crime. Some of the most enraged critics of WP are the subjects of more or less specious blocks and subsequent Black Marks of Ultimate Sin for editing around blocks. If one truly wants to dampen the level of conflict and rage, there needs to be a reliable path back which can not be sabotaged by the hysterical screaming of opponents.
Third, there needs to be a mature understanding that there is always going to be bureaucracy in a large institution like WP and there is always going to be a place for justified criticism of the failings of bureaucratic structures. Plugging one's ears and forcing those things off site isn't going to make that criticism stop. There needs to be a centralized on-wiki place for such things to be vetted. JimboTalk is probably the closest incarnation to what I have in mind — and maybe that's the best that we can hope for. But there needs to be a mechanism for a fulsome discussion of shortcomings so that legitimate issues may be raised and resolution reached. This is only going to get worse as the money rolls in to Wikipedia and is spent in a decentralized (spell that "ill supervised") manner. Sorry to intrude. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No intrusion, Tim--you're always welcome here. Hmm. I can't disagree with your assessment of ArbCom as a group; I can't fully agree either--I find myself torn in all kinds of directions, especially after I read the Malleus News this morning on one of their talk pages (I have no idea which talk page of which sub page). While I think you're generally correct in your us vs. them categorization, practice shows that the boundaries are more permeable in individual instances. Thinking back to some of the MF disputes from last year, there was actually very little of that going on, yet the typical MF dispute would fit in squarely with your second point. What we saw there was herds of editors (and editors accusing each other of herd mentality) including admins. I mean, I don't know that people like Wehwalt and Ched and Bish and et cetera act like admins in such disputes, and set themselves up against someone or some group. In fact, most of the editors I have in mind were probably very wary of pulling out their block gun, though there was enough vilification there to warrant a handful of blocks (and from where I'm standing, it was the others, of course).

    Now, with "editing around a block", you mean socking (to put it bluntly)? Like supposedly Jack Merridew has been rumored to possibly have done? We need good content editors. I never really knew Jack, but if, for instance, Ottava Rima had been socking all this time without creating a fuss, Wikipedia would have gotten better articles even if <gasp> against the rules. I've had such discussions with Kww: I don't believe in mass-rollbacking edits from a blocked editor now socking as an IP (it's counterproductive in many ways, one of them being that they'll return to those articles if they've been reverted), and I do believe in returns. The mechanism seems difficult, though, and the last time I tried that for someone on AN it didn't end with the welcome mat being rolled out again.

    You see, I'm still not sure that there is something fundamentally wrong with our three-tier system (I follow you in not even including the bureaucrats), though I do know that frustration is all over the damn place, as was evident in your RfA (and not just your individual frustration--it was palpable in many comments there). But I'm just a kind of conduit here, since I simply don't know enough about ArbCom. Ha, I'd take ArbCom 101, which is a class taught by Beeblebrox: it's only an hour (and two six-packs) long and is guaranteed to make you no wiser. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once described a reputable private mental institution in Southern California as (and I paraphrase) "a good place for what it is, whatever that is." Not that I would compare ArbCom to a mental institution, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one bites the dust

[edit]

Coren. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about a more tangible heads-up....

[edit]

.....and you seem to like birds, although I did not want to give you a 3rd tit, so perhaps you will like this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Wet_kookaburra.jpg

Enjoy. Lectonar (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, that's charming. Poor little bird. Did you mention Westvleteren? I spent weeks trying to get an appointment with them and thought about driving by there last summer, but all to no avail--I still haven't had it. I'm looking at my hands to see what it's worth for me: I might give the top of my left pinky for a case. And I love gueuze, ever since that Brussels trip, but that's sold in stores here, unlike that Westvleteren. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, what makes the thing with the wet bird even more funny: in German he is nicknamed "Lachender Hans", but he doesn't look like he is laughing now, isn't he? And to rub salt into your ever growing virtual wound concerning Westvleteren brews: I do not know if your left- or right handed (I'd say right-handed, though), but I would bet fair money that after even one sip, sacrificing the top of your left pinky might not be enough...Lectonar (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks a lot. The best baseless insult I can come up with in retaliatory fashion is that we beat you in Hamburg in 1988. I do hope to have one of them before I die. Haha, Lachender Hans--you guys do have a sense of humor. I always thought Strammer Max was funny, though it still strikes me as a penile reference. Bis spaetzle, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fair answer to that, about the penile reference....it is only a penile reference because you want to see it as one....and I am glad I am not into football/soccer. I went to a French school, and so played rugby. Lectonar (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Drmies likes this. (especially funny since I just read a bunch of poorly written undergraduate "Lacanian analyses")
There is no cabal, only the Yakuza....I could upload a picture of my left hand to commons.....the price I had to pay for the Westervleteren was awful. Lectonar (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to get the consensus for becoming an admin....I have almost constant duty on the Reichstag. Lectonar (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snacko

[edit]

To Drmies and Drmies page watchers: I've already prodded this, and had templates reverted--if I add another template it'll crash the system. Continuing in this vein will look like edit warring. Would appreciate help, perhaps AfD. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I would not be happy if I made it into the Air Force and completed basic training, only to become the snack officer. "We're at war! These men need candy bars!" Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request/advice

[edit]

Hi Drmies, User:Ryan Vesey suggested that you'd be a good admin to speak to about this. (You can see my original request to him here)

I'm having ongoing problems with User:Danish Expert who I just can't seem to get through to. The user definitely means well, and has made many valuable contributions to the project. However, far too often he veers into the realm of content which does WP:NOT belong in the encyclopedia. Usually this involves added ridiculously minute details (such as the number of times and specific dates that a bill has been debated in all the various committees of the houses of parliament for the states listed on European Fiscal Compact, sourced exclusively to primary sources because no secondary sources cover such non-notable events) and non-trivial analysis of data. I've spent the last 6+ months trying to explain to him why such content doesn't belong on wikipedia (as have others), but he just won't accept that wikipedia isn't the appropriate location to publish his original research. The latest discussion is at Talk:Latvian_euro_coins#Latvia_and_the_Maastricht_criteria. He wishes to add a table with a month-by-month summary of an analysis that he has conducted on Latvia's economic convergence with the eurozone. He sources the raw data, but to compare it to the Euro convergence criteria he must do some in depth calculations that clearly go beyond WP:CALC. He must also make numerous assumptions in his analysis (such as deciding if a state qualifies as an "outlier" or whether a state has faced "exceptional circumstances") for which the European Central Bank has not clearly defined a methodology. He then tries to make far reaching conclusions ("According to the official statistics from Eurostat, Latvia as of 31 December 2012 only complied with 4 out of 5 convergence criteria (due to exceeding the interest reference value limit at the time), but as of 31 January 2013 it indeed complied with all 5 euro convergence criteria.") supported exclusively by his analysis. Every time I (or someone else) tries to explain to him that his analysis is WP:OR, he responds with long rants about how his analysis is WP:The Truth and that since he can't find sources for the results he has no choice but to do the analysis himself.

I'm trying to avoid taking this to a formal admin board so as to avoid the inevitable drama. I really believe that he could be a valuable contributer to the project if he could just focus his energy on things which belong on the project. However, I'm at a loss on how to get this across to him. I was hoping that you might be able to give him a bit of advice and help explain why such content doesn't belong here? Perhaps a fresh voice would help emphasize the message. I've suggest in the past that adoption might be a good idea for him, but he took offense to that and insisted that he already knew everything. I suppose the other option is an RFC/U, but his issues are less behavioral and more comprehension of the policies so I'm not sure that that would be the best route.

Any advice would be most appreciated! TDL (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That looks like fun. My advice right now is to make a big pot of coffee. I'm about to look at the Latvian euro discussion, which happens to be one of my favorite topics of conversation. Ryan Vesey, thanks a lot. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I can read all of that. But this, one doesn't need to be an expert on CALC or monetary anything to see that this is original research, with commentary, of the kind that would fit very nicely in a publication not under the auspices of Jimmy Wales. Adding a bunch of primary references, even if at the expense of a trip to the Polish Ministry of Finances, doesn't help the case. Pardon me for not knowing (or caring about) what convergence criteria are, but I don't see the point of that entire section, even if it were reliably sourced. (And please point your opponent to MOS:FLAG...)

