Given that HiLo48 resorted to rhetorical insults, trying to undermine the intelligence of anyone who disagreed with him and his take on the Castro case, the inconsistency of your warnings about personal attacks says a great deal. Hypocrisy abounds. Bravo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, why? You're civil. Anyway, can you please look at the chaos that's going on at 68.50.128.91's talk page. My head is spinning. And immediately after I commented, Bbb23 (who wanted to marry me last night lol), protected the page, apparently solely because I posted. You can read my comment there. IP 68 is obviously very sensitive and, as a result, gets very worked up and says inappropriate things on impulse. But the way this is being handled is only making things much worse. It's like this IP is being attacked from all sides. Look at his talk page history. Anything you can do to calm this thing down would be appreciated. It doesn't take a platoon of admins to beat down on this IP, especially consider his relatively minor offense. I've seen him participating in the RfC at Pump and he seems to be a very nice person when he's not being scolded. That's enough for now. I think you'll agree. Haha. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see that Bbb23 just removed my comment from 68's talk page. Drmies, please, you've got to intervene. That's totally inappropriate. Are they're just completely throwing all the rules out the window? This is getting crazy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the appropriateness of the block and duration - the IP is simply continuing his prior disruption that was previously done on the article talk page. It is entirely appropriate to lengthen subsequent blocks for continuation of the same disruption. The fact that he changed from the talk page to the article itself does not dispose of the appropriateness of lengthening blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I really respect the fact that you are commenting here. But the overkill with IP 68 is remarkable. And the removal of my comment is totally inappropriate. Bbb had no right to remove it. Please restore it. And you will see that I try to be as fair as I can in my thoughts. But an admin censoring me and then protecting the page immediately after I post, solely because of that post (read the edit summary) is completely inappropriate. Again, thanks for coming here, but please let's bring the heat down on all this. It's out of control. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can actually see good arguments from both sides on the removal. Unfortunately, it appears to be another gray area in site policy (or, more accurate to say it appears to be a gray area intersection of contradicting policies/guidelines). This is another issue that may be better served via WP:AN, rather than the talk page of individuals. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which removal you're talking about... my comment or the endless things IP 68 removed. Haha. But there's absolutely nothing that allows Bbb to remove my comment. Especially when it's civil, fair, on-point, and tries to calm things down. Again, please restore it and unprotect the page. And I suggest you ask Ymblanter to stay out of this. He was clearly involved before he blocked 68; I mean they reverted each other in an article right before the block, for goodness sakes. How much clearer can "involved" be than that? ;) So the block coming from him is so blatantly inappropriate, that it's going to take an admin with integrity to simply tell him that he shouldn't have had any involvement in the block. And I see that he also has blocked 68's talk page access. Ymblanter is all worked up, and his one edit summary on 68's talk page clearly shows it. Again, thank you for commenting here but please be the hero in this and do the right thing(s). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point about the block by Ymblanter being procedurally inappropriate; but that does not clear 68.50.128.91 of his disruptive behavior, and given the IPs ongoing disruptions to force BLP violating content into the article, I would have done a longer block had I seen the behavior before Ymblanter placed the block. So, if you really want to be procedurally accurate, we could ask Ymblanter to remove his block so I can instead place a longer one - but, I don't think the exercise is worth the effort. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
76, I love you like a brother (I think), but I'm not going to wade into yet another mess, especially one involving a whole bunch of talk page comments and reverts and what not. I don't know what 68 is up, but it's attracting a lot of attention; if three (or more) admins are already involved then I would only hope in vain to do anything useful. If a block was made incorrectly there are places to address it, and that talk page is probably not the right one. I have great faith in Bbb, I love him like a son, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt; if he erred, then Barek (who's already there, and whom I love like a distant cousin) can judge that well enough, I suppose. Ymblanter, I don't know if you're watching--I love you like my neighbor, and if that block was involved that was not good thing. Still, there are levels of involvement, and if a block is warranted the community has a tendency to overlook a certain measure of involvement. Sorry, but that's the extent to which I will get involved. There's way too much heat in this place, or maybe it's just my street which is on fire; I trust it's not Rome that's burning while I'm fiddling. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks, Barek. As I'm sure you know from my prior comments, I fully realize that 68 has done some inappropriate things. But that's not the issue. And I'm not aware of any continuing/recent BLP violations. If I'm wrong, please show me the diffs. The only thing I saw he did was to add a simple tag to an article, like in this edit You keep saying he's done all these terrible things that warrant a two-week block but no one has shown any diffs at all to support it. I saw him revert twice over that silly tag in one article. And Ymblanter was one of the editors who reverted it. What else did 68 do?? I see absolutely nothing, except participating very productively in an RfC discussion. Please Barek, I not only think you should ask Ymblanter to revert his blcok, I think you need to be honest with him and let him know that he should not have done been involved in that block in any way because he was clearly involved. And, for the third time, please restore my comment and unprotect the talk page. That's clearly improper and, respectfully, you know it. Policy without question allows me to post that comment and does not allow anyone to remove it, except 68. (Well, not while his TP access is revoked lol.) As far as blocking him for a longer period, or even long at all, it is unjustified without providing any diffs to show specifically which edits warranted it. If I saw any edits like that, I would be the first one to say it. And I'd tell 68 myself that he was wrong. I've done it before. ;) But all I see are the two reverts of that tag at Rob Bell (Virginia politician). Big deal. A low-key admin like Yunshui would have just talked to 68 calmly, especially knowing how sensitive 68 is, and explained why reverting that tag was wrong and asked him nicely not to do it again or else he'd need to block him. Just because an editor acts immaturely doesn't mean several admins treat him like shit, and like he's worthless. I see not one admin involved in this showing any kindness whatsoever; trying to open a door to getting him back on track productively. That is the biggest shame in all this. But again, you can be the hero in this. If you choose to be. Thanks again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Love you too, Drmies, but a brother would help a brother. Haha. I am not asking for anything unreasonable. And, honestly, I don't even know why I'm defending 68. I just feel bad for him because I know how hurt he gets by criticism and I've seen how pleasant he is in various discussions (when he's not under the gun haha). If one of you wanted to do the best thing, you could've offered to mentor him, or at least hook him up with a mentor. Being ganged up on (not meant pejoratively) by several admins at the same time is an awful thing to watch. And I can imagine how he felt being blocked by the same guy he just traded reverts with. I know when you guys take off your admin uniforms, you are really fun, cool people. But some of you get really tough when your warning and sanctioning people on here. Perhaps it's hard for you to see or understand because you're in the power circle. Well, I'm not. I'm on the outside, impartially looking in. I honestly believe that a few admins here totally forget that there's a real live human being on the other end of your computer screen. Someone who has feelings and is just begging to be understood and treated with a little friendliness and respect. Even if 68 is a pain in the ass sometimes, big deal. Be the great admins you are and find a good way to stay above it, while getting him to do things the right way. If he thinks you give a shit about him at all, he'll respond positively. Enough, you get it. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw Drmies, this thread was actually supposed to be about HiLo's admirer, 153.161.195.137. Anyway, check out this ever-so-cordial response I got at the AN/I I filed on your behalf (while you were dreaming about bacon explosions). See, I try to make your life easier and this is what I get. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know I hate civility blocks, but some people just push it too much. And yes, there's derailment, and the enabling/goading on thereof by some others. I restored DanielTom's TPA after a very polite and friendly message and then saw a complete turnaround. I don't know what's happening on that talk page right now and I don't care; I expect a note from the boss any day (that's a metaphor--two metaphors). Drmies (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, I'm a certified asshole, that is well known. I've never seen your limits get tested. You're the nicest guy I know (well, on Wikipedia--my real-life friend Rob, who is a seven-foot tall carpenter, is maybe the nicest one in the world). I'm not going to start something, I've done enough damage already for the time being, but I am interested to see what you think should be done. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem here is that over a fairly long period, the editing of both of these parties (just as an example, I believe there are others) is detrimental to a collegial editing atmosphere. Of particular concern is the fact that a lot of these editors don't really seem to do anything else other than perpetuate this vitriol (which is, to his credit, not a criticism which could be levelled at IHTS). Dennis - your point about derailment is spot on; I can think of a recent RfA where this debate spilled over and we all know RfA is contentious enough without becoming a platform for the anti-admin brigade. The thing is, these editors apparently enjoy the sensation of being engaged in what they feel is a battle between two homogenous groups and so I can't see how anything is going to change without some form of escalated dispute resolution. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this makes any of the above invalid, and it's not as who should say on topic, but when the nebulous "we" remove people's talk page on personal attack grounds because they said an admin needs to be desysopped, I find it difficult to pin the blame entirely on them. Granted, I'm still not familiar with the entirety of these editors' histories, so maybe I don't have much of a right to talk about this. But I honestly don't care how unsubstantiated or inflammatory it's meant to be: I think that that's something that anyone and everyone should be able to say freely. I mean, it's not like their statement itself will get someone desysopped; it takes a lot of work to actually do that. (Okay, I could see it being an actionable problem if they keep harping on it constantly without actually showing any effort to make it happen, per WP:SHITORGETOFFTHEPOT. But for this narrow instance, that doesn't seem to be the case.) It has a very unsavory appearance of stifling criticism otherwise, and I think many will agree that admins are already accountability-challenged to begin with. The reason that I'm (marginally) participating in the discussion over DanielTom's block without being fully-briefed on the entire history is that I feel that blocks like his are acute, not chronic, remedies, and they need to be used in response to acute, not chronic, problems, which shouldn't require an intense study of edit histories to understand. It just seems to me that this is an acute block without all that serious of an acute problem. Actions like removing talk page access make a little more sense if you look at the overall history there, but I don't think the overall history is the right thing to be basing unilateral actions like that on; it needs to be in response to an immediate problem. Maybe that's naive of me, I don't know.
