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.
Woohoo! I'm still waiting on Jimmy Wales's shirt, but this will tie me over for a while. Thanks to my fellow Wikipedians for getting me this. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you'll get one too, Dennis. Hey, I gotta sign off and get some real work done. I see Smartse jumped into the fray. I haven't checked to see if there is a BLPN discussion on the name; if this continues, with new editors (that is, editors who haven't looked at the talk page) sticking it in, we may have to have full protection: I do think it is that important. Thanks Dennis, Drmies (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WARRINGTON!! I'm fine, hur mar du? What an unexpected pleasure! What brings you back? And are your intentions honorable? :) Wow, it's been four years--are you just dropping by? Drmies (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I kind og got tired of Wiki för a while. But I could´t hold back for a long.. so now I am here again... And I have completely dishonorable intentions, off course... What´s upp?
Haha, when I said "vad ar up" in Smaland no one had a clue what I was talking about. Boston is up, that's what. Let's see. Kelapstick is still around, as is Bongomatic. I became admin and now have unlimited power. I ran into an interesting article on a Swedish dialect/language a few weeks ago that could use your help--I'll look it up; for now I gotta do what they pay me to. I'm so glad you're back! That is, I hope you're back, and that you won't be too disappointed with what may or may not have changed. To the talk page stalkers--Warrington is an expert on architecture and Swedish candy: a winning combination. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giano and Bishonen rolled into one? [Proudly:] I took and uploaded the photo of the genuine Swedish salmiak "salt sill" fish in Swedish fish. And then I ate the sucker. Aaahh, saltlakrits. Bishonen | talk17:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I might not bee myself for much longer, you know, I need your advice. I am not going to edit under this name att all, I just sort of reapeared for You, because I saw your messages. The problem is that I have an other account on the Swedish Wiki, and since it is much nicer there, no edit wars and so, I did some editing aroud a bit there. And I did some here too, now I don´t really want to have two accounts running. Is it possible to change the name off Warrington to the Swedish accouts name? OR finish this one? Or change both to the same one, and a new name, you can allways baptize me if you wish...Or whatewer you admins think one may do... I just wanted to make a short stopp by so you should recognize me... Så now that you have unlimited power, make some sugestions please.
(talk page stalker) It should be possible to rename the Warrington account to the name you prefer, but it depends on what your name is, and whether that name has already been taken. Check out the page describing requests for changing username. If the name is taken but has no edits (or was created for you via SUL), then I believe it should be possible for you to reclaim it and get your Warrington account renamed to it. Writ Keeper⚇♔17:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not sure what you mean, yes is a Swedish acount, and here is via SUL, but it does have some edits, since the begining of this year, since january. About a 50 edits, or around there. But I actually prefer to have the Warrington accout, but renamed somehow, if it possible, but what am I to do if you go on automatically on the same account everywhere once you got one? If I go over to the Swedish wiki now, I am going to be automatically one of those stuff you call a puppi or what. And that is not allowed.
Warrington (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen ..or if it is possible to merge the two?
I was Warrington for seweral years, you know, but than I got tired and did nothing more. You can see that there are no edits made by Warrington since well... several years, now. I just wanted to stop by to say hello to Dr Mies, because , well Mies knows me this way... And I am not going to edit now anything untill we clear this thing upp. Somehow... Warrington (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well, it's not possible to merge two accounts. It might be possible, if you want, to rename the Hafspajen account to something else (usually Hafspajen (usurped)) and then rename Warrington to Hafspajen, integrating it under SUL. If that's what you want to do, I can drop a note for you at the bureaucrat's noticeboard to see if that's something they'd do (they don't usually usurp accounts with edits, but since it's already yours, they'd probably make an exception.) But then your contribs will miss out on all the edits listed under the current Hafspajen account, since they'd be transferred to Hafspajen (usurped).
The easiest thing to do, if you just want your name to be the same on all wikis, might be to just start using the Hafspajen account as it is now, redirect your Warrington user and user talk page to the Hafspajen pages, and then add a note on User:Hafspajen, saying that you used to edit as Warrington. You could even put a note in your signature, saying something like "formerly User:Warrington", to make it triply clear. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O, well Yes, I would like if it might be possible, if you want, to rename the Hafspajen account to something else (Hafspajen usurped)) and then rename Warrington to Hafspajen, integrating it under SUL. Those few edits Hafspajen (usurped) doesn´t realy matter. Hope Dr Mies is not going to have a nervous breakdown adjusting to so many changers....
You may please add that the motiv is to remain in contact whit those users who know me as Warrington.... on the noticeboard. Because it is not just for fun...Warrington (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Writ Keeper, thanks for helping out--Warrington, I don't know the naming things as well as some others do, haha, but that solution of WKs seems reasonable. Ha, I usually does do what he tells me to. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the suits are fine with it; just make a request at WP:CHUU (do it from the current Hafspajen account, so that they're sure you own both accounts), and it should be done pretty quickly. Writ Keeper⚇♔20:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little bit schizophrenic, which one is the target name,? Warrington? Or? Warrington (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Hope I did the rigt thing...this IS crazy, you know.Hafspajen (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Now this the accout that it shoud be usurpated, I think that I ma doing i all wrong, they say they cant find me.´Help.Hafspajen (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC) -warrington[reply]
Yep, the template is a bit tangled; let me see if I can undo it.
EDIT: All right. Just click this link while logged into Hafspajen, replace the words "YOUR REASON" with the reason taht you want to make the move (mention that you own both accounts), sign it, and hit "Save page", and that should do it. Writ Keeper⚇♔21:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did it. But now the bot said that the account is too old , and it can´t be usurpated, I think it believs that it is Warrington it should be the usurpated one.... Hafspajen is not that old, it is less than 6 m.ns, am I not feeling crazy...
Warrington (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay; the bot's supposed to say that, but don't worry: the suits can override the bot. I'm talking to some of them on IRC, and it'll be fine, just be patient. Writ Keeper⚇♔21:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I've gotten so very sick of the Boston Marathon bombing (yes, those evil admins actually care about the feelings of a family who just lost their child; how Orwellian!), and it's nice to simply just help people; it helps me unwind. Writ Keeper⚇♔22:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close-up of a male Indian Peafowl's plumage bird for you
Thank you so much for all that, people. Dr Mies, You got a heavy talk page here... takes a while to get down on it.... AND NOW YOU TELL ME EVERYTHING... Like what happened the latest four years, why did you say that hope you won't be too disappointed with what may or may not have changed , what about that article on a Swedish dialect/language a few weeks ago that could use help,
... and so on... And actually I am an expert on Landscape architecture, I but could´t find the right tag, hope somebody did one lately... So tell me now..."vad ar up" "vad är mitt barn" and so on...Hafspajen (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, CoM got hisself blocked for disruptively politicizing on some articles pertaining to Obama and other assorted hot-button issues. He was found socking, and his block was extended; he's not been back since his block expired, at least not under that name. :)
Kelapstick probably had child #2 after you left, and he (not the child) has been flying all over the world (Mongolia!) for a mining company. I don't believe he's found diamonds yet.
Hope he will, am I feeling childless... Everybody has babies nowadays..., you too, congratulations, by the way, how´s the kid? Hafspajen (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bongo is still around but a bit less active than before, I believe. I don't often work on the "pop culture" articles anymore, unless I'm prodded. Go the Fuck to Sleep was due to K-stick, for instance. Yes, I ran for admin, and the fools voted me in without asking any hard questions.