    What is it that you like? You could gang up with your two fellow editors (while Heracletus isn't watching) and start a revert war to get him blocked. That's terrible manners, of course, but the fact remains that you have three editors who don't want it in, and one who does, and one who is somewhere in the middle but closer to your side. If you like, I can step in and lay the law down, but CALC is a bit outside my preferred area. What you can do is an RfC on this particular issue--not an RfC/U, but an RfC, to ask a. is this OR? b. does this need to be in this article in the first place? OK, two RfCs. That will settle it, at least for this article, if that goes in your favor. That discussion would have to be acceptable reading for a layperson.

    But if you want more--namely, a larger investigation/conclusion of DE's edits, with a kind of decision at the end--then an RfC/U is the only way to go. Of course, if you start with one article, you can use that to help you with the rest. I am sure they'd abide by a decision in an RfC; if not, they're in trouble. Now, I'll have a look, when I can, at their other edits; maybe there is something useful I can tell them. Given what I saw on the talk page I just plowed through, something needs to be said, but I won't be going in to cut that entire section--with consensus on the talk page, that's your job. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, so does "Drmies said so" officially count as a WP:3RRNO? I'm trying my best to be polite about this, though after months of epic rants like this I admit that I'm losing my patience. My concern is less about this particular case (which the consensus is clearly against), and more with the larger pattern of editing. Usually these issue arise on articles which me and him are the only primary contributors (ie this and this) making it hard to keep the OR out of the project without edit warring myself. The user means well, and I'd really like to see him succeed because he has extraordinary enthusiasm for the project and could be a valuable asset. Unfortunately, he assumes bad faith of me so it doesn't matter what I say. I was just hoping that if someone with authority clearly explained to him why his edits are problematic, and the potential consequences of continuing such actions, he'd be more receptive to policy based arguments Let's see how he reacts to your latest comments. If the problem persists, I'll start a RFC/U. Thanks for looking into this! TDL (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have now left a full reply on your enforced Revert, which I fully accept for as long as the talkpage debate continue to reach WP:CONSENSUS about whether or not it shall be included. The disputed content has now instead been uploaded to my sandbox, so that we can continue our ongoing work with it into a state that ultimately can be accepted and included by the article at wikipedia. I hope you have time to reply at the article's talkpage on my raised follow-up questions posted personally to you.
About TDL's so-called general concern about my "pattern of behaviour", I have just posted this personal reply to him also at the articles talkpage. As we are all grown up highly intelligent adults, I do not expect we at this stage need to launch a RFC/U or RFC against my account. You are welcome to comment on this if you like (but you are also welcome to stay neutral out-of-it if you prefer so), either here or at the articles talkpage. Honestly, I would have preferred if TDL first had attempted to contact me directly at my user talkpage about his so-called general concern, instead of sneaking around behind my back, where he last month contacted 1 admin and then this month contacted you, but never left any note about his general concern at my user talkpage - which normally would be the first place to start if he wanted me to change/improve my ongoing "working process". I WP:AGF on behalf of TDL, and just think he has been a bit clumsy in the way he attempted to approach me in a multiple number of cases (something I see a general pattern for, btw). For sure I am not mad on him, and can fully understand his point of views. He is a great editor that have showcased a lot of enthusiasm for the project, and truly a great asset, so I hope he will stick around and contribute positively, for as long as I will. Danish Expert (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Danish Expert, thank you for your response. I have to say, though, that I don't think there's anything sneaky in TDL's actions: I read the talk page discussion, which is, frankly, exasperating and it seems that you are not listening to or addressing the concerns uttered there by a number of editors. RfC/U was proposed because if, which I cannot right now state as a fact, this is a pattern of behavior, then it is not a good idea to handle this one article at a time. I do wish to impress upon you that the charge of original research is valid and I have little doubt that it will be seen in that way by a majority of editors. You are free to disagree and post a note at WP:ORN, and by the same token TDL may do the same. Perhaps you will accept it if a discussion at that board leads to the same conclusion. Thank you, and all the best, Drmies (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and sorry for being so late to respond. I am really fighting to find time to close this case in a good and well-reasoned manner. Although I sence, that we are all now moving speedingly forward in that regard. My note here to you, is just to notify you that I now finally got time also to leave a reply directly to you about my "working method" at my talkpage, and that I suggest we only continue the debate over at my personal talkpage, about the appropriateness of my proposed new upgraded version of the future "working method for my user account here at Wikipedia", where you should note I have now indeed agreed towards TDL to have been sloppy a few times in the past, where I forgot to leave CN tags for an unsourced part of my upload line, and now promised directly to TDL in the future to be a lot better to remember this (so that I become better always to remember dividing my formulated line into two parts, whenever I face a situation where the first part of the line can be directly verified by my found source, and with the second part which is only based on my personal collection of second-hand knowledge from a yet to be added source, being left temporarily with a {{CN}} tag; providing me with a 1 month extra respite to find the needed source for my additional claim). Danish Expert (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cantaloupe2

[edit]

Hi Drmies. I've been reading the Arbcom instructions and it looks like we can practically copy/paste the RFCU with some tweaks into their format. But you mentioned you might close the RFCU; I'm not really sure how that process works, but seemed like something I should wait for, if you're going to? I am unfamiliar with all these processes, but I wanted to make sure you weren't going to do something with the RFCU before I put in an ArbCom request. CorporateM (Talk) 13:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • CM, I have read the relevant documents and guidelines, and I am left with a few questions. The first one is, please point me to our previous conversation. :) With a bit of luck (if you're on the clock, of course) we can wrap this up quickly. Oh, since it's an RfC/U, the rate is twice the usual. (I said that with a Liam Neeson accent, if you couldn't tell.) I got a few things to figure regarding the process as a whole, so I'm reading a whole bunch of old ones. It's a walk down memory lane--lots of vanished, retired, indefblocked editors. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed it tangentially last month, but I was referring to the discussion the other day on Dennis Brown's Talk page: "I've never closed an RfC/U yet and I'm not particularly looking forward to it, but it is obvious that there are serious hounding, battleground, and civility concerns." I took that to mean (perhaps wrongly) that you were going to close it. I'm usually very entertained by the back and forth between Brown and yourself, but I think something went over my head. On the clock and twice the rate?
I'll be outside planting berry bushes most the day, but if you need anything from me, my Talk sends me an email, which pings my phone. CorporateM (Talk) 14:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

FWIW, my points at ANI were not motivated by the post you struck. In fact, when you said you struck your post, by first reaction was "what post?". After reading it, I appreciate your decision. You may turn out to be right. I am astounded at how quickly some editors detect sockpuppets, and how often their instincts are borne out, so it is entirely possible that this will turn out the same way. The odds are in your favor.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wasn't thinking "sock" yet, though, in all fairness, their edits are not unlike those of some masters I've run into: the extravagant detail, the centralizing of what is peripheral, etc. For the hell of it, follow the links in "Request/Advice", above--where I could do with some more input, haha. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion deleted

[edit]