I guess the TL;DR summary here is that I think we're interpreting "personal attacks", "prevent disruption" and "admin discretion" too broadly here, and that if we want to address a long-term pattern of behavior, the way to do that is through community processes like AN or RFC/U, not through isolated blocks. For whatever my opinion is worth. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still eat pie after 20 years? Good for you--Clitoris Awareness Week wasn't wasted on you. Also, I love moonshine, though I'd forgo the apple pie. I made margaritas for us and some friends: it's pooltime, and vacation has started today (for them, not for me--I'm working all summer). Me and my buddy Jim are drinking old-fashioneds, since the girls are done. The Sunbeam will still be there tomorrow; Kitsch might not be, from the alarm I heard earlier. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I was at a meeting and didn't have time to write a more lengthy response. I'm sufficiently concerned about DanielTom - looking at his en.wikiquote talk page I see some pretty nasty comments. This smells of "HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED!" and his criticisms are typically ad hominem attacks now.
Lately I've found admin work less stressful than my content work, however - maybe it's because I don't patrol ANI that much anymore, though I do a lot at SPI. The level of pure vitriol that my colleagues out at the U.S. roads project and I face on a daily basis now has become astounding, as can be seen in my contributions and on my talkpage. We've had to put up with people making wild accusations against us (including calling us the "road cartel") without proof, and without any ability to defend ourselves. We've had people try to force their conception of a road article on us time and time again. And yet our only goals are to create *good* road content and revert edits that degrade quality; we've written 52 FAs and over 850 GAs in the process. If this is how we treat people who write content, then we've got a problem. Yes, I have gotten quite frustrated in my talkpage messages lately, but when you've been constantly attacked from every angle for months, that tends to happen. It's times like this when I enjoy crosswiki work, since I lose the politics of enwiki. --Rschen775411:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen, the number of FAs and GAs is just an indication to which extent you and your other abusive admin friends OWN that wiki project at the exclusion of everyone else. You're probably abusing your tools in the process. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh ... seems that every year at this time these things happen. And every year it gets a bit worse. School lets out for the summer, and young people with the best of intentions try to right great wrongs. As hard as I try to not become that "get off my lawn" guy - it gets old and tiring. Ya know, there are some admins around this joint that I think need to rethink their approach - but here's the thing: We end up with these kids that have time on their hands who want to change the world. The one thing is with Wikipedia though ... all admins. were at one time new users. New users were NEVER admins. WE understand what they think because we've been there - but they can not know what experienced editors go through because they HAVEN'T been there. Yes - there is a divide between admins and non-admins ... I don't know how to fix that. I don't know folks .. I just don't know. — Ched : ? 02:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And don't answer any more emails. Unless there's special circumstances, I respond to them on-wiki. With a bunch of wikiawyers around who all know better after six months than we do after half a decade, gotta be careful. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes think I should slip away from the front line and just plod through the CSD cats like many others do. But I would find that boring. Some of us have to do the dirty work and take the slings and contempt of the audacious youngsters and some older members (some as ancient as me) who still seem to be stuck in a schoolyard mentality. A lot of it comes from the Internet tradition of anonymity which lets people get away with stuff they wouldn't dream of doing/saying in RL. I've even heard that some are actually quite nice blokes in the pub. All the Wikipedians/medians I've met in RL with one exception who is both an admin and a WMF contractor are quite nice people - and I've personally met literally hundreds. I don't care two hoots what people say about me - I've made too many enemies among the children (and not so young) here already to ever succeed to higher office - but I look on with great distaste at those who have a general antipathy towards admins. Most of them reaped what they sowed; I'm convinced that actual abuse by admins is quite rare (although I've been at the brunt of it myself before I got the bit), and it's extremely unfair to tar us all with the same brush. Is it just my perception or is bashing admins on the increase? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know Kudpung .. I should get to know you. I've seen your work, and I gotta admit ... I'm impressed. — Ched : ? 03:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ched, I shared a table for a little while with Kudpung at Wikimania. Don't tell him (don't know if he's vain or not), but I found him to be a perfect gentleman. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good lawdy .. I never met another wikipedian. I probably should some day. Oh .. and up above - if you want to talk about "experience" and "being in all shoes" ... crap ... PumpkinSky/Rlevse ... good hell what has to go through that man's mind. New user, .. admin ... crat ... os ... cu ... arb ... beat to hell and back over a few sentences on a TFA? ... geesh. — Ched : ? 03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, DT has retired - IMO an overreaction as many of these kind of retirements are. I suppose the next thing will be accusations that we have been driving editors away. Perhaps he'll come back when he's reached an appropriate level of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see if he stays retired. Diva-like behavior. Kudpung, if someone is seriously shocked that they got blocked, they were dedicated to the place, then they'd place an unblock request. I have no idea how many edits were made to that talk page, and not a single one to request an unblock. Why? Because a. maybe they figured (correctly) that it would be denied and b. it's much more cool to be a martyr. Throw in some misrepresentations and some misreadings (about my "acknowledgement"), and you got a poster child for a victim of the system, no wonder we're losing editors, system is broken, no respect for content, etc. This continued editing of articles bit is not credible either: they stopped editing articles, basically, at the end of March. Since then, it's all talk pages and notice boards and what not. Anyway, that's water under the bridge, though nit for long, possibly. I hope you are doing well, Kudpung--I did remember our all-too brief chat in DC. I always think that meeting people in real life takes away a lot of this internet distance which easily leads to animosity. Who knows, Scotty Wong and I might even get along if we met in person. Did I tell you I had lunch with DGG? And hung out frequently with Chzz in Boston? Now there's an editor who's sorely, sorely missed. OK, too many words. Time to hop in the pool. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can be envious of me then - I was a guest of DGG's in his home in Brooklyn for several days. It was one of the nicest experiences of my life (no exaggeration). I couldn't have wished for a better welcome for my first (and probably only) visit to the USA.
I know you guys think you know what it's like for someone who leaves for whatever reason, but if you've never worn those moccasins, you'd don't truly understand. I'm truly sorry I've caused so much trouble, I never meant to and but despite my best efforts I caused more last night. PumpkinSkytalk12:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what PumpkinSky "caused..last night"; but just some passing thoughts.