Since then, they say, RfA has become a more painful process. I don't know; it's always had inflammable potential, and there's plenty that have sailed through. We've had some issues with long-term editors retiring or being retired, and ArbCom has been involved in a number of high-profile cases, not to anyone's satisfaction. I mean, there will always be dissatisfaction, but it seems that the authority of ArbCom is being questioned more often.
We're more than ever seen as a news source (mostly by ourselves, no doubt), despite WP:NOTNEWS--that was made clear in the rush to continuously update Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Boston Marathon bombings, with little regard for making sure the sources were right or whether our policies and guidelines were being followed. It's a kind of rubbernecking (an article significantly expanded by CoM, BTW).
WP:ANI is as combative as ever (more so, according to some), and some areas are regularly exploded there. Mixed martial arts recently, with "discretionary sanctions" now in force after lengthy discussions and many disruptions--see this, for instance. We're also still fighting over Israel and Palestine, Eastern Europe, climate change, diacritics, the Tea Party, the phrase "British Isles", Tree shaping,
Tree shaping is crazy, now don´t you do that!
article title capitalization, Shakespeare authorship, September 11 conspiracy theories, castes in India--I could go on. No one cares about landscape architecture, as far as I know.
I saw Jimmy Wales on stage at the Wikimedia conference in Washington DC last summer. Many old timers think the the old days were better.
What else? The editing interface has changed a little bit, and we can now easily comfort each other with WikiLove; a proposal for WikiHate never made it. There's no need to include links to wiki articles in other languages. K-pop got huge, and so did J-pop. We have a ton of copyright problems that need to be tackled. DYK exploded on itself a few times; submissions are now templated and if you submit an article you have to review one (which is fair, but it also means very inexperienced editors are reviewing things that may end up on the front page). Someone got blocked for using the word "sycophantic", apparently. I met an administrator who drives a taxi cab in Alaska, and lots of beer drinkers. Help at Elfdalian dialect would be appreciated. Welcome back! Can I still call you Warrington? Drmies (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Boston Marathon bombings shows that you are currently engaged in an edit warwith multiple editors. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors.
You should learn that the ID's of the victims have been well established and can be cited by numerous reliable sources, so you are creating a lot of stink and confrontation for no good reason. Btw, you are no less 'guilty' of making edits without discussion than anyone else. Please read the rules of consensus more carefully and kindly not use derogatory language on WP talk pages. I also see you are making sweeping deletions of other material you haven't bothered to discuss with other editors. This is hypocrisy to say the least. Again, well sourced good faith edits that have been long confirmed do not need consensus or your particular approval. Also, please review the policy about ownership of articles. Last, some one inadvertently left you a message on my talk page, for the same reason I am leaving you this one. You need to lighten up and review WP policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you say has any relevance at all. You can point at verifiability and all that--but you do so without being informed of what's going on on the talk page. First of all, your edits were made without consensus (that there was no consensus is indisputable), without participating in the talk page discussion (also a no-no), and even your "well established" claim turns out to be incorrect. Had you been informed of the talk page discussion you would know this by now, but your inexplicable rush to insert someone's name, which it now turns out was incorrect, made you forget all about such things as WP:BLP. So don't tell me to lighten up. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before making knee jerk reactions you need to come up to speed on matters. Your language is foul, your behavior is hostile and your habitual deletions are largely made with no discussion to the editors involved. Btw, It wasn't me who said "the article would be gone if "trivial" things were cut ". You're all over the map and yes, you do need to lighten up, obviously.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pff. Discussion is all over the talk page. What did I say that was so foul? "It wasn't me who said..."--I wasn't talking to you. I don't care about lightening up: you don't seem to understand the importance of our BLP policy, and you don't seem to have an ounce of concern for the parents who did not wish to have the name given out. It's disruptive actions like yours that make this a chore sometimes; good thing I don't really care much for your personal opinion on me. I have no opinion on your language, only on your actions; so far it's not a very high opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this whole situation has "meh" written all over it. We all just need to lighten up about it and drop our respective sticks, and that's really all that needs to happen; especially now that it seems consensus on the name issue has been reached. Writ Keeper⚇♔17:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'm tempted to "read the book", I think perhaps I'll just "wait for the movie". No I'm not making fun of, or having a laugh at, such a terrible tragedy, just rather amazed Wikipedia's treatment of it. - Ched: aka: — ChedZILLA21:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That, and their obstinacy. Dennis, take it easy. I hope you have a good night. I hope Mrs. Brown has a nice come-to-bed-darling gift for you. Go sell some product tomorrow, and treat yourself to something fried for lunch. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please... Look who is calling the kettle black. Both of you were no less 'obstinate' and "warrior" like than many of the others. "Self serving people"?? Pew! Do you always hallucinate when your run into disagreement? Arguing about what we feel is right is something we all do sometimes, but the hypocrisy displayed here, quite frankly, reeks of immaturity and is a kick in the teeth to the idea of good faith. Thanks a bunch. We love you too. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I think it would be an excellent idea for you (et al.) to cease this line of conversation immediately. It will accomplish nothing, as the name discussion is over, for better or worse. Continuing to antagonize people on their own talk page, especially as they state their intention to drop it and walk away, serves no purpose other than to make you look like an asshole. (It is currently making you look like an asshole, if you're curious.) Just my opinion; feel free to disregard as necessary. Writ Keeper⚇♔05:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right... While reviewing the debates and related talk pages it was simply my intention to have these 'administrators' reflect on their own contradictory and "warrior" like behavior so as not to instigate "warrior" like behavior in the future, and your foul mouth and name calling isn't helping and only reveals you as that which you so eloquently made reference to. Ya' think? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My "methods" were in response to not just the deletions in the article AFTER many Reliable Sources confirmed Lü Lingzi as one of the victims, but the removal, hatting and moving of text on the talk page and the apparent attempt to suppress a new consensus after it was obvious many RS's had confirmed and reported her name. And if you want to see a "battlefield" mentality, just look at some of the language and personal remarks that were used, starting with the one immediately above our little chat here, thank you. Don't mistake someone for being just as insistent and bold as you and some others were for a "warrior". As for "changes now! now! now!", yes there were some, but speaking for myself, I didn't insist on including Lü Lingzi's name until well after it was confirmed by RS's. Would it be fair to suggest that we all reflect on our 'methods'? Having said that, thanks for looking out Dennis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, my diction is not a result of a battleground mentality. I'm just of the school of thought that says that words are merely random strings of letters/sounds with no meaning but what we choose to give them, and therefore they only have power over us if we let them have that power. In this school, there is no such thing as truly "foul" language, as it's only a construct that we've chosen to define that way; there's nothing to prevent us from defining it in a different way. There's no reason to be held hostage to the social stigma of a word, preventing one from getting at the underlying meaning. Anyway, word choice doesn't indicate a battleground mentality: meanings and actions do. All I said was that your actions (telling people they were hallucinating, immature, hypocritical, etc. etc. over an issue that had already been resolved) were making you look like a jerk, and I did it with a more colorful metaphor that I felt would be the most effective in getting the meaning across. (To be honest, I didn't give much thought at all to the word "asshole" being foul language.) Well, it was making you look like a jerk. I'm sure you're not actually a jerk (and, strictly speaking, didn't call you one); most people aren't. But that has never stopped any of us from acting or looking like one from time to time. Calling a spade a spade isn't a battleground mentality. My comment was merely designed to get your attention for a bit, give you some insight into what your comment looks like to another person (though I can hardly claim to be impartial, ha), and maybe get you to consider whether what you're doing is really a good idea. That's all; if you've looked within and decided that your conversation here is a good thing to pursue after all, well, that conclusion surprises me, but my mission has still been accomplished. Okay, I think that's enough quasi-philosophical rambling. Sincerely: bye, and good luck to you. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For all those who have issues with the compulsive rush to update, update, update as if we're the NPR blog (or for all those who feel that need), this little bit is quite informative. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right--and ponder "bibliography". You got a GA in the making there, but that's something that needs cleaning up. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, well, I don't know how much I can take. Thank goodness Masem is there--they know how to handle things in a professional manner. Have yourself a good night, Dennis. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Originally from Chechnya, but living in the United States since five years, Tamerlan says: "I don't have a single American friend, I don't understand them."