An anonymous IP editor—probably a sock puppet for causeandedit (talk · contribs)—deleted a deletion discussion which you had closed, citing a legal discussion with the Wikimedia Foundation. Seems fishy. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that much of a problem. WP:CBLANK allows for AFDs to be blanked - I have added the correct template. SmartSE (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Doc, thanks for yesterday's snack! SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, you're welcome, SmartSE. Kleine moeite, groot plezier. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you (or anyone) fancy something that requires a little more effort, en vessie would be good blue. It's a little more sophisticated than a tomato and mayo sauce! SmartSE (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I've been suffering from a bit of a writer's block, but I've added a few more snippets. I'm slightly confused why this guy would write a book that mentions it though! SmartSE (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "the slanderous remarks have been removed". Sheesh. Help, I'm being oppressed. Mommy! Drmies (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me rather poor form to blank the discussion after causeandedit (or their sock, or whoever else) apparently attempted to impersonate WP legal council. I really doubt WP's actual lawyer would edit from an IP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the policy and I don't think there's anything in there that qualifies, but I assume that's a matter of interpretation and if SmartSE thinks it applies, that's good enough for me. Do you want to email the supposed lawyer that the IP mentions? Drmies (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually met that real lawyer, and have heard from a reliable source (Oliver Keyes) that the counsel shows up really early at the office, and then plays the flute quite competently, before starting work for the day. Oliver was in San Francisco for a week, we had brunch with him on Sunday, and he observed this phenomenon. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A flute-playing wiki lawyer? Seems like a pretty small subset of lawyers in general. But I like it. :-) I could have contacted the email address myself, I but wasn't sure it would be worth my time. Since you were the closer, I thought you might have greater insight than I. It doesn't matter to me that much if the discussion goes away. The end result is still the same. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seen Blazing Saddles? Bart's line just before "We don't care if it's the first act of Henry V" is appropriate here. There won't be much to do for that editor now, so I don't think it'll be much of a problem. Ha, I hope I'm right. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Good answer. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casting such long shadows

[edit]

I suppose you would be involved, but maybe another administrator could look at the closure "invoking Godwin's law, which is a law of the internet, and cannot be undone" of the discussion of the "evidence" recently presented with AGK.

The sun of civilization is setting. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox undid the surrealism. Perhaps he will be blocked by Automatic Strikeout or AQFK? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kiefer, I'm sitting across from my oldest, who's being a real [*******] tonight. Wanna trade? Keep in mind that the math test that took her five minutes will have to be done in three minutes by next week. I wouldn't trade fatherhood for a thing: it's the only worthwhile thing I've done in my life. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Timed math tests are apparently useful in promoting fluency, but they have a limited use in reality, and your daughter should not worry. Kiefer.Wolfowitz and, more inspiringly, mensch Laurent Schwartz were the slowest in our classes at learning arithmetic tables. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll find out in a couple of years, if you didn't know this already, that what really matters has no bearing whatsoever on what goes on in the classroom. She used to get points taken off for making a little spiral at the end of the "j" in her name. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seven months now, Kiefer? She eating your sweet potatoes and peas yet? We've switched to cotton diapers for our little man; it's a lot of laundry. Every new child is the prettiest ever, isn't it. I hope you're enjoying parenthood, and that Mrs. Wolfowitz is too.

    So, last night Mrs. Drmies couldn't find her keys. After tearing up the house we began to suspect Rosie, who is a four-year old demon shaped like an angel (say, mid-nineteenth century style). We turned their room upside down. Nothing. Mrs. Drmies had one heart attack after another; I had a dream in which I knew where the keys where--somehow a store where I bought four (possibly eight) bags of Arab flour (don't ask--I have no clue) was involved. This morning, Rosie broke under sustained interrogation (took six seconds): in the fluffy blue purse, hanging from the broken chair in the middle of their room. And I knew last night it'd be hidden in plain sight. I need to reread Lacan, obviously. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kiefer, I though of you. Drmies (lk) 15:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ron Reaves sounds like a mensch like Steve Albini [9]. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys shouldn't be talking about other editors behind their backs. The discussion was already surreal before I pointed it out. That my message fell on deaf ears is of no surprise to anyone with a clue. I'll say this with pride: closing that discussion was one of my finest edits. When I'm finally gone, I'd like to be remembered for pointing out the sheer stupidity of such ridiculous discussions that compare Wikipedia ArbCom members with Nazis who murdered 12 million people in the Holocaust. Thanks to those who proved me correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you'd been watching it wouldn't have been behind your back. If that was one of your finest editing moments...I don't wish to finish that sentence. At any rate, your talk page still shows that you never minded talking about me behind my back; as it happens, I saw that you still have that little scheme up (User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge#Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin_dispute_and_subsequent_admin_tool_abuse) where you and another boy scout are trying to figure out how to get me desysopped. I'm sure you noted how my protection there wasn't overruled and I wasn't censured. Still, I'm not surprised to see that you've already established that one more incident of abuse makes for a pattern. And I'm not out to get you, although I do wish you could keep your uninformed opinions and drama mongering to yourself. Anyway, thanks for dropping by! Drmies (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL! You're referring to a discussion that hasn't been updated in a year as evidence of a "still" active "scheme"? That's hilarious! I didn't think that anyone could top the surrealness of the existing discussion, but my expectations have been exceeded. I had better remove this talk page from my watchlist lest my expectations get exceed again. This lets some one else get the last word, which is an added bonus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Best edits", indeed. My allusion to Karl Kraus's epigram seems now to have been insulting to pygmies. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTF

[edit]

I've been really scarce this week, and next week isn't looking any better, but has the entire encyclopedia lost its collective way? Coren quit, Hersfold quit, Malleus is back at Arb through a convoluted series of events. The boards have been so ridiculous that I haven't wanted to even help out when I had the time. Guess I need to come to your talk page more often, but I've just been swamped. Here lately, for the first time, I've been more pessimistic than optimistic about Wikipedia, which just isn't my nature. Have the inmates finally taken over the asylum? And no, I'm not joking, all this drama has effectively made it so I don't want to be here right now, thus all the overtime at work has become a blessing. Has everyone just abandoned the idea that we are here to build an encyclopedia so anyone, whether rich or poor, can have Free access to information? Sorry, but I'm quite discouraged right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know you can count on me for a tonic. Today, the medicine is bitter: it's not the worst thing in the world. I don't know, Dennis. There are two options: this blows over, or ArbCom will be totally overhauled, by which I don't mean its composition thought that might be an unintended side effect. As usual I'm on the sideline; I've asked twice now what the collusion was between the two accounts and have as yet received no answer. Maybe I don't even want to know, but if there was none, then they should have let it pass. If there was some--well, depends on how bad it is. I thought George was a pretty unobtrusive fellow, one little spat on his talk page notwithstanding. Discussion yesterday was not yet in an irredeemably adversary state and I hope it remains that way. I'm surprised that some Arbs are quite open about the discussion--I thought they were sworn to secrecy. I'm not surprised that it was some email message that got this going; I doubt that it was a friendly note of concern for privacy, and thus I think that was a pretty low blow.