As wonderful as technology is, and as much as it has benefited mankind in so many ways - I think in some ways it has tended to isolate people even more too. No one can truly know another person; hell, we're lucky if we even understand ourselves in just a small way. Would that we could all share a "Vulcan mind meld" - but it just ain't so. When you throw communication such that comes with the Internet, texting, ect. into the mix - we lose even the body language and voice inflections to try to interpret. Is it really any wonder that people all too often feel isolated, and alone? Then you throw in the concept that when you communicate with someone only through digital means - where you tend to fill in the "blanks" with your own/our own thoughts ... when a dose of reality shows up uninvited .. it's a harsh thing to deal with. Don't mind me folks .. just running my mouth on the way through the pedia. For those of you in 'da States .. have a great holiday weekend. — Ched : ? 13:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 24 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jordaanlied, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Jordaanlied, a genre of sentimental songs celebrating the Amsterdam neighborhood the Jordaan, was popularized by a cabaret artist from Utrecht, a composer from Rotterdam, and a singer from England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jordaanlied. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
My dear Warrington, after dinner is over and everyone's teeth are brushed and the guests have gone home, I will have a look at this article and see what's going on. Also, we're having salmon--I would kill for some sik, or however it's spelled. Thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the FA reassessment? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kitsch/archive1. That was seven years ago, pertaining to this version which indeed isn't an FA based on references (lack thereof) alone. When the article was promoted, in 2004, FA standards were quite different, I suppose. To bring this up to anything will require a lot of work, for starters with bibliography and footnotes. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did. But I think it is strange that an article like this got ruined. And it is an interesting subject, thought. Taste, and likes and trying to find a line. How about Dutch taste and American? Do you mean sik, *Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology - SIK or you mean herring? Warrington (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]Rainbow trout with clear spot pattern on fins and body
Well, I don't think it got ruined since it was not a very good building to begin with. I looked at a huge chunk of material that was removed, and while it seemed to be well-written and made sense, it was unverified, and had been so for four years. The rationale for removal was that it's a monk's labor to seek references to verify those statements, infinitely more difficult than writing it from scratch with newly found sources. I couldn't disagree with that. I found a few things in the biblio that helped me add a couple of sentences, but this was beyond repair, IMO. The original author should have come back to help out some; now it's up to us. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, that was funny. I Facebooked it and got a like within seconds from a fellow former English student. Thanks! I'm reading a book, pig! Drmies (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page fills up quickly. I don't know what became of that list article with which you'd intended to replace the rape victims category, or if you still have any interest in the topic, but that discussion was closed as no consensus. I've not added any more antique members since it opened, but will now perhaps, though that would probably just lead to a second nomination. davidiad{ t }02:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of rape victims from history and mythology. Note how incredibly incomplete it is, and note the parameter in the opening paragraph, to do away with BLP concerns. The category still exists, yes, and I haven't done any work on the list since then. BTW, at some point there was some discussion somewhere about history vs. mythology, I think; for our purposes (historical importance and meaning) it doesn't matter, of course, whether a character/god/sacrifice/victim/author "really" existed or not. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start. My position on the ancient members of the category was basically that narratives which informed the early modern rape topos which continues to be the crook in the hourglass that we can't get past needn't be authorized by historians as factual because the historical and the mythological were equally valid exempla in moral discussions which involved rape during antiquity, as they should be in a current epistemology of rape. This is a perennial topic at classics conferences, and I remember at least one panel on the topic at a recent APA conference. I'll see at some point if anything methodologically helpful for the ancient side, at least, of the list has come out of the discussions, hopefully more than an online abstract. In the list as it is, I'm most interested in the addition of Leda, not least because of what the editor who added her entry deleted a few days later. davidiad{ t }03:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my position too, just not in such nice words. Reminds me--I'm reviewing a real academic book: I can't even read the damn introduction. It's not jargon, it's concatenation. You think that editor realized they were giving swans a bad name? You think they're sweeping something under the rug, abusively? If Leda is in there, what about all Zeus's other "girlfriends"? Drmies (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editor probably thought it trivialized the entry, but what I find so interesting about Zeus and Leda is that when gods take advantage of women in Greek poetic texts, it's often pretty metaphoric language (like "take advantage of"): the sort of stuff that's open to modern reactionary attacks about "anachronistic" conceptions of rape if someone chooses to call it "rape" and discuss it as such. But when you read accounts of Zeus and Leda, it reads like rape from the beginning: as though the sexual aggressor has to be a magical animal for the poet to be granted the license of realism. Is the book you're reviewing a first book? I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts it is, if I could afford a donut. davidiad{ t }03:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worse, it's an edited collection. And it's awful. The essays themselves seem to be a lot more readable, at least the first one is. It often seems as if the editor has to blow everyone else out of the water in such collections. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's nice when folks with secure chairs organize these things: nothing to prove, they just write a true, brief introduction to the topic and place the papers that follow within the current state of the question. I can probably one up you on review curses. I have one that's six months overdue and the next (and final) volume in the series comes out this summer. Still more fun: I don't give a shit about the book. My shit, your shit, my cat's shit, any shit: no shit would be promised by me in return for this book. I just said I'd do it since the journal that's publishing the review doesn't generally do papyrology and I thought they'd have to apologize and offer to return their copy like they generally do with these editions, so I'd be a fucking hero for doing a couple day's work and clearing the review from their roster. Now I'm a dick and the review's a burden that I face every weekend. I'm working on it now, though the lady's in bed. davidiad{ t }04:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell ya what. You, Dennis, NYB, etc. all have etched your efforts into a "hall of fame" as far as great admins., ... but I gotta tell ya ... keep your eyes on Bbb23 - this guy is GOOOOOOD. He has some sort of ESP or something - and he reaches out to people when they are down. Just sayin. Oh ... and by the way - take a break from the AN boards... they will really twist your concepts of the project. You folks have a great weekend and holiday. later. — Ched : ? 04:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I know. Whatever goes on at AN and ANI can't be that exciting since I wasn't notified. Later Ched! Don't forget to lick my dog next time! Drmies (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see that until now. I was confused by the notification system but didn't check the history. (I noticed such edit conflicts on ANI a couple of times recently; I think there was one yesterday.) Feel free to restore your comment, even though I disagree strongly with the content and the context from which it came. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, not my intent. And remember, I know there are many great admins out there. It's no surprise at all that Dennis Brown unilaterally closed the AN abruptly, while there was active participation, no less. And even though Barek is the one who told me to take it there. I let Dennis know my thoughts on the matter. I guarantee you that if I was registered and started that discussion, it wouldn't have been shut down like that. Well, figuring out where to take the kids later. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this comment10 hours after the unblock request was denied. It can certainly be perceived by some as rubbing salt in the wound. The guy is gone for two weeks and he can't even say a word on his talk page. So I don't understand what your point in doing that was. How could it possibly help an already volatile situation. An encouraging word and maybe a nice piece of advice would've been a lot better. Disappointed. I'd suggest reverting yourself. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone left me a link to how to make a chocolate teapot on my talk yesterday (long story). Thinking of you and your children (the ones at home, not the ones you deal with on WP), I thought you might want to stash it away as a school holiday project that is both educational and fun. Mind, you'll need a lot of chocolate. Enjoy! - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can take a stab at it. I didn't put the tag there, and it would have behooved the editor who did to put something on the talk page. But what I see is an article that has lots of borderline non-neutral language in there. There's a section "Subsequent international support and press reviews" which for the most part is a list of--of what? press clippings? (Those articles, if they exist, can be used to reference information in the article; they can't be used to build a resume.) There's too many external links, there's a section with "International Festivals and Tours" that also looks like it belongs on a resume... It seems there are plenty of sources linked in the article to write a decent one. Right now, it has too much "activities" and "aims" and resume-type sections to be a decent article, and tone and word choice just aren't neutral enough. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WK. I revdeled the usual. This is worth keeping an eye on. Roger, usually my page has a decent amount of admin traffic, and those admins provide excellent customer service. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. WK, thanks: you're so much more adept at those things that I am. I take this personally for reasons of historical shame, I think. When I was young, the word "kaffer" still had currency in a racial context. (Now it just means "sucker".) Drmies (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, my proverbial pleasure. It's pretty obvious what needed to be done, even though the unclear filter of Google Translate. SPI's already turned something up, so I guess it was a good thing we checked. (And by the way, I messed this one up already, so I guess I'm not as adept as you think. Dennis is more the mark for SPIs.) I'm sure most of us have similar memories of saying things we would cringe at hearing now, and no doubt we're saying things even now that we'll come to regret. The world moved on, as they say. Writ Keeper⚇♔00:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted a pair of Help page topics initiated by the sockpuppets. BTW in South Africa the word "Kaffir" or "Kaffer" is still a fully serious racial insult - fully equivalent to the American "nigger". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it may be worthwhile asking other South African editors (at WikiProject South Africa) if they have also been targetted by racist trolling? If there are others we might get a better picture of the sock drawer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was time for a change, Crisco. Plus, I really miss ole Spiffy, even though he had a pretty poor taste in guitar players. For the record, I've never watched a single episode of Lost; I am, of course an old fan of the X-Files, though the most memorable show I remember (ha) is Twin Peaks: it is happening again. That still gives me shivers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
Actually it is 594. This user is ranked 594 on the list of Wikipedians by number of pages created, you I mean. Do you remember Blue Lacy? Still alive.
... Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Fun would not be the word I would chose either. But we managed, thanks to You... And I think that it gives a certain satisfaction. Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Red Lacy puppy
Happy adminship anniversary and a spoon.