"People can't control themselves." That's not exactly true. Lots of people can control themselves very well. Putting guns and explosives in front of the ones that can't is probably not a good idea. Sheesh. Great, kids, you (allegedly) killed an 8-year old boy to make a point about yourself. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies and TPSers. Would any of you be interested in reviving the old "Dispatches" section in the Signpost, even in a modified form? You can take it in any direction you want, as long as it focuses on content from a Wikimedia site, though I'd love to see pieces like "Wikipedia remembers the Wall" or 'how-to' articles relating to writing, referencing, plagiarism, etc. You don't have to have something every week—I'd be happy with biweekly or even monthly installments. Any interest from you all in doing something out of the box? :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan]20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Somewhat irregular maybe, as the spirit moves me. Are you the editor, Ed? And is it OK if I'm sitting in my swimming trunks by the pool right now, or does that hurt your feelings too much? Drmies (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Tittodutta's review of your nomination came up with a few issues to be addressed, and you still have not added a completed QPQ review to the page. Can you please take care of these, so I can call for a new review? Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax took care of that, thanks. Yes, no page number--that's how our cite journal template works. But I re-found the page number and added it to my response. You doin' alright, Lady? Rosie is ready for night, Sippi is still in the tub--why don't you come on over, quick? Drmies (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Morgana le Fay cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask you if it's ok to add rumors etc. without a source? There are users who keep add rumors and stuff like that on these sites: S.M. Entertainment discography or YG Entertainment discography for the part "Upcoming". An admin told me once not to add something without a source that's why I removed these sections of the sites but someone always undo it. Maybe they will listen if an admin tells it to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.184.226.26 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that we should be the one who tells the world how to make distruktion device and how is such a tool constructed? Asking Hafspajen (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Warrington. I looked at it yesterday and now again; from the text in the article I wouldn't be able to make one, but I'm not that clever. Such a thing requires an ignition device of some sort for the gun powder and I don't know how that works. All of this is easy to found on the internets, no doubt. Improvised explosive device is more detailed than this one--I think the majority of editors would accept it in its current form. I want a world without guns, and now I have to wish for a world without fucking pressure cookers and high-school kids with stupid ideas. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my concern about it, like pressure cookers att high-schools, you just take moms cooker and fix the guy next door or the little girl who makes fun of you att school... I mean, people will say, but i was reading about it att Wkipedia, and that is common knowledge, now don´t tell me it is forbidden, see, read yourself... and any amount of talk like this... I am just picturing the future. I wouldn't be able to make one either, I'm not that clever either, but kids are clever, you know, they just need an idea to start with. Warrington (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user believes that the universe was created by aliens.
That was fun. Listen, given the hostile tone of those comments and the incessant wikilawyering (those comments on "consensus" at ANI), you might want to try and propose a topic ban for this specific article (and its talk page). If they are, as you surmise, having a serious conflict of interest, and you can lay out the evidence for it, that may be the best way to bring some calm to the article and the talk page. I read the whole thing, including Bovlb's evaluation of the situation, and if there will ever be a reasonable consensus it will be despite Gwern's presence. No consensus may be reached anyway without the WMF speaking out on it; the sooner they do it the better. By now you are certainly invested in the topic to the extent that the "involved" charge may well be believed by some editors, so it's best for you to stay away from any buttons (I don't think you were itching anyway, and I have no doubts about your objectivity, nor about Bovlb's for instance (per AGF)). That's about the best I can suggest; perhaps others have better ideas. But I think their presence at the article and the talk page is unwanted already, even before I see evidence of a COI. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)That discussion is too long for me to want to get involved, but I'll make a few comments based on reviewing the article
It being used as an example in SOPA discussions (especially where the only source is the actual discussion itself) seems like an UNDUE issue unless better sources can be found as the information is incidental.
Most of the legal status section could be trimmed and moved to history. In my view using quotes is almost always POV and UNDUE and most of this section is sourced to forums, press releases, etc. If no information is available in reliable sources, we need to wait until it is, or find better sourcing.
The Reception section could be re-written and moved into an Auctions section without so many quotes to just say it is underground, known for selling illegal drugs, and has been compared to an Amazon or eBay for illegal contraband. The Transactions and Products sections could be merged to Auctions as well. And a History section would need expansion.
Overall, the article looks like it's written by someone who dislikes the website and there's plenty of reasons to (which we can cover neutrally), but if I'm looking to buy illegal drugs - wow, what a great resource!! ;-)
Don't worry doc - apparently there are more user friendly ways than silk road. More relevantly though, from a brief look at this I don't think there is really a COI unless Gwern could stand to benefit by promoting SR. Just because they wrote about using it on their website doesn't mean that they are conflicted - I'd view it to be like a Christian editing the bible article or something. SmartSE (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I have been told (basically) that ethics is for suckers and sometimes I am caught grasping at straws to make a cogent counter-argument. Hence why I find legal arguments much more effective than ethical ones. I think Dennis is referring to user Gwern adding links to Gwern.net. CorporateM (Talk) 06:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just encouraging disclaimers like "according to" and "so and so said" would be better, as we don't want to inhibit our ability to cover current events.
The thing about Gwern is that the way COI is defined, it can't be proven anywhere. It would be better if we defined COI editing (and prohibited it) and also introduced the concept of "the appearance of COI" which is something we can actually confirm more easily. CorporateM (Talk) 00:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for troubling you, but is there in chance you could weigh in on the discussion over at Deftones? It's pretty simple, it's whether or not nu metal should be included in the infobox, but being that it is about the infobox, naturaly, it has become a large discussion pretty quickly! This discussion happened before and it lasted months (despite it only being about 3-5 editors in favour and one against) before eventually going stale, we posted at the dispute resolution noticeboard a couple of times and it didn't move things along. Any help would be appreciate. Regards. HrZ (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hate it when people mention the NWOBHM, didn't see that one coming... =P In all seriousness, thanks for the input. I feel it might help but I shall have to wait and see how other editors respond. Good day to you. =) HrZ (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Man) Sorry, I seen an opportunity for an easy joke! Actually a fan of both Priest and Maiden (shall be seeing Maiden at Download in June). Not the biggest fan of nu metal, just a fan of Deftones. =) Also, looks like the comment didn't do much good, editor is digging his heels in again. Ach well! Regards. HrZ (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy the show! Actually, I'm so old that I saw the "new" Maiden on the first tour (and I prefer the old Maiden). Ha, anything is better than paying money to see Accept, and I've made that mistake. Later, Drmies (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have just started to write my first Page - for the band Night By Night . I did put somewhere that it would take a few days to get the references together to prove they are notable. Unfortuantely, the page got deleted before I could complete it. Please could you restore it - at least so I can complete the references. Their founder is from The Sisters Of Mercy - a big band and they are playing to crowds in the 1000s, won an award this year for best single and appear at most of the big festivals. If you have Jettblack as a valid page then I think Night By Night should be.