    No, not everyone has abandoned that idea. The beat goes on, as far as I'm concerned, and there's a ton of stuff that needs to be dealt with by admins that's important though not that controversial. But I will grant you that it takes a lot of the fun out of it, and I don't have the time or the energy to tackle all I feel I should tackle. For instance, I smell trouble at DYK, with a proposal that was possibly accepted in an ill-advised way and then apparently put on hold, and I see the DYK update bot constantly saying "hey, we're running late". So I think I'm going to review a bunch of the submissions to lighten someone's load, but I think DYK suffers from a dearth of well-versed admins who can put their foot down and clean up (always a difficult thing to do in a volunteer project, I suppose). For now, the keys are back, the girls are at school, the dog is warming up in the sun, and I'm going to make more coffee and look at ANI, at AN, at RfCs for closure, at a few DYK nominations... All the best, Dennis; don't work yourself into an early grave and remember that we trust you to forget about your own mental well-being. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd piss on a sparkplug if I thought it would help, but if it isn't helping, you have to wonder why you are putting up with the pain. I don't mind dealing with the fires at ANI, as a matter of fact, I usually prefer that since that is something I'm suited for, but the constant drama mongering from all sides is too much. I'm not likely to go on a blocking spree (although that might actually help) but it does feel like Wikipedia has changed from an encylopedia to an online game of conquest, as of late. Of course, I feel like I'm one of the few sane ones around here, which is a sure sign of delusion and insanity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "sane" ones (insofar as Wikipedia editors can be sane) retreated to article creation and the somewhat calmer waters of AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be dishonest if I didn't admit that I considered just using one of my socks alternate accounts and just work on articles and AFDs again. It's not that I'm a great author, but it does bring some joy, something that is currently lacking for me here lately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do it. I just say **ck the boards at times like these. It's better to write a 1500-word article on an 80-year old book or polish an article on a 120-year-old poem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've also thought in terms of the inmates taking over the asylum. I hoped that after my two months of involvement as a "party" in an arbcom case finally came to an end, this place would start to seem saner again, but that didn't happen. However, my experiences on the arbcom pages (where I sometimes felt I had stepped through the looking glass, as well as wondering if I should have retained a professional wikiLawyer to represent my interests) help to inform my thoughts on the last few days' events -- and confirm my impression that Wikipedia should find ways to encourage more leadership involvement by reasonably sane adult content-contributors and less by conspiracy theorists, online anarchists, children, and the class of users who apparently perceive Wikipedia as a role-playing game where the purpose of participation is to rack up experience points and trophies.
            • While I am sorry to lose the amiable and helpful George Ponderevo, I think I may have some sympathetic insight for what the arbs must have faced. I was in an arb-like position at another online project that does most of its volunteer management in private. On several occasions, I was horrified to see the convincing evidence that a user who had garnered a trusted position within that project community was in fact pursuing some sort of bizarre self-interested scheme to undermine it, the details of which are best not publicized. I can imagine that arbcom might have been presented with something similar. --Orlady (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think Arbcom is the root of all our problems, although they are human and screw up just like anyone else. I do think there is a culture at work there that isn't healthy for the community, demonstrated by the fact that two people have recently quit there. I don't pretend to know why or who is at fault, if anyone. I just know that, for whatever reason, a great many things are happening around here that I find disturbing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • But ArbCom should solve or at least manage our problems. You know I'm not one of those clamoring for anyone's head. I saw (and linked somewhwere) Black Kite's list of edits per ArbCommer. That's not happy information, but at the same time I don't think it's reason enough to mistrust them from the get-go. Dennis, one of the problems is our (editors and administrators) inability to resolve issues in a satisfactory manner. Another problem, and that's what you're pointing at, is that we have issues that we let get out of hand. What to do? I think you'd have to have a careful look at those individual issues, the most recent ones of which are broadly on display. What happened? what kind of behavior was deemed problematic? was is actually problematic, or was it drama? what was the attempt to resolve it, and what were the repercussions of such an attempt? And, just as importantly, what happened along the way? think all-too quick, careless blocks (not just mine and ScottyWong's), unblocks and reblocks, things happening without proper discussions, things not happening because there was too much discussion... We'll have to know some of these basic elements of any particular drama before we know what went wrong--if anything did indeed go wrong. And all of this is why I'm not calling for anyone's head, at least not now haha. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Dennis, there are many of us who rely on the sober, rationale and practical presence of project leaders like you and Drmies. If folks like you were to quit, I honestly believe that there would be others who would follow you out the door. So, please don't. Your efforts here are greatly appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't know what you're suggesting Orlady, but I've seen no evidence that George Ponderevo was anything other than the amiable and helpful editor he appeared to be, and certainly none suggesting that he had any bizarre scheme, self-interested or otherwise, to undermine anything. And I'm quite certain that if Arbcom had any such evidence they would not have been slow to publish it. The reason George became a target is very clearly because he was unwise enough to oppose the RfA of an ArbCom favourite, Lord Roem, so let that be a lesson to anyone tempted to oppose an RfA candidate in future. I wonder if everyone who opposed Lord Roem's first and second RfAs was also checkusered? Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Malleus, I'm sure that Orlady meant "something similar" in a very narrow way. I don't know that the Lord Roem RfA (I suppose I missed that one too?) was a cause, though it's possible. I don't believe that ArbCom is out to get you though it may well be that some individual ArbCom member have little love for you--I do believe, and I think that's what Orlady was pointing at, that they got some information that had to be dealt with, though what they in the end did with it was not done of necessity. I'll be brief here since I don't have that many thoughts on it and I'm sure I'll already run into a few edit conflicts--but can I say that I'm very, very happy to see you here again? I can't really describe what it was like here the last few months--kind of like driving a car with one flat tire. It runs, but slowly, and it's no fun stepping on the pedal. Glad to see you haven't been scrambled (yet). Drmies (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Drmies reads me right. Having once been the target of a bizarre off-wiki website that described me as having a wide range of strange proclivities and behaviors that most people consider disgusting/offensive (and that "outed" me with the name of a real person to whom I have no connection) and that some other Wikipedians deemed to be credible information, I know that I cannot imagine what allegations they might have been confronted with, but I can imagine that there are things they feel they shouldn't talk about. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Aha, you've nailed it. The reason Wikipedia has been disintegrating is because of Malleus's absence. Malleus is necessary to reduce the drama and dissension at Wikipedia. Welcome back, Malleus!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Bbb, it's obvious you haven't had your din-dins yet: no sarcasm allowed here. My metaphor applies to me only, I'm sure. Malleus was one of the editors, if not the editor, who got me interested in quality articles and edits. I had my silly little FL before I ever ran into him, but it's a rare editor who cares so much about quality and content, that it matters. There's a few more, and one of them hangs out here. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And the only GA I've ever produced was really due more to the work of Malleus than myself. I produced a bunch of neat facts and plenty of sources. Malleus (with the help of others) is who made it worthwhile and fun to actually read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    I needed a break Bbb23, and I would have been quite happy to stay away forever if the George thing hadn't blown up and made my retirement pointless. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    Drmies is rarely wrong and my comments had multiple levels of meaning, but at least on one, I was sincere. Welcome back!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Dennis: three... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side, three good old editors returned in the last month. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

DYK nomination of De wederopstanding van een klootzak

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of De wederopstanding van een klootzak at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Sorry, I should have put this note on your talk page earlier - stops typing to smack my wrist - let me know as soon as you've had a chance to do the QPQ and I'll mark a tick on the nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

[edit]

I have a brief question for you if you have time, thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! A beer sounds great, it's Friday night after all. Sorry if this is something I should not worry about, but I can see that User:Ihardlythinkso has been busy trying to stir the pot about me to whomever might listen after the close of our ANI report on 12 March 2013. After that, he has persisted in trying to bait me on the talk page of "WikiProject Chess," then left a bizzare, semi-threatening post on another administrator's talk page.

Apparently the close of our ANI and my warning on 12 March 2013 did not satisfy User:Ihardlythinkso, who in the next three days went to yourself, and another administrator, User:Monty845, to further stir the pot about me, mostly likely to try to get me in as much trouble as possible even after the close of the ANI. see:

I am sorry this situation is turning into a tempest in a teapot, but I am kind of concerned with how this user continues to re-hash old issues and seems to refuse to "let it go." Since our interaction on 12 March I have done nothing provocative, nor have I interacted with User:Ihardlythinkso in any way. I checked the block history and contributions of this user, and found that he has had a lengthy history of disruption, abuse of process, a tendency to leave long rants full of personal attacks on the talk pages of the many with whom he has clashed, on top of a certain persecution complex he harbors both concerning the administration here and also concerning his perceived insults from other users.

The user was blocked in late January 2012, and indef blocked from 10 April 2012 until late May 2012 for much the same behavior. Indeed, although User:Ihardlythinkso never divulged his own vulgar and uncivil comments to me, he did back on 3 March 2013 have this profane comment to say to me.

Administrator User:Basalisk, to whom the user left that threat this morning, I believe is familiar with this user's record of getting along poorly with other contributors and frequent talk page attacks that border on stalking.