Holy moly, Warrington. That one with the cabbage roses, that's just amazing. And that puppy is indeed cute--ready to be eaten with a spoon. Hej, Sverige made it to the Dutch papers again. Apparently we're modeling our prostitution legislation on yours, and not everyone agrees. New Zealand appears to be a good model to follow: decriminalization and common sense (and health care). Drmies (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Sigh'. Well, we shall not forget that they are also human beeings. You friendly admin, tell me isn’t this lead very long? I think myself that it is slighly too detailed. See lead Cottage garden. If You say it is ok, I will remove my tag. (Too late, somebody removed it anyway.) But just for curiosity, don't you suppose to keep the lead short? That lead is pretty chatty. ( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit chatty for my taste, too, but I see where they're coming from on the talk page; the lede is supposed to be a brief summary, and this one does summarize the article without being really long. It's a balancing act of precision vs. brevity, and I think that this falls within the appropriate spectrum. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. All right. ( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a really cool article. If you like that sort of thing, of course. Writ Keeper is a well-known gardener, by the way, who is probably notable as one for Wikipedia purposes, if only for the variety of weed he cultivates. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone need to cultivate weed? ( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have been on the road for a bit, am now In Akron, Ohio, fumbling away at my daughter's laptop, a species of computers that I find even more confounding than the male mind. So I am not exactly sure what was wrong with my edit, (see my talk page, I can't figure out how to do links here) that I re-formatted another editor's posting, or expressed my sometime inability to understand the male mind. As you probably know (though to assume that anyone else is aware of something easily leads us into the trap of projection that is or can be a problem with all assumptions) the female mind has been considered one of the unfathomable mysteries of the universe and it has been clear to me (i.e., opinion) that the male mind is just as incomprehensible. This is wrong to say? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"something you probably know how to do but for some reason (who can understand the male mind?) chose not to" is a personal attack. You're saying someone should have known better but the intricacies of the male mind made them stupid enough to not do what they should have done. And this on the talk page of Men's rights movement, where dicks are waved around constantly, as are accusations of dick snipping and sniping. What I personally find offensive is the essentialism that underlies the remark. If you have an inability to understand the male mind, that's fine, but a. it begs the question of what a male mind is and b. if you don't understand what someone whom you suspect of having a male mind (whatever that is) is doing or not doing, the rhetorical question you asked clearly indicates that you blame the editor's male mind (whatever that is, and supposing that editor has one) for the mistake. That's the essence of essentialism, and in my book that's a personal attack. "You made that mistake because you're a woman"--if I said something like that in all seriousness, I hope that someone would block me for it. It's no different from saying "you're just arguing that point because you're a jew". Not all opinions are to be made public on Wikipedia, especially not if they are offensive. And that's why I warned you. Thank you, and all the best. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. So it was not my formatting. In any case, I consider myself warned and will try really really hard not to upset the guys at MRM. Or you, for that matter. Carptrash (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Carptrash. I would have hoped that people who wanted to contribute could rise above the level of "ew boys have cooties". As for upsetting "the guys", that's not the issue: the problem is that your raising the temperature and it's not beneficial. Coupled with that "admins hiding stuff" comment, it begs the question of what you're really doing there. Drmies (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the question as to what I am doing there is a good one, but my comment about admins was (at least intended to be) that another editor hid a warning (to me) from an admin, thereby, at least from my perspective, rendering it less than effective. Carptrash (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Leap Years, you are supposed to be on duty all 366 days. Don't think you get a day off just because of the convoluted astronomy that I haven't bothered to try to understand :) GoPhightins!02:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that you are expected to be on duty during any ad hocleap seconds added due to the slight irregularities in the speed of the earth's rotation. However, if it ever were to occur that a negative leap second were applied, you may consider that second of time that never officially existed to have been an opportunity for you to take a break. Zad6814:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, why don't you be a real diva and slap a "retired" template on your talk page, and if you get more than 15 messages within two hours, you change your mind? Besides, you'll need a dramatic farewell speech. And did I miss anything at ANI? Oh! I thought of you yesterday: I marinated skirt steak and grilled it for fajitas--directly on the coals. That's fun. Drmies (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Hey, point me to some ANI discussion where I can help (ha, that's a joke). Alton Brown's recipe is here, though the recipe I followed last night was from The Joy. But I'm telling you, blow-drying a charcoal fire and putting meat right on top of it, there's lots of fun in it. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... yes very well thanks. Just don't get the chance to come on here as much as I'd like. Hope you're well too, and that you enjoy this sweet snack. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know I like those, Feyd. Hey, how about I nominate a bunch of articles for deletions and we fight over them, and then we make up? Whatever you're doing, I hope you enjoy doing it. Take care, Drmies (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha Automatic Strikeout; I have no idea if this is the right date but if it is that's a mighty fine coincidence. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I've started protecting these articles indefinitely. It's been going on for years. What we really need (also) is some range blocks. Any talk page stalkers able and willing? Drmies (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who's Eymnshmsddn (talk·contribs). But he's adding good and relevant entries to the Brunei version, but he did not finish those articles though. Those who were editing the American version were vigilant to the vandalism. However, I think they are not aware of the vandalism in all of the other articles. I will continue patrolling the articles as well as those articles which are not yet protected. I have not talk to anyone yet. I haven't raised this issue to proper channel, except for reporting the IPs for vandalism.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k•14:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in reporting those IPs, except to make a list for a range block. Maybe Beeblebrox is inclined to have a look at it--he's a range blocker with a vengeance. Your table was helpful, but most of the articles were already protected. I propose you move it to something with "Big Loser" in the title, since that's what we're dealing with. Thanks for keeping up and investing your energy in this, and do keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've never done a range block. Too scary. I think most checkusers have experience with them, they have all the fancy technical know how. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought you were so rugged! Renzoy, maybe you should place a note on ANI, with a link to your table. Thanks Beeblebrox, Drmies (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. No, no indefinite block on an IP, which is irregular in the first place and won't do us much good. I did block them, and I semi-protected a few more articles, indefinitely. No, we can't put templates on a page unless they're protected, and it probably wouldn't scare that loser off anyway. If I'm ever not around, you can ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, and tell them that you'd like infinite semi-protection and that I've been doing that for a while now for these articles. Thank you sir, Drmies (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. I recently found an article which is using links like these [link deleted] as sources. Besides other problems, I suspect the link may be performing a copyvio on the book. I am at sixes and sevens about how to deal with this. I thought I should bring this to an admins notice. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Well, one way or another, the links have to be stripped. Cited sources don't need to be online, so the right way to do this is to cite the book directly, rather than the images of the book. I believe you're right that they're copyright infringements, but even if they're not, they're still not appropriate, as they're self-uploaded; we have no kind of assurances at all that these images are of the real thing. Writ Keeper⚇♔13:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right--good call. Hey, I just reverted someone on Regar. The article is better than it was, but all the sources are a bit old. Do you have anything newer on the bookshelf? Drmies (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I know next to nothing about gospel, but I think we may have multiple issues at Stewart Varnado, and I've dropped a stone down the well at BLP [10]. Any insight you can provide while not writing about triple-brewed Alsatian ales will be welcome. Best, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this'll have to wait a little bit, at least until later this afternoon/tonight. Sorry--but nice to see you again. Mrs. 99 doing alright? Drmies (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry on my account. If one of your talk page stalkers takes a shine to this they're welcome to pitch in. The Ms. is improving; thanks for asking. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, I restored the page per a requested and because it was technically deleted under WP:CSD#G8 I agreed with the rationale that the redirect discussion had not considered the fact that both might be deleted. If the article does not meet our notability guidelines it should be deleted through the AFD process rather than a technicality. Hope you don't mind. Mkdwtalk21:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I believe that User:Phead128 was unblocked prematurely. He is still being very disruptive and attacking editors. Edits like this are completely unacceptable. I would have to recommend the user be blocked again, or banned from editing. He has obviously not learnt his lesson. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm continuing to have problems with Lucia Black, but I'll keep it simple. Since the ANI where numerous issues were brought up, she has continued to refactor and alter my talk page comments. She was warned by RexxS after she altered his post on May 14th.[11] She altered my post pre-ANI at the VPP.[12] Post ANI, she continued by altering the statement in the latest discussion.[13] While it may be a single character, the change is terrible because it changed the context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should I template the user page or is the talk page note enough? I don't know what is most appropriate action at this point. For the underlying conflict problem, I think I've established the need for a full article with my prototype at User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox and probably will need mediation or whatever to address it. Though my biggest issue is how both Ryulong and Lucia have teamed up to disrupt GITS and insert false information and ruin the original topic-level page. If the RFC didn't work and DRN didn't work, what options do I have left? It seems offensive that two people can perpetually reject something on a simple 'grudge' and continue to obstruct the building of the encyclopedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see you issued a block instead, I was wondering if I should template a warning to her talk page or leave the comment the article talk page as suitable warning. What do you suggestion for resolving the underlying content dispute? I don't want to pester or anything, I'm just out of ideas for resolving said dispute. The RFC seems to have failed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we still talking about that title track thing? Someone needs to close that. I think the best thing to do is to place a (NEUTRAL!) note on WP:AN, asking for a volunteer to look into it. (As I said before, I can't do that since it's just not my cup of tea and I don't want anyone to laugh at me if I get those geek details wrong.) IMO it's an easy close, but just a lot of reading. Then you can move on. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to inform you... but the title track thing was not the problem at all. The actual issue started with Ghost in the Shell, which I dropped because it was not being resolved. Now it has moved to Dragon Ball; where I want to create an article on the notable anime series Dragon Ball Z. Two RFCs were opened, one on WP:MOS-AM and that was recently closed with the offending piece being removed per WP:CREEP. When I recreated the page with the lengthy content from my sandbox it was reverted and now its being blocked all over again. I don't see any avenue for the content issue to be resolved if DRN and RFC can be so easily ruined; I need something concrete to end this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you drop some diffs/links to the discussion? What is the objection to a DBZ article? There is enough commentary over the years that its 'not really dragonball' that the TV-series is notable. Given its themes and the large differences between it and DB, I cant see why it would not justify its own article. Even if I am more of an Outlaw Star fan Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, let me see if I interpret this correctly - Lucia is arguing against a dedicated DBZ(Anime) article on the basis that theDragon Ball (manga) covers both the arc of the 'Dragonball(anime)' and 'Dragonball Z(anime)' story/plot? Thats a novel interpretation of the MOS guidelines. IMO The anime/manga's should be split off due to the size of damn DB article at this point... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize the dispute at Talk:Dragon Ball, I noticed their was no page and wanted to create one, apparently it was merged in 2008 for 'violating' MOS-AM. As seen in this discussion.Talk:Dragon_Ball/Archive_1#Merge So I did two things, get an RFC to split and an RFC to alter (later remove) the offending piece from MOS-AM. That RFC is here. It was no contest, but I asked for it formally closed to prevent future problems. Since there was no activity for weeks and my sandbox looked good I went ahead and recreated the page as it appeared the VPP RFC made clear the arguments against were overturned and that the 2008 merge was done for the wrong reasons. Ryulong reverted the page and threw a fit.[14] Now the issue is 'oh previously there was consensus to not split, so don't split it' and rather then argue policy, its "rhetoric" and I'm in the only one active on the support side now, other people supporting in Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z#Split seem unaware or have not been involved in the RFC. With 65 references and content half as long as the original franchise article, it completely lacks the plot and the overview of the works at this point. To be perfectly fair, Dragon Ball glosses over 200 episodes in a paragraph, instead focusing on the first half and the Frieza arc. Lucia has called my sandbox 'pointy', because I'm not adding the content to Dragon Ball before splitting off.[15] But I'm willing to overlook things like that for someone to explain policy. WP:CCC, WP:DETAIL and WP:SPINOFF all seem valid, but the opposition has only "rhetoric" of 'its not a good idea' or 'its not that different'. Lucia even claimed that my article was inaccurate because I mention the Dragon Ball Z manga, but didn't 'clarify it', when I did.[16] Its really just the continuation of their earlier grudge from before, but I've tried to appease them for days only to find their reasoning borders on "its not a worldview" so I address it to get the response that "Dragon Ball Z manga doesn't exist in Japan". USA and Germany both had DBZ manga releases, but most of Europe and South America did not and I clearly stated Viz's role in the brief section in the sandbox. This is a heavy condensed prose, but is an example of what Lucia calls inaccurate:User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox#Dragon_Ball_Z_manga So, I'm just going to work some more on the sandbox because eventually it will be at such a point that it might hit GA or FA despite not being in main space and the whole conflict will look ridiculously silly in hindsight. I believe that it is beginning to become clear already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Chris, but this isn't really becoming clear to me. In Death, you seem to understand this a lot better than I do. Also, it's manga (or whatever) and I kind of don't want to get involved with that and its project: I don't have much time now for learning curves. You said Dispute Resolution has been tried? I didn't see a link. Ryulong, by the way, I don't see his revert as a "fit"--it's unfortunate perhaps but you'll have to get along with some of these people and Ryulong is a dinosaur here--I know cause I disagree with him often enough. Anyway, I'd refrain from that word choice even while I understand your frustration. I taught a class last semester where I successfully installed a bullshit filter in my brain to filter out one specific student's running commentary; I suggest you try the same, and I'm not talking about Ryulong. And DR, if that hasn't been tried before. But beyond that, I'm not really sure I know what to do: perhaps In Death has some ideas. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; I might have a few options left to deal with the issue. And I did try DRN with GITS, I'll wait till Lucia can participate before continuing. Thanks Drmies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to do some more reading but I understand the argument you are facing Chris, and were this a lesser franchise, it would hold some weight. However in this case its a bit tortured given the scope of the franchise across manga (print) anime (TV series) OAV (film) and the videogames. (Although I would use 'Intellectual Property'/IP where you use the term franchise). Essentially their argument revolved around local MOS guidelines trumping notability and reliable sources policies. Thats irrelevant given LOCALCONSENSUS. If its notable as a stand alone product, it can have an article. If I have time I will take a look at the GITS issue as well. Drop some diffs on my talkpage if there is anything specific you want me to look at. Think we have taken up enough of the good Dr's talkpage with manga talk ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Lucia is continuing with personal attacks.[17] She is responding to something pre-block, when I didn't notice and while I did use the term deliberate, that's how such a 'typo' appeared to be. I wanted to point out how she has made such accusations and altering of posts since our first interaction (her second post to me) way back in January.[18] I feel that even if I don't catch every instance; it is not my responsibility to check her posts to make sure their integrity is maintained. Given that "Only in Death" is helping to assist in resolving the content dispute; I don't know if my response is even required at this point. She deleted Ponyo and my explaination at her talk [19] to make that attack. And I haven't yet pointed this out to her; but even in her own unblock request, she altered a portion of my comment. [20] Very trivial; but it is ironic and shows how frequent it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Ed here: close to blocking. I gave UrbanNerd a final warning; I don't see any reason to undo the block on Phead. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as you agree that UrbanNerd baited Phead128, and (I assume) realise that Ed blocked Phead128 without realising the full circumstances, I am rather surprised that Phead128's punishment, or at least the length of it, still stands. He will feel this is unjust. --Kleinzach05:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is getting silly. I'm hatting all of it: it is off-topic. If you got a problem with Urban Nerd's removal of your comments, take it to ANI. FWIW, I did not deny a review of the block: I did review the block and saw no reason to overturn it. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aspects of this are indeed silly. but then this is Wikipedia and an infobox discussion. I only got involved in this because some obviously straightforward, uncontroversial, correct information was being removed from the box. I shouldn’t have bothered. I should have realised that when there’s a fire the best thing to do is look away and leave it to the professional fire service to handle, even if they sometimes drive to the wrong address. I'm not taking this to ANI. I have no wish to be involved in a continuing drama. I am surprised that you hatted my comments after Parsecboy had restored them. Anyway I’m withdrawing from that discussion. I suggest two things need to be learned from this incident (1) the article edit history should be read before blocking any user, (2) if the previous record of the user is a factor in whether or not to block them, and for how long, then this should also be checked properly. (I am leaving a note for Ed so that he can also see my comment here.) --Kleinzach23:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will think of you, and of your memories of your father, for the next 24 hours, in your honor and in honor of your memory of him. I lost my dad in 2003, and the 10th anniversary approaches. I wish you well. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cullen. I had a father-inflected dream last night--his motorcycles were involved, as was an incident of my complete failure as a father. I woke up in the middle of the night to see if my youngest daughter was alright, if she hadn't really fallen off that mountain. Parenthood changes a person irrevocably--you thought life was a pool of worries before? Now it's real. Please give my best to Mrs. Cullen, and to your engineering son. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is a bad time, but you may be interested to know that idiom dictionary is currently showing at DYK. This is not just a told-you-so as I feel it could still use more work. You and your talk-page stalkers seem to be interested in words and their usage and so may be able to improve the topic while it is on display. Warden (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that references are required under WP policy, not just the DYK criteria, and part of the text was copied from another source. Warden was just taking text from an earlier revision (and I'm not alleging any wrongdoing on his/her part!), but I don't think that this DYK should have passed as-is. Ed[talk][majestic titan]10:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry Warden that may have came out a bit short. I dont have an issue with your work on it, more the general quality of whats slipping through DYK. Regarding references - in the wider encyclopedia its a bit more relaxed/less rigid. However the criteria (last time I checked) for DYK is that the 'hook' is referenced. When I looked at a large amount of DYK's a few months ago, the tendency was for reviewers to only check the hook reference without taking a look at the whole. 'Is hook referenced? Check, pass' was how it was going. Very few of the reviewers were concerned with quality of the article, only that it checked the bullet points on the DYK criteria. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) References are only required for quotations and material which seems controversial — this has been confirmed at the core policy page WP:V multiple times. I'd have liked to do more for the article but the trouble is that processes like AFD and DYK run on a timetable of 5-7 days and it can be difficult to find the time when there's so much else to do too. Warden (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak intelligently about this particular DYK and its quality but Warden, if you want to drop me an "I told you so", you're welcome to do it--after all, if you can, it means the project as a whole has improved. Thanks for the note, and enjoy the (fleeting) fame. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Dutch eat raw fish? On the Swedish wiki Dutch cuisine, the article say the most characteristic thing is Dutch eating habitually raw fish... called Nieuwe. I don’t know, nobody gave me raw fish while in Amsterdam. But then it might be something Dutch do when nobody is watching them? Or it is just fairy tale.
( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not really raw--see Soused herring. It is very traditional and seasonal; the first barrel of nieuwe haring is sold at auction for charity, the boats race back to beat each other getting it to the market, everyone discusses the quality, the newspapers report on it...I never had it as a kid, though I did later. I can do without the raw onions, though. Some of the best is in a stall in the shadow of the Westertoren, in the Jordaan, where Johnny Jordaan (whose bust is on the Johnny Jordaanplein]] used to sing the Jordaanlied--songs like "Bij ons in de Jordaan". That, for me, is what Hollandse nieuwe means. :) Drmies (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but than that’s not raw, it's pickled. Sounds fun with the newspaper coverage and all the excitement around it. I’m going to fix that raw fish issue. ( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
As it happens (I just read in the paper), this year, for the second time in history, they're postponing "landing" the first barrel (and opening the season) because of low quality fish. I'll need to add that to the article. And yes, not raw, though it's also called "raw herring", I believe. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, no--I've seen enough weddings. I was just struck by the fact that it was televised, and I think there were 235 journalists present. Bonne chance, Vincent Autin and Bruno Boileau. F**k these goodlooking gay guys--they make straight people like me look like fat slobs, and Dennis doesn't look much better than me. Don't know about Warrington; he may be quite the looker--I guess he's over six feet tall, blond, blue-eyed, and ripped like Gerard Butler. F**k the Swedes as well. Why does God hate me so much? Drmies (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Yes, they are beautiful, aren't they? Rosie is my favorite these days. She makes really funny sounds, and says really sweet things. She also doesn't eat dinner, she lies, and she hoards candy and leaves the wrappers under the couch, but that's by-the-by. I'm sure, Lady, you were the loveliest child ever and never did a bad thing in your life. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I am. :) And God loves You, otherwise he would not made your talk page into such a celebrity page. Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You look great, Warrington. I can't wait to show you to my class this fall, in that Beowulf movie. I advertised the class with a picture of you holding a sword in a mighty phallic way, and on one of the posters someone placed a lipsticked kiss just under your picture. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I know only about G. G liberationists, nothing else. Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 31 May 2013 (UTC))Tuscaloosa Catfish served with corn bread and rice, mmmmmmmm
Not a big fan of catfish, but I'm proud of you Dennis. There's a Taj Mahal out there for you somewhere, "Goin' fishin'" or something like that: "Many fish bite if you got good bait, here's a little tip that I would like to relate..." Of course, it's not really about fishing. Check it out, it's a lovely tune. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
. I'm proud of you too, Dennis. The world would be a better place if people would eat more fish. Catfish. Soused herring. Any fish. More brainy people would edit on Wiki.. Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. That's part of the reason why we have to go through them all actually, some were removed or reverted properly, others weren't actually checked, which seems to be the case of that editor. Thankfully the large bios are long done, we only have pieces and parts of paragraphs left to tackle at this point. Wizardman17:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had previously processed an edit war request in this article. At that time, you read the comments and even posted your thoughts about the dispute. Unfortunately, there seems to be another edit ware on this article. Given your previous experience, I would like to ask you to process this one as well. Thank You.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 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.
For stepping up to the plate (or the wicket, if you prefer) and helping to resolve the "Sallie Parker" episode. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
== Jaffna Kingdom and blocking me ==
This is a sentence in Jaffna kingdom article. It is well referenced.
> The origin of the medieval Jaffna kingdom is obscure and still the subject of controversy among historians.[17][18][19][20][21]
Everyone accepted Jaffna kingdom was there in 1323. Some historians argued that it was there in 1215 and some argued it wasn't in 1215. What are the measurements you used favor it was there in 1215 and end a centuries long debate? Himesh84 (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have NO idea what you're talking about. I have no opinion on any date or content. I have no opinion on history and controversy. I have no measurements, except 5'11" and 210, unfortunately.
You were blocked for edit warring. Then your block was extended because you socked (you edited the article as an IP). You're about to get blocked again for these edits, which, frankly, display incompetence. You included a "reference" to an ANI discussion and introduced grammatical errors into a Good Article. Moreover, you seem to be making the same edits you were warring over in the first place. Continue that behavior and you'll be blocked indefinitely.
One more thing: in this edit summary (that's you socking as an IP), you said "Obi2canibe , Drmies, regentspark Concluded that Jaffna kingdom was established by Magha in 1215. This is not a controversial any more this edit". That is the extent to which you don't understand what it means to be an editor or what it means to be an administrator. I do not endorse any kind of date or whatever--I blocked you because of the way you behaved. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
> Moreover, you seem to be making the same edits you were warring over in the first place.
This is incorrect. Now I am going with consensus. That's Jaffna kingdom was etablished in 1215. It was against my opinion before the block
We needed something to show WP has decided Jaffna kingdom was etablished in 1215 over other opinion. WP did it through consensus. There is only place which state it. That is WP consensus. If it is only there what is the problem of linking it --Himesh84 (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to figure out what you're trying to say, but one thing is clear: there is no consensus on the talk page for your edits. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
now he removes everything from the talkpage instead of continuing the discussion so now further disussion seems impossible and his notice on my talkpage is against wp:goodfaith 95.195.223.226 (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that they will. That templated note strikes me as incorrect and I will talk to them about it. Go ahead and edit the article--with a reference. A better one would be better: something not from their own website. Surely the newspapers have reported on this club. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i am not so good in finding third party sources except reading and analyse them, i suggest respectfully that if you did the edit than yes there is doubt indeed 95.195.223.226 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the name of a Swedish expert on dogs and candy. He drops by here sometimes. In the meantime I found a reliable source by reading the article on the Swedish wiki. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stealing a man's dog when he's away? Just came by to say hi, I'll probably come back to edit a little over the next few days. I hope you have been keeping busy on the cricket betting scandal article(s)? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff17:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all over that, Spiff. Good to see you again. Have you lived a full life while you were gone? Are you ready to tackle Modi's article? Drmies (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing that talk page it appears that I visited you too early! I'm just going to update some of my cricket lists, it's a lot less volatile out there. —SpacemanSpiff18:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had previously expressed interest in the idea of category intersections. I wanted to give you a sneak peek of something User:Magnus Manske has recently developed. To see it, add the following line to your common.js page:
importScript('User:Obiwankenobi/intercat.js');
Then restart your browser, and visit Category:Wikipedia_categorization_intersect_test. You can click on the intersects up top, and it will display all articles that meet the criteria (e.g. American novelists who are LGBT and African American or whatever). This is still very early prototype stage, but since you were interested I wanted to share and get your feedback. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. That's interesting. Next step is a pull-down menu, right? I was surprised to find how many hits I got for "Dutch people" and "Social classes". I suppose that one little move, one category getting added to a high category, would easily increase the number of hits tremendously. Thanks--yes, I think that's the kind of thing that would propel the debate forward. BTW, I still don't believe in gendering everyone. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you add something as a sub-category, it can change things. For example, Category:Guggenheim fellows was under Category:Guggenheim family, which was under Category:American Jews. As a result, James Baldwin came up in the intersection of Category:American novelists and Category:American Jews. If we do this at scale, we need to just be more clear about category membership - for example, the reason that example is broken is that Guggenheim fellows are *not* part of the Guggenheim family, they are simply related, so we need to start using category relations instead of just sub-catting, especially when it comes to people. When you say "I still don't believe in gendering everyone", I'm not sure what you mean - we could do for example what the German wikipedia does, with Men, Women, Third Gender, and Unknown for example, or we could even have 5 or 6 or 10 genders at the top level. In any case, the categories themselves would for the most part cease to be gendered (so they'd be no more Category:American women novelists and Category:American male novelists, you'd just have Category:American novelists, which you would intersect with women if you wanted such a list. But the default would always be an ungendered list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, that Australia article simply needs to be merged into the main one. I don't see any justification for its continued existence. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not quite surprised. We've been trying to merge {{Infobox Australian road}} into {{Infobox road}} (which the rest of the world uses) for years now. The same pattern exists with {{Infobox Australian place}}. Seems like different editors fighting this particular one over, but same mentality of trying to ensure that Australian topics are handled specially. Some serious issues going on there. --Rschen775401:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need content creators, you need a weyr of wikidragons, accompanied by a few wikiogres and a random wikibarbarian thrown in for good measure. Then send some wikifairies to clean up the mess and make it pretty again. I read about 5 minutes before I had to stop, and I still hadn't learned anything except there are debates in the science. So what? Do users need to know the results of every single randomized controlled trial and graphs of bike usage from the 70s? i think one solution for Bike helmet might be to fork out all of the stuff about bike helmet safety into a separate article, and leave bike helmet as a nice, short summary article - when was it invented, what do they look like, quick overview of safety issues with link to debate, etc. Sort of like Climate, Climate change, and Global warming. Then, the debate can continue at the "safety" page without polluting the main page. Either that or nuke it from orbit - its the only way to be sure.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put a split tag on it if you think that will help, and start a discussion on talk, and notify a few places, then see who comes by. Do you think we could get a consensus to split? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A cycle helmet should generally be light in weight and provide ample ventilation, because cycling can be an intense aerobic activity which significantly raises body temperature, and the head in particular needs to be able to regulate its temperature. The dominant form of helmet up to the 1970s was the leather "hairnet" style. This offered acceptable protection from scrapes and cuts, but only minimal impact protection, and was mainly used by racing cyclists. More widespread use of helmets began in the U.S. in the 1970s. After many decades, when bicycles were regarded only as children's toys, many American adults took up cycling during and after the bike boom of the 1970s. Two of the first modern bicycle helmets were made by MSR, a manufacturer of mountaineering equipment, and Bell Sports, a manufacturer of helmets for auto racing and motorcycles. These helmets were a spin-off from the development of expanded polystyrene foam liners for motorcycling and motorsport helmets, and had hard polycarbonate plastic shells. The bicycle helmet arm of Bell was split off in 1991 as Bell Sports Inc., having completely overtaken the motorcycle and motor sports helmet business.