Hi, thanks and you are right about Jettblack (a great local band to me). The version that has been restored is a much earlier version than the one I saved last night. That version had an infobox and a reference and a lot more text. Maybe that would have been a bit closer to what is required. Is it possible to restore my latest version? Thanks, Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirob78 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can do it yourself. It will be good practice in using the Wikipedia editing and history tools. Go to this diff here, and from there pick the "edit" link for the earlier revision. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final word from me. Thank you for all your help, I am in the sandbox and I won´t come out until I have all the references and other items that Wiki demands. Will resurface in a few weeks. Thanks again and all the best. Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirob78 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a much more agreeable bill. Uncle, I had a look at a few of those articles, and the deleted one. I'm not sure what I can do: it's not really my field as I think you know. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
University project on evolutionary psychology at (I suspect) Loyola Marymount University
See what I wrote in the AFD discussion of the first article. Those of you in the sciences might consider what can be recovered from the sub-pages, or at least stuffing in some introductions. Those with administrator tools might like to review the one redlink. I unfortunately only have the time to hunt up three textbooks on the subject (by people other than Buss) and write a decent AFD rationale. I don't even have the time to visit User talk:RHaworth. And I'm going to be without legitimate Wikipedia access again in a matter of minutes. So the rest is up to you lot. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You and LaRoza both make good points. I don't know which is the better name to use, but I did find you a relevant wikiproject. Maybe they can help. LadyofShalott13:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello kind sir! I hope you're doing well. I recently beefed up a lot of Jelinek's stuff, including Lust and Illness or Modern Women. I was hoping you could take a look at Lust, the plot in particular, and see if it all jives. I'd really appreciate it whenever you have the time. Also, I couldn't help but see the reference to taxidermy artist Polly Morgan at the top of the page. I printed several of her pieces in The Pinch literary journal at the University of Memphis when I was getting my MFA; she's a terrific person and really sweet in her emails. Anyway, just thought it was a funny coincidence. Cheers. Icarus of old (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Icarus--nice to hear from you. Did you know that Drmies is unlikely to finish reading Lust, despite his masochistic streak? I can't hack it, it hurts my penis (out of pure guilt, of course). But I'll gladly have a look--are you really a Jelinek fan? I thought The Piano Teacher was great, and just on my side of the perversion barrier. Lust goes well over it: it's too bleak, too reductive (I'm not denying that there's high reality content in it, but I admit that only grudgingly, being an optimist). Yes, small world. Speaking of taxidermy--somewhere in the history of this talk page is a flying stuffed cat named Orville, I think, an article that still exists as a redirect. An MFA from Memphis: I hope you're raking in the cash. The MFAs I know are all journeymen or got library degrees. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Raking in the cash indeed! No, I publish poems in journals and am writing a book of poems, but I earn my living through teaching. I'm an adjunct at U. Memphis and full-time at a private school. But I still write quite a bit though. As for Jelinek, I really enjoyed Wonderful, Wonderful Times the most, I think. It's quite stunning and less sexually painful. Other than that, I prefer her shorter stuff and plays. I've never seen one of her plays performed, but hopefully sometime that will change. You really need to check out Marlen Haushofer's novel The Wall. It's a favorite of Jelinek's and mine. A really crazy story told beautifully. They're re-releasing it in July but you can find a fairly cheap copy on Amazon. It's 100% pure awesome, but very un-Jelinek. Icarus of old (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon has -- wait, I see it: it's not yet released. I pre-ordered it. I also ordered Wonderful, Wonderful Times. That better be good, Icarus, or you owe me $16. A few weeks ago I was in Portland and went to Powell's Books, where I found Lust and Greed, and a couple of Muller books (including The Passport, which I really liked). Hey, one of these days, shoot me an email with your website (I'm sure you have one). Occasionally I have a need for a poet, and maybe I can put you in touch with someone from the Alabama Book Festival for next year. And then we'll have a beer and talk Mississippi--my wife's from Hwy 72. Do you eat slugburgers? Drmies (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Now I have my own (a double-decker model) to come up with some new items to make up so the menu doesn't get stale (if you pardon the pun). My thoughts are:
It is like a panini press though. I used to work in this tiny sweatbox of a kitchen that did not have a proper stove or grill of any kind at first. We managed to do some pretty awesome stuff with a panini press. It was a coffee house so it was a lot of "hippie food". Try this one: cut an eggplant into half inch slices, dip the slices in balsamic vinagerette, and slap them in the press until tender. About halfway through that dip the two halves of a kaiser bun in garlic butter and toast them in there as well. When it's done make assemble into a sandwich and top with tomato and feta cheese. And that's where fat hippies come from... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
←It actually shapes the bread sort of like a seashell, and is good for locking in all the cheesy goodness (see the link, I found the redirect). Your eggplant sandwich sounds excellent, I forgot to mention as I am in the Gobi right now I am of limited supply of food here (the pie filling I will have to bring from Canada). Some of the things I can purchase at the store or get from the kitchen are (I understand that a lot of these are not suitable for a Sandwich Maker) are in the collapsed section below:
Hmm, interesting problem. Peanut butter and honey is not bad; peanut butter and chocolate sprinkles is better. I filled some poblano peppers with chorizo, cheese, and fritos the other day--fritos for texture and for sucking up the fat from the sausage. Delicious. I imagine you can do the same with potato chips. It's worth trying to make a grilled cheese with some crumbled chips in between, in the cheese. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW--pizza donut? sounds like something CoM would write up. K, do you remember Warrington, from the good old days? Look up--he's back. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pizza donut was good (check my FB for it and my sandwich maker). We ran out of bread and all we had was a donut. They are not overly sweet and more like round bread. With a hole. I put the pepper jack cheese, spaghetti sauce, and bacon on it. Voila, pizza donut. I also have some smashed up cool-ranch Doritos in a pepper mill, what can't that go on? Unfortunately I don't have a mortar and pestle to grind it finer with...I was Warrington is back, welcome to back the show!--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can't actually tell if it is a boy camel or a girl camel, it kind of looks like a dude, but has really long eyelashes, wears a hard hat, but no safety glasses. Pictures of it are plastered all around here...it is rather annoying. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further, yes the landscape is bleak, reminds me of northern Nevada. The PB and honey sandwich was awesome, as was today's pizza sandwich. I shall never go hungry again! --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Drmies,
A1. I have been participating on Wikipedia for a few years. However, besides fixing language and content errors, I don't do much more and never got too involved with policies etc.
A2. This means that it takes me forever to find out where to find the necessary information, inlcuding scripts to report incidents and people if necessary. Which is why I am writing to you - saw your name on DoRD's talk page (he approved my reviwer status years ago)
B1. There is an editor going round adding to a number of articles (see Karachi) a statement about "Hindus migrating out of Pakistan, and Muslims fleeing pogroms (often spellt by this editor as pogram) and genocide in India. In the past few days, another editor and I have deleted the references to pograms but he reverts the edits. I have no problem with the use of strong terms to refer to what happened in 1947, but cannot agree with the distorted view that people left Pakistan peacefully, while others fled India to escape massacres. A quick glance at a number of articles - ethnic cleansing; genocides in history, pogram, etc. do not list the 1947 population exchange that followed the partition as a pogram or genocide. Other then 1947 per se, these articles actually reveal that a number of massacres have been carried by Pakistan(is), and not a single case of massacres against them.
B2. Please advise on a course of action or take any steps you'd deem appropriate.
Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rui Gabriel Correia, that's a bit hard to say without more detail. These edits sound like POV edits (see WP:NPOV) and there's standard user warning templates for them; Twinkle allows you to do that kind of stuff easily. If you tell me who the editor is I can have a look. Or, and that may be even better since all I have is some blunt tools, you can drop some of the seasoned India editors a line--Sitush (talk·contribs) and Boing! said Zebedee (talk·contribs) (also an admin) come to mind, and they have much more knowledge of sourcing for such articles. In addition, if this is a sock (the subcontinent seems to be full of them), they might be able to sniff it out. Right now that's all I can do for you--I'm on kid duty at this moment. :) Drmies (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, Drmies. The user is "Delljvc" here are some of the edits in question
I could have added Qwyrxian, who has in the meantime left a message for that editor. I see now that this is not a new editor and that you had not edited their talk page at all: it is imperative that you engage the editor, even if it's just to ask their rationale or to say hey, your edits aren't neutral. Please keep that in mind for next time: discuss things first before you seeking redress at a higher level, so to speak--the level of warnings, templates, admin involvement, etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he is back with a new account, User:Do Not Delete. His edits all match previous edits by Zimmerman/Hollis. Check out the last four edits on the [page]. The big bold "DO NOT DELETE" in the last Zimmerman IP edit kinda links the two together. I will let you take it from here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that thing wasn't entirely right, and I don't think that the next time around the clerks will look at it any differently: I reverted your creation but left the new editor a note. Let's find some closure. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like, for now, your warning to Zimmerman, et al. is working. Haven't seen any edits from him on any of his usual haunts since. Hopefully he is finally getting the message. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should have known--a Dennis Brown original. DYK that I had lunch at Dreamland yesterday? And next time I'm going with the ribs, which are always good. Sausage, meh, not so much. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[[File:Bodeans, Tower Hill, London (4737185737).jpg
That sounds pretty nice, Dennis. Do you drive one of those 50s cars? Hey, you know where else that kind of car culture (with US cars from the 50s and 60s) is incredibly popular? Sweden (I saw it Hjo, or Jönköping maybe). I'm sure Warrington can tell you all about it. They actually go cruising on a Sunday afternoon, with bikes pulling wheelies, milkshakes... Drmies (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about that interesting article You ran into an on a Swedish dialect/language? You never told me about it, while in bostonfever...ah? Warrington (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, in a section above: Elfdalian dialect. Fascinating article but the sources are a bit too...Swedish-language for me, and I think there is a certain amount of confusion/disagreement about naming and status and such. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strange enough it is a dialect of the Swedish language, but nowadays they consider it as an own language. Well it looks correct to me, but I don´t know what do You think is the problem? Warrington (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters the "Context" section is unclear and disorganized (the redlinks are a distraction, but that can't be helped). It should clearly establish what the linguistic and geographical context is for Elfdalian, but it speaks more of Dalecarlian and whatever it has to say about Elfdalian (or "Evmol or Övmål", which link to a redirect back to this article) is buried in a complex sentence in the middle of a paragraph. Besides, it speaks of areas and languages confusingly--Upper Dalecarlia (is an area) and is divided into other areas, one of which is divided into dialects. That's an incorrect shift. Övmål, which is another name for Elfdalian, isn't even mentioned as a synonym in the lead. And "lower Dalecarlian dialects" again seems to combine linguistic with geographical terminology. The grammar section needs some wikilinks. In Writing systems, the relation between Germanic runes, Dalecarlian alphabet, and Elfdalian runes is not clear. "Råðdjärum's Orthography" is unclearly written, and its relation to the aforementioned systems is not spelled out. Then in general the tag at the top is correct, and that makes it very difficult for an outsider like me to edit and clean up. I have no doubt that a lot of the External links are helpful--but they need to be brought in as references. ... Drmies (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:) Hey, don't worry--we're not in school. But I found it very interesting: it had never occurred to me that there would be different dialects in Swedish. But then, I'm a bit dense. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they are, I mean different, even very different dialects in Swedish, just look att the country. It is kind of elongated. In the south the Swedish speak more like the Danish, or if You like it like the Dutch, but in the north they are speaking the language in a different way, with different accent and sometimes with different words.
And finally in certain parts or villages they spoke an entirely different something all together, and I have great difficulties to get what they acctually say, mostly in the north, in small isolated villages or districts and on Öland, now that is just impossible to get what the old people say sometimes. I was doing my best with this Elfdalian stuff. You were right, it was not easy to understand.
Warrington (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly explanation.
You may remember that, in The Fellowship of the Ring, Galadriel was tempted to take the "Ring of Power" from Frodo —
In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!
Yet, in the end she doesn't give in to temptation —
'I pass the test,' Galadriel said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel.'
I originally used this analogy in response to a comment made by Ihardlythinkso — who claims on his User page: "This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one" — to remind him that it is very hard for most people to "pass the test" like that and not seek power.
You should note, however, that my main point was that admins ought to remember why they decided to seek that power in the first place. As I've said then: "I do believe that most admins are GOOD people who were driven to seek the bit by a noble desire to serve the community, and not solely by love of power. They just need to be reminded of that."
For some reason (that I don't pretend to understand), you decided to call that a "low blow", and suggested that my "love of power" comment "clearly referred to those admins who don't agree with you". But that is a serious distortion of my position. As a matter of fact, I hold that all humans are actuated by love of power, at least to some extent. This is not a new insight. To me, what one does with that power is what actually matters.
You stated "I don't care if you think I'm ... good ... or ... bad", but I say to you, I am certain that you ARE a good person. (I would appreciate it, though, if you could stop trying to distort my words!) Sorry for the long post, I was just trying to be sincere; feel free to delete this if you wish. Truly, DanielTom (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DanielTom, I'm going to forward this message to Mrs. Drmies, if you don't mind. I appreciate it, of course, and I hope that you know that my remarks weren't meant personally. What rubs me the wrong way is the "admins are evil" mindset, which comes out sometimes in very unpleasant ways (I'm tired of the cries of "CENSORSHIP", for instance), and that AN thread wasn't going well. I am quite sincere in the business of strategy: I think that the snark in that thread was not conducive to getting the editor unbanned--whenever the heat gets cranked up the responses on both sides get more heated as well, and that's never good if a favor/judgment/re-evaluation is being asked for. If someone wants to defend a certain editor the strategy ought to be to convince the other person, not call them out (that's why I only left one comment in that thread and no further responses, and I do believe that I had an actual argument). FWIW, what's missing on the editor's part in that thread is an acknowledgment that they did something not right, so to speak: the community is unlikely to change its mind if it believes (rightly or wrongly) that an editor is continuing down the same path. Anyway, thanks again for your note. I wasn't going to come back to your talk page since clearly my contributions weren't doing any good, but that doesn't mean I won't avoid you as an editor for instance: I think you've done some really nice work and I hope you keep doing it. And to rephrase your comment: most if not all editors, admins or not, are on the same team. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my comment. I never said that you didn't have "an actual argument". Here is what I actually said —
Kudos, User:Dennis Brown. Seriously. At least you tried to provide actual arguments for opposing the ban lift; the same cannot be said of the others who've recently just voted "Oppose".
That clearly doesn't include you. I was referring to the opposing comments that had just been made immediately after the thread was re-opened. Please, take a look at them, and see if you don't agree with me.
Now, you keep saying that my comments there weren't "helpful". You could be right. I don't think so, myself, because I was pretty much the only one voting in support of the ban lift. You may have noticed that my first posts there were actually rather gentle, but in my opinion the user was not being treated fairly at all. Perhaps a miracle would have happened if I hadn't made any comments on it, and the ban would be lifted. (I doubt it.)