I would like my experience at Wikipedia to be free of such drama, lest I become the latest in the "arch enemies" of User:Ihardlythinkso. How should we proceed? Thank you and have a nice evening. Sorry to take up your time. OGBranniff (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, no problem. I've left a note for them, and archived one discussion so it's over. I'll tell you what I told him: stay away. Just that. I am not at all pleased with your opponent's behavior, but I think it might be easy for you as well to slip into adversarial mode. Don't do it. I'll be glad to look into future troubles, though ANI might be a venue for that as well. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. I saw your note on the Wikiproject talk page and I found this essay also Wikipedia:DROPIT, which almost perfectly encapsulates this situation. Hopefully I will not need to petition you in the future. Thanks for your understanding. Good night. OGBranniff (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More music

[edit]

(For Drmies and you talk page watchers) Submitted for your perusal: Marty Munsch, founder of an apparently non notable record label. The article has been up for 6 years, has been fought over with intensity, and appears to be awfully thin. What think you of AfD? Oh, and it's official: I've got whatever was going around your house, minus the vomiting. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh I'm sorry to hear that. On the bright side, I have a beautiful naked woman in my house now, reclining on a couch just waiting for me to wake her up. Thanks! And...eh...why don't you go write a big fat article? Drmies (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How's Mrs. Drmies with that?
Funk the writing. I'd have to gather sources, and my prose is a suckfest. Unless I'm getting paid. Then I'm the bastard child of him and her. With her sex scenes. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

For your useful comments at red zloty, keep them coming. Incidentally, in [11] you removed the interwiki link, by accident I assume? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divine Comedy navbox

[edit]

I see that you have edited Template:Dante. Would you take a look at Template:Divine Comedy navbox?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Tony--thanks for your note. I'll be glad to have a look and I appreciate your thoughtfulness (I do have a special interest in Dante). This being Saturday it might be a while until I get to it, especially since the weather in Alabama is probably a lot nicer than up in the windy city. ("I found a girl that's oh so pretty, / I found her right here in the windy city...") Drmies (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a nice piece of work. I've done quite a bit of work on [Dante Alighieri and the Divine Comedy in popular culture]], and the template has the potential of becoming inflated--though the typical IP-made "cultural mention" edit is not so likely to occur in a template. At some point we'll have articles on all the individual cantos, I hope. Thanks Tony, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Can you center the two parts of the heading, "Dante's Divine Comedy / Inferno · Purgatorio · Paradiso"? I don't know how to do that. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Windows 7 I have looked at the template in Firefox, Chrome, IE and Opera and the headings are centered. What are you requesting? Do you want it on one line exactly as printed above?
    • If I start adding this template should we remove the popular culture section and character/place section of the {{Dante}} template?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked at it again, just now: I have Firefox on a Windows machine, and the "I" of "Inferno" is directly under the "n" of "Dante". (I printed it here with a line break--no, I don't think that doing it as one line is a great idea, and I don't want to dictate anything anyway.) As for your other question, yes, that sounds fair, and I assume your navbox will go in all the articles listed in it, Dante being preserved for the more strictly Dantean articles, no? There is great possible overlap, of course: some of the "people in his life" (Guido Cavalcanti, Brunetto Latini, Beatrice Portinari) are important players in the Comedy but they're bigger than that, so having them in the Dante template is appropriate. Now, "Inferno" in your navbox--those are characters and places, and you could consider separating those into two lines. (Purgatory's Earthly Paradise needs a separate article, for instance.)

        A bigger question is how far to go. Farinata degli Uberti, for instance, derives his post-mortal existence in large part from the Comedy, but he is also a separately notable historical figure. Should he be listed in the template? He's got a stronger case for such inclusion than Pope Celestine V. I ask, because Forese Donati is also listed, and his case is like Farinata's, but Statius certainly doesn't need Dante for an afterlife, and he's listed. In other words, it's worth considering what the inclusion criteria are. A character "invented" for the Comedy with a clearly delineated Dante article, like Dante's Satan, should certainly be listed, but how far do you go with (more) historical figures? You can't list them all in the navbox: it's hundreds, if not thousands of names...Also...

        DYK that since 1581 there have been some 250 "musical settings" of (sections of) the comedy, and some 60 or 70 recorded musical settings? Drmies (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No particular reason

[edit]
Prunus avium

Play that funky music, white boy.

It is Saturday, I'm at work doing a shift helping customers buy useless things they don't really need. I need to upload some updated pictures of the crops, which are coming along nicely. The plants at work are doing better than the garden at home for some reason. I think due to it being more of a controlled environment. Radishes will be ready to eat in less than a month. I really enjoy gardening, its a very peaceful activity, nurturing and all that sissy jazz. I think that I need to mix up some adult bevys tonight, play some funky music, and shoot a little pool with Mrs. Brown. Hope you're having a good weekend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Organizational Logos".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good out of bad

[edit]

Well, at least something (hopefully) worthwhile is developing as a consequence of the palaver at Talk:Ezhava. I found a source that was worth mentioning in that discussion and my reading of it sparked an interest from which is emerging Travancore Labour Association. I have more to add to that but, hey, this process of connections never ends for the curious, does it? - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for De wederopstanding van een klootzak

[edit]
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Not as interesting as the Dutchman in his underpants on the beach though eh?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Ernst, that was fantastic. Best title ever. Thank you again for getting me involved with that. It still amazes me how much one can learn on this site, how much there still is to investigate, and to which extent Wikipedia can help pluck all this knowledge out of dusty archives--and no one is better at that than Crisco. Blofeld, you'll get a medal for your many contributions; Crisco will get a ribbon for the many, and a royal badge for Chinezenmoord. It is an honor to be (occasionally) working with you guys. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Headsup

[edit]

[13] You may wish to address this with Memills on his talk page (he accused you of promoting a POV via admin tools); I archived the section with advice to take it to ANI, RFC, or RFAR if he felt it necessary, but that article talk page is an inappropriate venue. I didn't bother warning him about grandstanding or BATTLE, but I think that's what he's doing here. Let me know if there is anything I can do, or if you wish to discuss this. It may be that we will finally be at RFAR shortly; it's a pity but it is beginning to look that way. I remember an arb commenting a few months ago that he'd been expecting a case for a year or so; so it may be that it is inevitable. KillerChihuahua 15:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp Taro

[edit]

I'm editing articles about Kiribati islands, and to do this I need to put in a few general knowledge articles on Kiribati subjects as well. I was about to create an article on babai, which is a culturally very significant plant in Kiribati, when I realised I was about to get into a muddle with an article you have worked on, Pulaka. I've asked for advice on what to do at the Wikiproject Plants page [14] and would hugely appreciate your input.--Obkiribati1 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I commented there. Thank you so much for your note: it's appreciated. As I said (apparently) on 10 May 2010, this was interesting to work on and taught me something about the world. Best, Drmies (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All you talk page stalkers, read the article and especially the "Cultivation" section, and consider reducing your carbon footprint. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhowden

[edit]

Looks like this user from the ANI boomerang on Wednesday is back up to their old tricks, trying to re-add logos again to NZ radio articles and sneaking under the IP 202.169.209.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to do so (something they tried a week back in this edit under a false edit summary), thinking we wouldn't notice it was from the same place they are. Reverted them, not sure what they'll do next. Nate • (chatter) 00:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest Loser

[edit]

Those IPs from Israel are back. I have encountered three edit history on The Biggest Loser: Pinoy Edition (season 1). --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About editing an historical article (Banda Singh Bahadur) which is filled with a wrong information.

[edit]

hello there is an article about BANDA SINGH BAHADUR. when i read it on Wikipedia i found some wrong information there.i edited it,but it was re-edited by a user to wrong info. again.the information i wants to correct is approved by majority of historians and is now fully approved by all.and the info.is added by another user is just the theory of one or two historians.in historical articles we must accept the theory which is approved by majority.now that user had take semi protection for that page.if you are an administrator i request to you look in this matter because anyone must not get wrong information by Wikipedia.i can prove my facts also. thanking you. parminder singh antaal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramsinghantaal (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If anything is "approved", a plenitude of reliable sources could support that information. You may propose text and references on the article talk page. Thank you kindly, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Tramadul

[edit]

Hi Drmies. You blocked User:Tramadul for three days as a result of this AN/I discussion. You must've been in a good mood, as admin Horologium alluded to ;) Based on all the comments Tramadul has made on his talk page since the block, including in his two denied unblock requests, I think an indefinite block is now warranted. This of course is in addition to his 30+ major BLP violations. He refuses to back down and has made clear what his intentions are after the block expires. Apparently, he doesn't understand, or is refusing to accept, that he is never allowed to edit Peter Frampton again or add any content about about him to any other articles. His apparent, inexplicable mission to destroy the subject's reputation is very disturbing. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did either of you see the SPI? LadyofShalott 16:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, no I didn't see that. Thanks, Lady! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Man in the Moone

[edit]