The first commercially successful purpose-designed bicycle helmet was the Bell Biker, a polystyrene-lined hard shell released in 1975.[1][2] At the time there was no appropriate standard; the only applicable one, from Snell, would be passed only by a light open-face motorcycle helmet. Over time the design was refined and by 1983 Bell were making the V1-Pro, the first polystyrene helmet intended for racing use. In 1984 Bell produced the Li'l Bell Shell, a no-shell children's helmet. These early helmets had little ventilation.
In 1985, Snell B85 was introduced, the first widely adopted standard for bicycle helmets; this has subsequently been refined into B90 and B95 (see Standards below). At this time helmets were almost all either hard-shell or no-shell (perhaps with a vacuum-formed plastic cover). Ventilation was still minimal due mainly to technical limitations of the foams and shells in use.
A Giro Atmos helmet, showing seamless in-mould microshell construction.
Around 1990 a new construction technique was invented: in-mould microshell. A very thin shell was incorporated during the moulding process. This rapidly became the dominant technology, allowing for larger vents and more complex shapes than hard shells.
Use of hard shells declined rapidly among the general cyclist population during the 1990s, almost disappearing by the end of the decade, but remain popular with BMX riders as well as inline skaters and skateboarders.
The late 1990s and early 2000s saw advances in retention and fitting systems, replacing the old system of varying thickness pads with cradles which adjust quite precisely to the rider's head. This has also resulted in the back of the head being less covered by the helmet; impacts to this region are rare, but it does make a modern bike helmet much less suitable for activities such as unicycling, skateboarding and inline skating, where falling over backward is relatively common. Other helmets will be more suitable for these activities.
Since more advanced helmets began being used in the Tour de France, carbon fiber inserts have started to be used to increase strength and protection of the helmet. The Giro Atmos and Ionos, as well as the Bell Alchera were among the first to use carbon fiber.
Some modern racing bicycle helmets have a long tapering back end for streamlining. This type of helmet is mainly dedicated to time trial racing as they lack significant ventilation, making them uncomfortable for long races.
after
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Two of the first modern bicycle helmets were made by MSR, a manufacturer of mountaineering equipment, and Bell Sports, a manufacturer of helmets for auto racing and motorcycles. These helmets were a spin-off from the development of expanded polystyrene foam liners for motorcycling and motorsport helmets, and had hard polycarbonate plastic shells. The bicycle helmet arm of Bell was split off in 1991 as Bell Sports Inc., having completely overtaken the motorcycle and motor sports helmet business.
The first commercially successful purpose-designed bicycle helmet was the Bell Biker, a polystyrene-lined hard shell released in 1975.[3][4]
The Snell B85 was introduced in 1985 and became the first widely adopted standard for bicycle helmets, which has been further refined.
A Giro Atmos helmet, showing seamless in-mould microshell construction.
Around 1990 construction techniques shifted and hard shell designs fell out of favor except with some BMX riders, inline skaters and skateboarders.[citation needed] As the years progressed, advances in retention and fitting systems replacing the old system of varying thickness pads with better fitting designs which offered less protection to the back of the head, where injuries are rare. Ventilation was also improved, increasing comfort for the rider.[citation needed]
I just noticed a situation that I'm not sure I know how, or whether, I should address. An article that was either an attempt to further a self-published literary hoax or (I guess it's possible) an overly credulous reader's product is now the author's user page; cf. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 14#Petreius Hyphantes for background (I'm User:Cardiffchestnut in that conversation before a name change). The user page shows up in Google searches. Should I care and should something be done? If so, what? Thanks,davidiad{ t }02:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it as a userspace draft and put a no-index tag on it, so it should eventually drop out of google; I also removed the categories (userspace pages should not have any mainspace categories). You may also want to drop a note to the concerned editor. There may be a reason to blank it, given it is a hoax apparently - I'm not sure if people are allowed to keep hoax pages in their userspace but not sure - there are certainly plenty of joke pages in wikipedia namespace.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies (or one of the admin page stalkers) could you perhaps have a look at this discussion: User talk:Yunshui#User:Jbignell (needs to be an admin to see the deleted article). One of those books was just added to another article by the same user. Looks very fishy to me, but have not time right now to look into it (another administrative form to fill out, in triplicate of course)... --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks legit now, Randy. The guy's for real: I added a reference, from a book (one of those paper things, without a battery). The paperwork can wait til after the weekend, you bon vivant. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I saw from you was fine. Let's hope that Bushranger's warning was enough already; I have added my own, on both talk pages. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least according to Jacob Rees-Mogg in last week's episode of Have I Got News For You, the word floccinaucinihilipilfication means "the estimation of something valueless". According to that TV programme, Rees-Mogg's use of the word in the House of Commons makes it the longest word to appear in Hansard. It is probably no surprise to you that I've never heard of the word before ... but I am tempted to find a use for it, perhaps at ANI. That will sort out the wheat from the chaff among the admin corps! Alternatively, perhaps I could just say that X or Y is crap? - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for giving me a leg up on the competition. However, I can't yet accept the word since it's not listed in the OED... Drmies (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It wouldn't have happened without my old pal Malleus Fatuorum. Chris, when you get a moment, could you have a look at William March? I want to bring it up to GA. I've looked at it so often I have no idea anymore. Is the lead even acceptable? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lede makes it sound as if March only published two novels.
Got the father's name?
he later stated he had composed a 10,000 line poem at the age of 12 but had burned the manuscript. - relation to the earlier clause needs to be explicit
Two years later March had returned to Mobile - Year should be stated instead
His high-school equivalency course should be in the lede, I think, otherwise it's unclear how he went from failure to failure
Images should face in
133d Company or 133rd Company?
WWI fiction needs years
Co F - perhaps spell out Company F?
statistical duties - clarification of the term would be nice
Link on first mention, please
In general it seems you are quite fond of developing extremely extensive and grammatically complex sentences, something which I'm sure our non-native speakers of English will have difficulty with, particularly those who live in nations without any English heritage such as Indonesia or some similar nation which I may not name.
resigned his position - what position
Really, really, really need years for these works.
Of paramount importance - according to whom?
gave their approval, though grudgingly, it seems. - according to?
legendary -POV
classic -POV
He won four O. Henry Awards for his short stories, tied for the most wins by any author up until that time. - Since surpassed by?
curious -POV
One curious little book with a March story, "The First Sunset", was printed in a limited edition of 150 copies by Cincinnati printer and writer Robert Lowry's Little Man Press. - Possibly undue weight
Thanks Chris. (Really, all I wanted was a GA rubber stamp!) Well, Company K was still available on Amazon last time I checked, and The Bad Seed is available in a mass paperback. The first is really a masterpiece--certainly for a first novel. It's quite extraordinary. The movie barely does it justice (and I don't think you'll find that easily). The latter is creepy. Good reading, but very creepy, especially if you have children. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but shipping rates are terrifying for Indonesia ;). No wonder I only got a "B" in Pragmatics back when I did my bachelour's degree... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to offer to send you one and then HOLY SHIT I checked the rates--$45. Back in the good old days every country offered lower shipping rates for books and magazines. Plus, it appears that surface mail doesn't exist anymore. Sorry Chris. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, my point exactly. I ordered Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory about three years ago... cost ten dollars for the book, thirty for shipping. Now I only buy stuff that's already in the country or can be shipped from Malaysia or Singapore. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Ape Man's Brother was a work in progress. You kinda Interrupted me as I was searching for more reliable sources. This is a relatively unknown ebook by a well known author. I sort of resent the fact you swooped in and deleted it before I had the chance to finish.PKDASD (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, if a book is notable and has reviews and all that, the wonders of Google will produce those in seconds, and adding them to the article takes mere minutes. Also, I didn't delete it: in fact, I undid your blanking; it's the blanking that's taken as a sign that the only contributor wants it deleted. My move would have saved the redirect. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been written and published as a e-book, something that Joe Lansdale does very little of. Joe is a very popular and prolific writer with many hardcore fans and I think this article belongs in the encyclopedia. Just check out his bibliography. I'm going to redo the article and hopefully this time it will meet Wikipedia's strict standards.PKDASD(talk) 20:20 5 June (UTC)
Guy, I'm weary of arguing with you. If you want to delete it, go ahead. I doubt me or Joe Lansdale will lose any sleep over it.11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)PKDASD
Schlafly has been in the news for this numerous times.
I REPEATEDLY asked those removing information from the article to come to the talk page for discussion in accordance with what I understand the rules of wikipedia to be. They refused and instead, OUT OF POLICY, engaged in private conversation to get the page locked.
I have placed sections for information, discussion and sources on the talk page to try to get them to show up but I am confident they are not acting in good faith, as I am sure from YOUR direct threats that you are not bothering to act in good faith, and I'm certain they won't bother.