Just to be clear, and to answer your first point, I actually spend most of my time at Wikiquote, and I happen to like all the administrators there. I don't think "admins are evil" — indeed, I'd say that probably 99% of the time they are in the right. It may seem that I believe admins are often wrong, but that's just because I only participate in controversial AN discussions, whenever I think some user is being treated unfairly.
I come now to what what we were discussing earlier (at the risk of ruining our newly-made friendship).
The grave warning that you left at my Talk page did bother me, especially your astonishing accusation that I had "continued [my] personal attacks" — which implied that I had made other "personal attacks" in the past (a most untrue statement). I've asked you, as you know, to either provide evidence for your groundless accusations, or to retract them, but you've done neither. That is particularly worrisome to me because now when other users look at my page they can't see the manifest truth, and instead think "Hmm, admins say this guy keeps disrupting AN discussions; he must be an uncivil and insulting troll; why hasn't he been banned yet?"
What bothers me the most about all this is having to put up with threats of being blocked by admins who apparently feel completely free to accuse me of whatever they like, but who, when asked to justify their baseless accusations, never answer back.
I appreciate your thoughts on the Education project matter. I feel awkward standing in the way of deletion because many of the articles do indeed have problems. That being said, I feel like one article (not my own) shows promise to become a good article or at least a stub: Evolutionary_psychology_of_language. It has been tagged as a content fork of Evolutionary linguistics when I believe it is notable enough to merit its own article. To prove this Notability point, please read this quote straight from the intro of the EL page, "Since the late 1980s, the field has been revived in the wake of progress made in the related fields of psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, evolutionary anthropology, evolutionary psychology, and cognitive science." Note that Evolutionary Psychology is just one of the listed topics involved with Evolutionary Linguistics. As a specific sub-topic with independent research, is it really a content fork? I know it isn't your area of expertise, but could you take another look at it and possibly post any feedback on the talk page? I hope to vicariously live through my peers' success and gain some faith in wikipedia. Thanks.Psyc452-GGeorge (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello George (if I may), I'll have a look. I had a quick look at that article last week and it didn't convince me that it was a content fork. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacob de Wilde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sloterdijk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Good stuff. I agree that the sources are reliable, but that comment is from someone who thinks self-published sources by an ophthalmologist that he calls a historian are fine. See Madoc and Moon-eyed people (well, see my edit summaries). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what seems like the umpteenth time s/he removed the "singleton" statement from United Bates of America because it is "obvious" (that is, anybody who wants to know could figure it out by studying the 19 birthdates in the table). I didn't revert that last edit of BBB76's.
At List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, they removed the reference citations and re-added content that I had previously deemed to be close paraphrasing, all with an edit summary that led me to wonder if they grasp the concepts of this encyclopedia. (The part of the edit summary that says "Why put a reference for an episode that airs tonight?" is what indicated to me that they don't get it.) (While removing the source that I had added, which is a webpage that contains several weeks of schedule and episode descriptions for the show, the user added a reference that pointed to the current day's TV listings. That page is probably no longer available. Not only doesn't the user understand the purpose of reference citations, but I suspect they think that Wikipedia exists to serve as an online TV guide.) As for the closeness, the source says "Jim Bob and Josh decide to take their health more seriously and challenge each other to see who can lose the most weight in 90 days; Jason and the boys construct a greenhouse in the backyard." This user's rendering of that sentence has varied a little from one iteration to the next, but it always includes the phrase "to see who can lose the most weight in 90 days". I had changed the description to "Jim Bob and Josh start a 90-day weight-loss competition," but the user changed it back to "Jim Bob and Josh challenge each other to see who can lose the most weight in 90 days. Jason and his brothers decide to build a greenhouse," with a hidden note saying "You forgot to mention what Jason and the other boys are doing." (I didn't forget; all I know about the show is what I read in Wikipedia, and I didn't feel a need to figure out what actually happened on the show.) At least the user has finally taken the word "decide" out of that passage; that word was one of the things that led me to think this was too close to the source. Other parts of that edit restored wording with problems that I have euphemistically described as problems with "tone". (Example: "Jim Bob and Michelle talk about their marriage, the ups and downs of it all, before going to a marriage retreat, to help make their marriage stronger.") --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I saw somewhere on this encyclopedia a policy statement that allows speedy deletion of articles about any TV show that has a major character named "Jim Bob". I found comfort in that, even though my real first name is "Jim". Perhaps invoking that policy might help solve your dilemma. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... That could conveniently wipe out several of the most viewed -- not to mention most annoying -- pages in the WikiProjects for Tennessee and Appalachia! --Orlady (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you (or a fellow talkpage stalker) have time ... could you possibly take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jan Olsson? The second rejection seems to have been made in ignorance of WP:PROF, and I've found sources for the rediscovery of Buster Keaton shorts and suspect there are more mentions out there. Unfortunately the creator has given up in high dudgeon and, unless things have changed in the past few days, hasn't created it on sv.wikipedia. So I am leaning towards passing it and improving it myself, but I am a notorious inclusionist, so I think a check by someone less biased would be a good idea first. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unlikely to me, at first glance, that this person would not be notable. Move it along and send it to mainspace, that's what I would do. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that while I was afk! I'll resume searching for additional sources. I've always thought a (selected) list of works is part of the brief in articles on writers and that the ISBNs/OCLC numbers constitute sufficient attestation, but I'll see what reviews I can find. In any case I hope the article creator (no e-mail) sees it. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's just my opinion on good article writing. We shouldn't do resumes--look at how long the article for an average romance novel writer would be. So I make it a rule of thumb that a measure of notability be applied. That usually means no journal articles, and books supplied with a review. Obviously that would be silly in the case of Faulkner or Einstein--but such individual entries, it can be assume, are written about in secondary sources. Think of balance in the article. See this, and for a recent analogy in a musician's article, see this edit. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to do it on a case by case basis; for dead academics, I aim to give some idea of how many publications they had, and if I know them well, to pick out the influential ones (which often included articles); for living writers, while some crank 'em out (and often there are series that can be listed without listing the individual books), in some cases it's one book a year or fewer and completeness seems to be the way to go: I just updated Marina Fiorato while adding refs. On the other hand I'm probably spoiled by working on German scholars, where one can just slap the DNB template on. In the case of this guy, as with many modern scholars, I'm inclined to junk the prose list of books and have a full List of works below - nobody publishes like the Grimms any more. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, I was doing my best with this Elfdalian stuff. By thy sugestions, now edited, than, how now, you are very good speak-Övdalian, Your oppinion...? Någon hackar min dator när jag är här.
Warrington (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Sjones. I'll have a look some other time, when I'm less tired, but I'm not sure I can be of any help there. I know my limitations, sometimes. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in first reply here I would like to request userfication of the apex fallacy article to have its deleted history preserved on my userspace.
Also I would like to know if we could perhaps instead of leaving it a red link, redirect the term to fallacy of composition. Based on my understanding of FoC this appears to be a specific situational application of that fallacy. One perhaps not popular enough to warrant its own article, but at least with the redirect people looking for the term will be directed to something that basically explains what it is. Ranze (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The odds were literally a billion to one, but somehow we've each recently written articles on Dutch artists named Maria. I've got a question about my Maria.
The sources differ when discussing her without using her first name, some referring to her as "van Oosterwijck", some as "Van Oosterwijck", and others simply as "Oosterwijck" (plus various spellings such as "Oosterwyck"). I've used "van Oosterwijck", capitalizing it only when it starts a sentence.