Shall we try and put The Man in the Moone to bed, at least as far as GA is concerned? One thing I think we need to do is to expand the Plot summary a bit, so I guess I may actually have to read the book. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's more fun than pruning, I suppose, so sure--let's go for it. Oh, wait: I can do a couple of things this week, but I'll be out of town from Wednesday to Sunday, so I might not be very active. But what I will try to do before I go is a literature review. And maybe I'll read it as well. Remember, though, actually knowing something about a subject is essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also more fun than wallpapering, which is what I'm doing now. I take your point about knowledge being a dangerous thing here, maybe I ought not to read the book after all. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article idea

[edit]

Hello Drmies,

I am thinking of writing an article about dust bunnies of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai), but fear that you might take it to AfD. Can you reassure me? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Joy and carnism

[edit]

Hi. I'm a little late to the party, but I've been working on content about Melanie Joy and carnism in my user space only to find that both terms have been protected and that there were several deletion debates about these terms in the past, and apparently the author herself was involved. (see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Joy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carnism_(2nd_nomination)). Based on the sources I've been able to find so far, I believe the term is notable, but there is probably not enough material for a separate biography. I've looked at the arguments in the deletion debates, and while there have been many new sources since that time, I'm not exactly understanding why the term "carnism" was protected from creation or why there was such an attack on Joy. For the record, I had never heard of Joy or carnism until yesterday. After doing some research, I discovered that both Joy and carnism are notable in the animal rights literature and have been covered in mainstream reliable sources. As of 2013, Joy meets the first 4 out of 6 listed criteria for WP:AUTHOR and the concept of carnism and her books and papers are widely cited.[15] More to the point, the term has had currency in the animal rights literature since 2001! Could you tell me what I'm missing about the deletion rationales? And for the record, the content I'm developing is nowhere near ready for mainspace. Would you be able to critically review it when it's done? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Viriditas--I'm not sure why you're asking me about the deletion or the salting (I just nominated it, and I don't think I asked for salt though I pointed out the meat in the first AfD--ha, you gotta give me props for wordplay), but I wouldn't disagree with it. Anyway, I have no problem unlocking the article if you say you got something more than there was before; let me have a look at your version, just to make sure. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll unlock it but I'm not convinced completely (this, for instance, just isn't that much). I think the idea proposed at both AfDs is that the term can be proven to have some notability if it occurs separately from that one person who coined the term, and I don't see much evidence of such currency. Anyway, I'll unlock Carnism and wish you good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]
Thank you for clearing that nastiness from my Talk page. Enjoy this brownie as a token of my appreciation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch

[edit]

Could you copyedit the Dutch titles at Sierk Coolsma? Obscure, sure, but I managed to dig up some information about him. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • They look fine. "beoefening" really means practice, but hey. Why did you include a publisher for a newspaper (Algemeen Handelsblad)? I think that's actually the printer, and apparently they were booksellers as well. Also, how was the bible translation "unsuccessful"? Thanks, for again writing up one of these semi-obscure but important characters. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Writing. Based on the text (available at Archive.org) it seems to have been primarily for written Sundanese. I included the publisher/printer information as listed at kb.nl (lovely website), as I've done for several of my Indonesian film articles. Clarified the last point.
Yeah, it was interesting to work on a missionary for once... although my interest was piqued because he taught Lie Kim Hok. If I'm ever able to track down an accurate scan of his memoirs I could probably expand this a bit further. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know what's funny? I see "Coolsma" and I think "Frisian"--and for people from before, say, WWII, that's usually accurate. The world is different now. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Frampton rewrite

[edit]

Hi Drmies. Thanks for following up with Tramadul yesterday regarding his block. I know that all the editors involved in the problems with him appreciate it very much. I'm writing you now because I just wanted to make you aware, now that Tramadul is no longer disrupting the article, that I sat down for a couple hours and carefully rewrote the convction content in line with the discussion between all of the editors involved in stopping Tramadul. Please see the comment I posted on the talk page of First Light, who has been extremely helpful in monitoring the page for BLP violations. Btw, I noticed First Light reverted some edits from an editor I assume he believes is a sock of Tramadul. Again, I'm just letting you know about this in case any other editors with bad motives try to replace my version with junk content again. Thanks a lot for all your help in this matter. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just became aware of this SPI. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That kept me busy for a while, to the tune of maybe 200 edits. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks for all the time you put in as an admin. I don't envy you, but definitely appreciate it. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I need to get mass rollback figured out. Anyway, thanks for staying on the trail. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've used mass rollback on occasion, though I usually disable it to prevent my twitchy touchpad finger from turning a slip into a really bad mistake. But it's easy enough to add back, along with the default edit summary script. You can see the code, written by User:John254, which I add to my monobook.js page here:[16] It will rollback all the contribs that you see on a users contribs page — and you can customize the number of contributions to limit it to just the last 43 edits, or whatever, by changing the number in the URL field, if that makes sense. It's sure handy to have available when it's needed. Thanks for the blocks, including the IP sock. First Light (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've tried installing that--I'm hoping that Mandarax (talk · contribs) and Writ Keeper (talk · contribs), both of whom have been seriously napping on the job, will fix me up right. You know what I would have enjoyed? Seeing the Recent changes page right after hitting that button. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

aaron lopez rewrite

[edit]

you posted on my page. how did i attack shabbazz??

you use the word attack. please look it up. i mean seriously how can you call what i said attack?

none of you answer what i said, because there is no logical way for you to continue the arguement. you can only delet my post.

the lead about a slavetrader, should mention that he is a slavetrader. shabazz insists it says philanthropist instead. is that in any way reasonable?

he edited it back, saying the slave trade was only a minor buisness venture for aaron lopez. slave trade = buisness venture ( wow..)

im 99% sure your response will be anything but a reasonable answer, adressing the actual issue. please prove me wrong.

  • Capitalize properly, remove all those blank lines, sign your messages, and then--if needs be--I'll explain how "you call the trading of slaves a commercial venture. so we know were your heart is at." is an insult, a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

let me make it real simple: 1. calling the trading of humans a buisness venture. do you see something wrong with that or no? 2. should slave trading be mentioned in the lead (in the case aaron lopez), yes or no?

please think about it and give me a honest answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.224.152 (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

[edit]

Hello, DrMies, I hope all is well. Quick question: since the subject of "Request for Comment" was brought up, if I submit a "Request for Comment" on the matter, would you "second" such? I read on the RFC page that they need a "second." It looks easy, like all you'd have to do is type "I second this." I'm only asking since four people know the full situation from the beginning, that's me, you, Quale, and Ihardly. And I highly doubt that those two would be seconding this RFC, especially in light of this recent comment. Thank you for your time. OGBranniff (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I'm not going to second that--I have, I believe, acted without choosing sides (despite what Ihardlythinkso claims) and I aim to keep it that way. Moreover, I don't know what "the beginning" is but I'm pretty sure I wasn't there. An RfC calls on involved editors, and that's not me since I haven't been involved as an editor in any of y'all's work. An admin can comment as well, of course, but I don't wish to be certifying anything. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the good news in the last 24 hours is that "Ihardlythinkso" and I have had a breakthrough of sorts and things should be all right between us from now on. Thank you for your time. OGBranniff (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

[edit]

Can you check AssedL (talk · contribs) whether it is related to The tampan (talk · contribs)? --Aleenf1 15:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Drmies isn't a checkuser. There's a list of checkusers here, though. :) Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And after reading the ArbCom pages I'm glad I'm not. Thanks WK, and Aleen, thanks for keeping an eye on that. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did we have an SPI on that editor? I want to say "obvious sock is obvious", but I'm not really in a good position right now (in a hotel lobby--so literally not in such a good position) to check a bunch of edits). WK, do you mind having a look if you have a moment? I would not be surprised if there were (more) socking, and an SPI may reveal yet more. That badminton project would serve a purpose if it looked at these edits and made some statements on style, what is and isn't OK, so enforcing guidelines would be made a lot easier. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't get a chance to take a look at this. Comparing the edit histories, it sure looks plausible, but I don't really know anything about badminton, and I'm loath to block someone without being able to tell if their edits are indeed disruptive. Aleen, I'd recommend opening an SPI for this; it should be too hard to do. What you do is go to the main SPI page and scroll down to the text box and button that's labeled "Investigation (case) to create or re-open:". Type in the sockmaster's name into that box (in this case, "The tampan") and click on the "Click to open investigation" button. This will take you to a new page, with instructions and a text area to enter your suspicions and evidence. Just follow the instructions on that page, save the page when you're done, and hte ball will be rolling. Writ Keeper (t + c) 13:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

about admin.' sitush'

[edit]

hello dremis

i am deeply disappointing from admin. 'sitush'.i think he had some personal matter with sikh history.he is manipulating things.if you are a superior then i request you to look personally in this matter. the following is the reason of my dispute.

it is about an article about great Sikh martyr BANDA SINGH BAHADUR.we sikhs have deep respect for him.in the brief introduction of BABA BANDA SINGH BAHADUR at the article his cast was written BRAHMIN.I objected about this fact,because majority of historian approves their cast as 'rajput'.(THIS FACT IS APPROVED BY THE ALL MAJOR SIKH HISTORIAN such as 'ganda singh' AND ALSO by AN OLD SIKH ENCYCLOPEDIA 'MAHAN KOSH' WRITTEN BY 'BHAI KAHN SINGH NABHA'.)after my much objection he remove the word 'brahmin'.so i thanked to him.but there was also a surname 'bhardwaj' was added with BANDA SINGH BAHADUR,S early name.this 'bhaedwaj' surname is one of leading surname of brahmins .thus according to this one can assume him a brahman again.then what is the use of removing word 'brahman'.this surname 'bhardwaj' must be removed . i personally corrected it but he again wrote there same word.i wants to ask you a simple question that, is this wikipedia works on facts or the personal thoughts of any admin. i wants from this site that at least go with the facts that is approved by majority or not go with anyone at all.how can you place the fact that is statement of one or two historians,in comparison to many,s.at least follow this simple rule.

thanks Paramsinghantaal (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it affects the issue you're discussing, but Sitush isn't what people would call an "admin" on Wikipedia, and there's not really a hierarchy of admins; there aren't any admins that are superior in rank to other admins, or even non-admins. Writ Keeper (t + c) 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to discern a question in here since grammar and spelling are highly deficient. But Sitush is indeed not an administrator, so the question, "is this wikipedia works on facts or the personal thoughts of any admin" is based on an incorrect premise. And the answer is partly no, partly 42--I suggest you take the matter up on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

[edit]

i did not want to do this but you are compelling me to do so.if you will not resolve my matter and keep supporting the wrong facts then i will manipulate all data on this site.because for me,it is no more a reliable source as you are supporting clearly a wrong fact and even giving it protection.--Paramsinghantaal (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, there's a dial somewhere on Wikipedia labeled "high drama", and it needs to be turned way the hell back. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In light of recent events, I think we need a DKSC of ArbCom (Dial Keeping SubComittee) to manage the dramahz dial. gwickwiretalkediting 16:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Red X User blocked per that threat of disruption. Someone please take a look at the inevitable unblock request and do whatever you feel is right. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure that it'll go anywhere, seeing as two other admins have endorsed it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, (edit conflict × 2) and I was just telling him he'd be blocked for disruption. Okay, now Drmies can have a beer and delete all this dramahz. gwickwiretalkediting 16:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, your comment was a masterpiece of understatement. Anybody who saw the paranormal postings of Paramsinghantaal was calling in airstrikes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. it seems that I have been the cause of problems yet again. Sorry, folks. I was rather surprised that there have not been howls of protest regarding the recent removal of most of the article for copyright reasons. Quibbling about a name that certainly appears in at least some sources seems trivial by comparison. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It remains a mystery to me why you work on these Indian/caste articles at all rather than let them sink disgracefully into the kind of sludge typified by Wikipedia's IT or philosophy articles. You've got a population of billions against you, whatever you do. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some days this place reminds of me of the soap operas on Univision, except those soaps have a better story line. I spent the day with Mrs. Brown, potting plants and preparing to start the garden, and missed out on all this high drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished a week of night shifts and so would've loved to spend my time potting plants and gardening. Unfortunately a) I don't have a Mrs. Basalisk; b) I don't have a garden; and c) spring is cancelled in Wales, so I had to settle for police work on wikipedia instead. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think it was cancelled for the mid-Atlantic. Was 21F this morning, and we are supposed to get get snow tonight. We haven't gotten much snow this winter, but it has been a cold, miserably wet winter in North Carolina. I've started lots of plants in the sunroom, but it will be 2 weeks to plant the flowers, and 4 to 8 for the veggies. Somehow, most of my herbs wintered over in the yard just fine, and basil is growing wild in the front planter now. I need my plants, keep me from going (more) insane. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think ANI 2.0 is a drama magnet. And all this while I was out... Well, given that this place has turned into something of a weather channel as well, I'll tell you that it's 5C in Portland, but with steak and eggs coming up I'm not complaining. What sucks is that I've walked around for 45 minutes and found all the bike rental places closed on Saturday morning. A bookstore note: I was lucky enough at my conference to win a $50 gift certificate for Powell's. I take this as a sign that God approves of my work on Wikipedia. Or he approves of my inactivity of the last few days. Or he just thinks I'm gorgeous and need a confidence booster. Maybe I should buy a ticket for the Oregon lottery. Anyway, thanks all for taking action. Sitush, yeah pal, I blame you. :) Drmies (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We are a bunch of old men, of course we talk about the weather, just like old women talk about old men. Randy Travis said so, so it must be true. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Hervey Johnson

[edit]

Wow. Thanks for heads up I just randomly deredlinked that in passing. Seems like a bit more than I want to cope with... oh boy. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fixed it. Repulsive human being, but should still be formatted. Ugh. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite part is the run-on sentence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't resist: "On August 6, 1988 Johnson died of a heart attack in his bathtub in his apartment in downtown San Diego of massive atherosclerosis, leaving a $14 million estate after "Pope of Atheism" Madalyn Murray O'Hair staged a coup at a sham stockholders meeting in 1987 and began an unsuccessful court battle to claim it, even though he detested her and her claim was found legally groundless because his estate was based on his own personal wealth and investments, not profits from the company, which operated at a loss." Can we use this gem as an example somewhere? Please? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brownies or soup

[edit]

People give out cookies, brownies and kittens, but why not herring soup? Or perhaps there's a good reason. There I was, rolling through the articles about food which need photos when I drew a great blank. I could find no free images of this no doubt exquisite offering, but this lovely shot of the principal ingredient may explain why. Cheers! Geoff Who, me? 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch sources?

[edit]

Hello Drmies,

I am rewriting the article about Hunter Douglas N.V., a multinational headquartered in the Netherlands. If you have time, can you see if you could find a Dutch newspaper or book source or two with solid coverage of the history of this company? Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope you are enjoying your visit to Portland, Oregon.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Portland was wonderful, Cullen. I'd move in a heartbeat. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More bacon

[edit]
It's not just for breakfast anymore

Actually, hawg jowls, but close enough. I thought you would appreciate this offering to the Bacon Cabal, even if it makes your heart skip a beat. Had some left over from the green beans last night, so fried it up to go with eggs for breakfast, and will freeze any remainder to throw in as seasoning later in the week. Not something I eat often, but we needed the photo, so I made the sacrifice. Well, my arteries did, anyways. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to check all of the articles by an editor

[edit]