An unsourced paragraph in Dutch name says that in the Netherlands, "van" should be lower case only when used with a first name or initial, and in all other instances it should be upper case. I was going to give a counter-example, so I just went to Vincent van Gogh, and I was surprised to find that that article does follow this convention. Do you know if this is really correct? Thanks. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM23:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I saw yours after I nominated another Dutchie at DYK tonight but it was already being reviewed. You know I left the low country a long time ago. I thought that "van" was lowercased when in a sentence, regardless of whether there's an initial or first name or not; that it's only to be uppercased if it's the first word in a sentence. To tell you the truth, Mandarax, I just don't know. Let's ask a gnome--Mandarax should know. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Thanks; if you thought the same thing as I thought, it must be right. I almost went and changed it after seeing the van Gogh page, but I'm glad I waited for your answer, and I think I'll just leave it as is. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM01:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What goes for "van" goes for "de" as well, by the way. You en-dashed my latest Dutch venture: did you see how artsy my three recent Dutch articles are? Also, they're all Man in the Moone related: it was a small world in those days. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. I had checked Johan van Brosterhuysen to see how you capitalized "van", but that was no help. Now I've noticed how you handled the "de" capitalization in Maria de Wilde. Yes, it's nice to see you fighting your dislike of writing biographies to do some artsy ones. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM06:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to know, Mandarax, is what algorithm you used to calculate the "literally a billion to one" odds, and why you ruled out the use of the overused word "figuratively"? I am not a mathematician, and I am not Dutch, but I am a curious person. As for "en-dashes", I want to know nothing at all about them. All I want to do is hit the key on the keyboard that approximates a dash or a hyphen, and I do not want to argue about it. Change all of them. I do not care. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a somewhat marginally iterative algorithm. I initially had a million, but realized that that was underestimating it a bit, so I nudged it up by changing the "m" into a "b". As for "literally" ... it's an ongoing thing, with little bits sprinkled all around, mostly on my talk archives, such as here, there, or yonder.
Drmies just mentioned to me a day or two ago virtually literally the same thing about hyphens on a keyboard. I'm pretty good with em dashes and en dashes; where I get into trouble is figuring out whether to use a hyphen or not. I think I tend to over-hyphenate, but sometimes I realize this, and over-compensate by under-hyphenating. (And, of course, I think "overcompensate" is actually a word, but I'm attempting to be over-dramatic.) MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM06:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't overexaggerate, Mandarax, and don't misunderestimate yourself (that's now a portmanteau). Cullen, I won't hold your non-Dutchness against you, since it's more than acquitted for by your unmathness. Your curiosity certainly counterbalances the usual untelligence one finds too often in this here place. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curses you Mandarax. Everytime I view my watchlist, I start singing the song in my head. Then other songs from the Sound of Music start up too. Then with my meteorological background, I start up with They Call the Wind Maria. Bgwhite (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks Kiefer! Yngvadottir, take your trivia elsewhere. You know you're a geek.) Pity the semester is over--I could have used that in my linguistics class. BTW, Pullum, cited at the end, is the co-author of my textbook for Advanced English Grammar. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:99.140.253.99 is adding unsourced information to the WGFA and WGFA-FM pages. At first, I reverted with an edit summary note. Different, but still unsourced, information was added, I reverted and posted a note to the anon's talk page telling the user of WP:RS and WP:OR. More posts were made, but I haven't reverted as I am at my 2RR limit. So, since I am not getting through to the user and not getting any responses from them, I leave this to you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard 'em, but from '81 to '89 I was still being teethed on Zeppelin, Sabbath, AC/DC, Def Leppard, early Metallica and the like. I graduated to the grunge rock of the '90s and the new stuff of the '00s and '10s. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did I really say you were crap at layout and organization? Doesn't sound like the sort of thing I'd be likely to say unless you really were crap at it. ;-) MalleusFatuorum01:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say. If Malleus says you suck, then you suck. No, I'll be glad to have a look (thought that article is a beast!), but not tonight--I got some writing assignments at home. M, I'm rewriting something that was borrowed to make sure that Turnitin doesn't catch it. Sounds evil, but it's not, really. I'm taking a break from it but will be back on that job in a little while, and it's more important (gasp) than Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have sent the link, but I was using The Chive's iPhone app (firewalls...), today's toasted sandwich is bacon, spaghetti sauce and cheese. Mmmmmm...breakfast. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's not quite finished yet--help me out if you can. What I just added is half of something: the other half should really discuss the Lunar people a little bit more. I have one more note to add to that first paragraph, that you wrote so nicely a while ago, and then I'll think on the second one a bit more. Oh, you may have noticed I'm impressed by that Cressy article--I just wrote up David Cressy; he's a distinguished prof at OSU who churns out one Oxford UP book after another. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better if it comes from one brain, and you're obviously on fire at the moment, so just let me know when you've finished. I'm maybe changing my mind about this PhD thesis; it's difficult to imagine a more comprehensive encyclopedia article than this monster we're creating. MalleusFatuorum14:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I got paid the big bucks for correcting your citations. Anyway, we're live on stage at FAC now, so let's wish ourselves luck. MalleusFatuorum17:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to mention this: a student in my survey lit class (I think we were discussing the Paradise of Fools in Paradise Lost) asked if there was speculation about inhabited planets in that time period, and because of our work on this article I could give a meaningful (and affirmative) answer. I really enjoyed that little class moment. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That must have felt really good, just a pity you won't get any formal academic recognition for your work. And it reminds me of your speculation on where Godwin got the idea for those spirits Gonsales encountered on his voyage to the Moon. MalleusFatuorum17:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because of the username, I've always pictured Drmies as an intelligent, well-spoken mouse. With glasses. Dr. Mouse. The fact that he's a male mouse is readily apparent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's beautiful here right now -- much better weather than at home. I'm glad you took it the right way; you do act rather feminine in real life. It'd be easy to confuse people. Ed[talk][majestic titan]17:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might be a dog anyway. Yes, I heard that DC is wonderful this time of year. It'd look better with mandatory checks on all gun purchases, but that's just my opinion, not shared by a majority of Americans, supposedly. Well, go and have a great time, Ed--one day you'll be running this show, no doubt. And then you won't have to go to school anymore, and you can live in San Francisco! Drmies (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You look like one, that's for sure. Nothing wrong with background checks, and that is supported by a majority of Americans, just not a majority of senators. As for the last bit, that's doubtful, though I did manage to graduate in December. Shocking, I know. ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan]17:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, Ed--hence "supposedly". Democracy my foot. That's one of my problems with "manhood"--it puts me in the same category as those dudes. Have I congratulated you yet? Have you moved out of your folks' basement yet? Are you putting all that military history you know to good use in a respectable graduate program, or at some decent academy? One of the finest Old English scholars I know is at the other one. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, for your old, ancient memory: User:The ed17/Archives/59#Congratulations. I moved out awhile back, except for summers (no rent was nice), and I've applied to grad school -- I'll hear back after the 8th of May. Either I'll get to move down and kill myself in grad school or I'll save money for a year, pay the parents back, and apply again. Ed[talk][majestic titan]17:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had. Hey, let me know if you need a letter. I know you as a human being and as a writer. And I have letterhead. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies, I won't this year, I poked three of my professors into doing them, and I even got the WMF to write one. :-) If I have to apply again, though, you'll be getting poked. @Dennis, I do too. I had no idea until I met him that it's supposed to be Dr.Mies... Ed[talk][majestic titan]18:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir:
The information on STEPHEN HANNOCK's page is all correct and from other sources. I am puzzled when I see so many poor wiki pages that you seem to be "attacking" this page which various folk have worked very hard to make an excellent source for information on this contemporary painter. THank you for letting me know what, specifically, you have a problem with BEFORE you simply excise everything and I will try to improve. Thank you. Apomopa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apomopa (talk • contribs)
I have reverted you one more time, in particular because you cannot remove valid maintenance templates (and that they're valid any WP editor can quickly confirm). Drmies (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is that the language in the article is simply not neutral, yet you keep removing the tag that says that. Then, you keep adding "references" that aren't references to reliable sources, like this and this--and the latter is used to verify the subject's praise. Then, you re-add this odd "Critics [link to NYT article] have compared Hannock's paintings to the landscapes of 19th century American artists", when a. "critics" is plural, and the NYT article is written by one person, b. the article does not verify that particular statement--what it verifies is what I put in the Hannock article, an addition you keep reverting, and c. sticking a bare URL behind one single word (and removing my beautiful template) is not helpful. The very first thing you should consider is having a look at WP:RS on what's reliable and what's not. Actually, the very first thing is you need to stop reverting my edits which are intended to turn a piece of promotional praise into an encyclopedic article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are public newspapers not reliable references? Not everything is published in the NYTimes for heaven's sake. The article as it was has been on WIKI for well over a year without anyone taking issue. Those who are familiar with the arts know that the language, if one is speaking about the arts, is not promotional but simply descriptive. You will find the same throughout wikipedia. I will simply report vandalism.