Hey Drmies, I'm trying to figure out the best way to deal with the articles by Kavdiaravish. He's an Art PhD, but I don't know if that makes things better or worse. It's possible that a lot of his errors are related to a difficulty with English. He has created 79 articles already, and I feel like they're all going to need checking for copyvio, OR, and some other issues. Based on the material he gave me on his talk page, I removed this since the opening material was definitely copyvio. Pulling another article The Prodigal Son (Giorgio de Chirico), the material is most likely original research (possibly Copyvio, the source is german). Looking at Head of a Peasant Woman (Van Gogh series), the first sentence of the description is a direct copy. The pronoun "it" is ambiguous. It is unlikely to refer to anything other than the series, but I personally find it unlikely that in the normal course of writing anyone would use the pronoun in that manner, so it leads me to believe there's more copyvio. Ambiguous pronouns and close paraphrasing ensure that any reader of Pleasant Run (painting) would be misled. The painting didn't define the limits Pleasant Run (presumably the river) did. In any case, I don't know whether to take it to CCI or create a project to go through all of his articles, or what. Ryan Vesey 19:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ryan, there isn't much I can do on my little iPhone in a Mormon airport. I looked at his most recent article and I wonder if art PhDs don't get to take writing classes. If there are (more) copyvios that obviously needs to be dealt with. Maybe IP99 or art gnome Mandarax can have a look? I may be away for another day or two. Unless you teach Dr. Faustus for me tomorrow and give my lecture on hagiography in a grad class tomorrow evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.208.182 (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Talk page stalking at the right time) I'll be moderately busy, tending to taxes and writing, but I'll have a look later or flag down a fellow editor to do so. Drmies, from what I've read lately you may not want to return through your home airport, at least until they find stronger glue. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Ryan Vesey's concerns, language difficulties and copyright violations may indeed be problems here; another editor has noticed the copyvio problem [17] and warned the user a few days ago. Further cause for concern: a quick glance suggests that Kavdiaravish may have added external links to Wahooart [18] to every article he/she has created. It's a website with biographical information, but it's primarily a vehicle for selling painted reproductions. The consistent insertion of these links raises questions about the user's intent, and whether the articles are, in part, providing cover for linkspamming. At the least they represent a curious choice of external link from a PhD candidate. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have toolserver access, but wiht less than 500 contribs, some jQuery manipulation comes up with this table. Is this what you were looking for, Ryan? Writ Keeper (t + c) 14:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Do note, though, that my table is only the articles created by this guy; Dcoetzee's tool returns all the articles edited by him. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That table probably works best for my purposes. I forgot, is there an easy way to create a column for original research? Do you want it in your sandbox or do you want it moved? Ryan Vesey 19:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can move it wherever you like. As for adding a new column, probably the easiest thing to do is rerun the query, which is no trouble at all (as long as he hasn't gone over 500 edits). Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added the column. Like I say, it's no difference to me where it is; feel free to move it to wherever or keep it in my sandbox if you like, it's all good. Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Your name has been dropped at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Caste_sanctions_enforcement_request. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking mediation

[edit]

Hi Drmies. I found your page from the K-pop talk page and noticed that you were the only admin active in "our circle" (don't know if you'll take that as a compliment or not). There's currently a deadlock on the talk page and I was hoping you would mediate between Moscowconnection and I. I understand if you don't have the patience to read all of that but just throwing it out because I'm honestly frustrated that I can't do anything. He finds me suspect and that I'm implying veiled threats to another user or whatever so there is a big disconnect between me and him. Which is just kind of funny that he thinks of me that way while himself is a big J-pop fan. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you would check it out but if you're busy or don't really care then I can seek other channels. Stateofyolandia (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) K-pop? J-pop? Is this another previously unknown tributary of the River Wikipedia? Do we have Z-pop yet? Drmies is a real Pop, of course, but I would not dare rank him as less than "A". - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey so is it safe to say that you're not getting involved? I've been waiting for a response to be honest but if you don't reply I'll just take it as 'no' and won't bother you again. Stateofyolandia (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just came back from a long trip and I'm not on spring break, unfortunately. I'll be glad to have a look in the next few days. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Stateofyolandia (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a reply to you in the talk page. It's more about mediating between Moscowconnection and I (ie babysit). Some issues outside of the controversy section. It's nothing but hostility with this guy. And I don't even know the exact reason why. Stateofyolandia (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to bother you.) Stateofyolandia was discussed on 2channel on March 15. Someone said Stateofyolandia was trying to conceal a part of Korean history on the English Wikipedia. Search for his user name: [19]. It was about edit 1, edit 2, edit 3. Stateofyolandia deleted Four Commanderies of Han from Template:History of Korea three times and tried to trick people into discussing on the talk page before reverting to status quo. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teach me how to die?

[edit]
Can you or one of your stalkers teach me how to die? I cannot believe the crap that I am having to deal with from various new contributors at the moment.

Just had to get it off my chest and, of course, tomorrow is another (cold) day ... - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, there were few things as annoying as getting bombarded by 20+ emails from Lowkeyvision as he was re-editing my talk page. Didn't Qwyr offer to work up an AN report if Lowkeyvision goes back to his old shenanigans? Maybe it's time to take him up on the offer. Writ Keeper (t + c) 01:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush: Wikipedia is a community. You have called me "bloody stupid", told me to "piss off" and on top of that told me that I am too stupid to understand wikipedia policies. To this I am trying to hold my lip and pursue a third opinion. Now you are trying to malign me in front of an administrator?
Drmies/Writ Keeper: I know you have given barnstars to Sitush and have a high opinion of him right now. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maria0333. I don't expect you opinion to change immediately because you have known him for a lot longer. I am hoping you will give me a fair chance to show what I can do for the encyclopedia and I think in time I can show you that I am honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia. (01:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Also, I would rather get blanked and have all my media files deleted than to get banned. Harikiri is better. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure I've ever given barnstars to Sitush, but it doesn't really matter, because barnstars don't mean much. And while what impression I have of Sitush is favorable, I really haven't interacted with him much; not enough to immediately rule him right and you wrong.
But the point is that it has become clear that the two of you are oil and water: you just don't mix. Sitush's suggestion of the two of you staying away from each other is a good example of that: you took it as a threat against your physical person, when he really just meant that you stick to different parts of Wikipedia. It seems to me that you're all too ready to jump to the "bad intentions" conclusion when Sitush is around, and that's a problem for collaborative editing. The question is: how can we keep the peace? You've said that you're not a fan of just walking away from each other, since your areas of interest are so intertwined. That's understandable. But something has to be done, and the point is that you seem to consistently be the--for lack of a better word--hysterical one. At some point, I don't know what else there is to try. Writ Keeper (t + c) 01:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My final offer remains. Dont edit the Memon People articles. I am going to stop editing all other articles. I have blanked all my content. This is the best offer I can make you and one that is in your best interest to take Sitush. Dont push it more. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Just who the Hell do you think you are? Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am somebody trying to bury something and fix something. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Why the Hell did you make so many edits?(Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Last things first: huh? No one knows why Malleus made so many edits, that is, chose to waste so much of his time on this site, but we're better off for it. I gave a barnstar, maybe two, to Sitush, yes, and he deserved them. I have yet to look into the matter, and may not be able to give it full attention today or tomorrow, but I will--and I have full faith in Writ Keeper whom I have found to be, as yet, inscrutable and fair. I think you should play it safe and not threaten Sitush ("Dont push it more"). Thank you. Malleus, it's always a pleasure to see your name here. I was in Portland and thought of you: it's a totally different kind of America; in fact, I was surprised to find them speak English in the first place, it was so different. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, inscrutable(?) or not, I'd like to get some more opinions on this feud, so I'll be interested to hear your take on it. Writ Keeper (t + c) 14:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WK, for reasons I myself don't fully understand, I spent some time last night looking into Lowkeyvision's editing since their last block, especially at Talk:Lohara_dynasty. I was just about to give them a final warning when they mostly retired. I didn't want to stir things up by warning them while they were in that state, on the slight chance they might cool down with this retirement. But if Lowkeyvision resumes editing and continues with any problematic behaviors, I'll give a final warning, and if necessary, an indefinite block. "Disruptive editing" is too often a catchall for lazy admins to block people without a clear reason, but this is exactly the situation it was meant for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Floq. That's about where I'm at, although for myself, I'd rather not block the same editor twice if I can help it, for appearance's sake if nothing else. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Malleus: For some reason Drmies has been hit by some of the ... most unique ... new editors I've yet to see.
@Lowkeyvision: You might want to act like the first two syllables of your screenname. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_47&oldid=1089757146"