What you have there is not a newspaper, it's a local feel-good website. That no one has taken issue with it before is indeed a shame, and the language in the article is not appropriate, whether the topic is arts or not. I think I have a pretty good idea of that is found throughout Wikipedia, and you are welcome to report me. Now, please have a look at WP:RS and start improving the article in a neutral fashion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Drmies said. Apomopa -- you simply cannot continue to delete valid maintenance tags. And you cannot continue to re-enter information not cited to any reliable source, which has been challenged and removed as a violation of wp:v, without supplying appropriate inline citations to reliable sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where you write of "copyright" violations it is the external source that picked up my wording from WIKI, not the other way around. Since you seem to be so very knowledgeable about WIKI and art you can continue to throw your weight around. I bid you adieu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apomopa (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. Do pass it on, please; I can't promise I'll be doing much there, but I'll do what I can. I appreciate it, Drmies (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response Drmies. I don't have your email outside the WP system so if you hit reply to mine I can send that on to you--Caililtalk20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you may NOT write on athletes. Enough with the baseball already. Eighteenth-century erotica is, as I discovered, seriously underrepresented. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't miss that at all, Crisco. I'm somewhat on the fence. Only a moron would assume that by default something is male (or female--hence your "Male sexworkers" joke, of course), but having a female subcategory does suggest that. You may have seen the German wiki, where they have "Category:Man" and "Category:Woman" and stupid shit like that. On the other hand, I like categories for research purposes. I created Mary Cooper (publisher) as part of the fall-out of that discussion on Jimbo's talk page. That she was a woman publisher is interesting information, and if someone wanted to know, well, how many woman publishers were there in England in the eighteenth century?, then categorization could give an easy answer. So I'm on the fence. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the one which started much of the discussion. Drmies, if such a scheme were to be put into effect then American novelists would have to be a parent category to Male American Novelists and Female American Novelists; having one but not the other implies that one is unique and the other is expected. I wouldn't mind that... generally. But when we get to Category:Female African-American novelists from the Bronx, then we have issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, what started it was Johnpacklamberts somewhat boneheaded efforts--boneheaded in that they needed wide discussion. The thread on Jimbo's talk page has petered out: is there discussion of this at all somewhere? I just noticed that Amanda Filipacchi is listed in Category:French women novelists, and I'm beginning to get more and more irked by the difference between the population of that category and that of Category:French novelists. I mean, it's beyond silly. Drmies (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why Trusthim was thought to be a sockpuppeter. I saw that he kept recreating articles under the "Trusthim" username that were against policy and kept getting deleted (I was one who kept nominating his pages for deletion) but I did not notice similar pages being created with another username. What happened? (By the way I'm not trying to argue, I just want to know what happened.) Thanks! Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Well, first of all one of the articles looked familiar; I must have been involved with one of those articles or socks last year. Second, I noted that one of them had been deleted earlier, and as an admin I can see the history of deleted edits. BTW, it's possible that it's not a sock but a meat puppet, but a block is just as justified. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please look at the article now, and tell me what you think. I included the necessary references, and I reverted the line about it being one of the largest natural history museums in the world. 71.72.24.51 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
71, I don't understand, and I'm not sure you do. In effect, you changed the information without adding a valid source, and to give the impression of sourcing you copied the already existing source twice and stuck it in there. That doesn't make a bit of sense. One last time: if you change the numbers you must add a reliable source that contains those numbers. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you need to stop screwing around my talk page. Leave my comments alone. I just removed a copyvio from the text you copied slash added, and why on earth you would include the same reference three times is a mystery to me, so I deleted two of them. Can we move along now? Drmies (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry! You must be patient with me, as I am relatively new at this. Since you and others are going to be like that, then I will just say "The hell with it" and stop editing any articles on Wikipedia, period !!!!!!!! 71.72.24.51 (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, thanks for the tip! I was a bit facetious, but the risk is there. What is most bothersome is all this clicking one does on the (admin job), for instance when rolling back dozens of edits or deleting a ton of articles, and I do that with a netbook (touchpad). But I might consider a fancy keyboard for at the office: I've noticed that my wrists aren't what they used to be. Thanks again--I appreciate the thought. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw this and wanted to chime in; I had a very bad time with RSI about 10 years ago, but I've been fortunate and it's manageable today (although I still wear wrist braces whenever I type or drive). In particular, if the motion of clicking is bothersome, I would suggest trying a tablet in place of a mouse. Older wacom models are quite affordable online (<100$), and rather than clicking a button with a single finger, you just tap the stylus to make a click, which seems a lot less annoying when you have to do it a lot. A more exotic option is to point with your mouse, but click with your foot. The keyboard ImperfectlyInformed mentioned above looks very nice; I use a less exciting one. At any rate, best wishes to the both of you. a13ean (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... don't do the exact same thing for the same reason that got someone else blocked and it won't come up how your actions might lead to a block. Fair enough, don't you think? 75.73.39.66 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not fair enough, and don't patronize me. Don't threaten with blocks when you don't have a clue what WP:VANDAL says. And add reliable sources in the first place. The ones you added probably don't meet the requirements in WP:RS anyway, but I got better things to do. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tough dude! You've got better power trips to get on, so go do them. I don't know what it says? All I know is that it was the cited reason why the last person who blanked the section was blocked. 'Don't patronize me!' Are you talking to me like this because the last time you did it in a bar you got beat up and the video ended up on Top 20 Most Shocking? After all, you're so much more knowledgeable than everybody else, and have so much better things to do than everybody else on the internet, isn't it kind of rubbing it in to be a royal jerk on top of it? 75.73.39.66 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Basalisk--I personally would have let it slide (insults are only painful if based on something real and spoken by someone with some sense). Why would people want to go around threatening blocks when they don't know what they're talking about? Here's the reverse of the overzealous Vandal Patrol(l)er. Also, I've never been beaten up inside a bar. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Morgana le Fay cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Drmies likes this.
.jpg)
....Warrington (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm at this whole fiasco... *sigh* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