(talk page stalker) Looks like valid protection and removal to me. For example, insisting that Youtube be used as a reference? Ridiculous and against policy. We need to protect biographies from people with axes to grind (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Bwilkins said. As revolting to some as someone's opinions may be, it is not our job to judge said someones for said opinions. You are going about it completely incorrectly. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that one useful indicator that an editor is committed to Wikipedia's core principles is whether that editor is as quick to insist on NPOV and adherence to BLP policy in an article about a political adversary as in one about a political ally. Of course, this doesn't apply to our apolitical editors. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies! Hope you remember me in the ANI discussion. I just want to get your opinion about this edit on the same article Joya Ahsan. Since you warned me for indulging in an edit war, I've refrained myself from reverting that, but please take a close look. This time another user SlawTony is making the same edit that Ricose used to do (suspecting a sock puppet), removing the existing references as well as some referenced contents and putting some blog sites instead. --Zayeem(talk)15:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zayeem, I'll tell you what I see. SlawTony is not doing the article any favors with their poor English. It seems to be they're adding blogs, and those might not be notable. Without even getting into the specifics of content it seems fair to me to revert the change, but see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: if they're bold and you revert, they should discuss. To counter the argument that it is you who should, in fact, discuss, make your case on the talk page (which is still empty). Revert, if you like, and explain in some detail; that will make it much easier to stay out of an edit war. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in that ANI discussion, I had tried to discuss with user Ricose before those edit wars, but it was of no use. Since, SlawTony is also looking like a sock puppet of Ricose, I guess the result would be the same here as well. Anyway, I'll just do what you said, let's see what happens. Please keep that article in your watchlist. Thanks. --Zayeem(talk)18:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their edit patterns are same. Collecting more evidence would be better before moving to the last resort. And again, he has removed those references and the referenced contents from the article here without even discussing in the talk page. --Zayeem(talk)10:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Zayeem. SlawTony edited Humayun Ahmed frequently, which the other hasn't (as far as I can tell, haven't looked at their entire history). I will grant you that their interests appear to overlap, as evidenced by their edit summaries. I must stress, however, that Ricose (with whom you've duked it out before) is not always wrong--in this edit, for instance, they were right in reverting your revert--"right" at least from the point of view of content (and language). I'm just a casual observer right now: it seems that Ricose could do with better manners (or a better application of the BRD cycle), but you can learn something from them, when it comes to style, grammar, and tone... Sorry, but you asked me to look at things, and that's my conclusion. We would all be better off if you two blended your strengths. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know Ricose did make some constructive edits earlier (I've acknowledged that in the ANI discussion as well), the articles were in really bad shape and he did remove some peacocks/original research from some articles, but in some cases I found that he removed more contents than he should have (contents that were not peacock and were supported by the references). What happened is that, when I first came across Ricose and his contributions, it seemed as vandalisms and massive content removals to me, hence I began to revert his edits in those articles (I went wrong here, I know that). However, my reverts were eventually reverted by Ricose later. I couldn't participate in every article that Ricose edited, but I did involve myself in improving some articles that I was interested on. When I started to add those contents (which were removed by Ricose} and add some references to verify those, Ricose again began to revert my edits with the same edit summaries. Now this made me surprised that at first he was removing those contents because of being unreferenced, now when I started to add some references why is he still removing those? I tried several times to sort it out with him in his talk page, but they were of no use. He took some breaks and I thought we might have reached a consensus, but then he emerged again with those same edits. Also, as the edits seem to be vandalisms at first sight, I have asked him several times to first use the {{citation needed}} or {{weasel words}} templates before removing the contents so that other users can add references or reword those contents, but he just ignored it. --Zayeem(talk)17:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. I'm poking around to get a couple more editors involved here if you're interested. It makes me uncomfortable to "argue" with volunteers and I would rather facilitate a thoughtful discussion among impartial editors.
Fair enough. I don't think we have a Wikiproject Publishing or anything for Direct Marketing, so I'll have to keep poking around. CorporateM (Talk) 19:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to help (though not right now). Where's IP99 with his lobster rolls when you need him? And Mandarax? Do you know who knows art like knowbody's business? Johnbod. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'm not sure what kind of help you were looking for, but since I can read both of those I had a quick look and mucked about with versions of his name. I am afraid I found a bit of a mess when I started looking at sources; I left a note on the talkpage. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, could you perhaps have a look at this AFD? There are some BLP issues here, I think. Initially, I was surprised that this was apparently taken to AfD by an IP, but it's a new editor who has also edited this using his IP and doesn't sign his edits... --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any BLP issues. The nominator is a little blunt but I don't see where BLP is being bent. What was your specific concern? BTW, I do agree with the nom, the subject doesn't look notable to me either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Randy, I'm with Niteshift on this one. Blunt, sure, but hardly a personal attack. The article was written by an SPA, Wuzz2010 (talk·contribs), and early on had aspects of a vanity page. On the other hand the nominator seems to be as interested in removing it as Wuzz was in writing it, and it's a nomination that addresses a bunch of things that simply don't pertain, that's a fact. I also see no notability here, and will cast my vote accordingly. Randy, as it happens I was thinking about you since I just wrote up Geschiedenis Magazine; perhaps you have something to add there, even if it's just categories or something. Thanks, and thank you too Niteshift, Drmies (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make you aware that I predict an edit war, or at minimum total waste of everyone's time on the talk page as particular editors refuse to actually read WP policies. Sorry to only get in contact when nonsense happens, but there you go... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have this aggressive person who is edit-warring on K-pop adding unsourced positions and personall attacks in his edit-summaries. Now he is attacking my articles: [27]. I reported them at AIV but I thought it wouldn't hurt to try contacting you as well. Thank you and sorry for the trouble. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Labourers of Herakles? Didn't SM Entertainment announce a pre-video in anticipation of the video for that song (the Japanese version of course, you dummy), and a scheduled come-back three weeks later? With one half of the group singing all the lines, while the other half mimed it for a soap commercial? And a greatest hits tour, of supermarkets throughout Korea (not Japan, you dummy), with a superextra re-release of the extended version of the remix of the single, in a pink sleeve? Drmies (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha! What a concept! Thank you for this fantastic idea which surpasses even Harrison's daring vision. One thing though, the Labourers has some scenes involving getting stuck in wet cement. Not to mention cursing. I'm not sure how well this would translate in a glamorous K-pop video. :) Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις23:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Δρ. Κ. and I are acquainted: whether he's this one or that one, I'm a fan of his work, since he recently brought out an awesome DYK that makes my field seem interesting. (But now I wish I could read suppressed edit summaries to see this shithole I call to mind.) davidiad{ t }01:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Davidiad, you scored a home run with that baseball Dr. K. That was really funny. As far as Dr. Kakridis I know for sure I'm not him, since apparently I'm still around. :) In any case, thank you for your nice words. It is always a pleasure talking to you. Take care. :) Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις01:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha! Any more of these jokes and I will only be able to type just a long chain of "Ha"s. Drmies, I don't know what your specialty is but I am sure it isn't Greek classics. On the other hand you could single-handedly revitalise the genre in a manner similar to Harrison's. Except for an LGBT audience. Lol! Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις01:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies and stalkers, this seems like it might be up some of your alleys. There's some sort of slow brew edit war going on at Edward Said. I can't tell if it's hero-worshiper v. reactionary, but it's a GA and I suspect that nothing too productive is happening. (I only noticed because I tried to get rid of a couple weak phrases and both sides in whatever's going on have reverted me; one appears to think I'm a sock of the other.) davidiad{ t }22:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hot mess. And I just made it worse by sticking my nose in it--that "character assassination" thing is ridiculous. It's not the kind of language we're supposed to use. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see what the folk there think of your bits of cleanup. It needs an editor or two who have the time and resources to make it the sort of article that is written well enough and cited strongly enough to dissuade the lovers and haters from sweeping in with online sourced POV and reverts. I don't have the energy or knowledge for the effort, and toning down the language is just a first step. As it is, I'd delist it as a GA. davidiad{ t }01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited this article before, I think, and wasn't very impressed by it at the time. I also don't wish this to get out of hand and I won't be afraid to use a tool: the article (and the subject) is too important to be screwed with. I got a couple of other things on my plate, but if we could get this back/keep it at GA level we would have done a good thing. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And without wanting to continue the homoerotic conversation started by Davidiad and Dr. K. in the previous section, damn he was a goodlooking man. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's too important an article to get bogged down like this. I'll dig in a bit and put it back on my watchlist if Ed and you and others keep an eye on it, too. And I'll sleep easier knowing that you'll use your tool on this goodlooking man. davidiad{ t }02:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let's see what will remain of it. I don't know (and I don't want to know) who stuck all those "in the event"s in there, all the blockquotes, the faulty punctuation, the enormous amount of excessive detail, etc. But it had to go. The next job, and that's the bigger one, is to improve the sourcing and to concoct a better system of documentation, because right now it sucks. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Said may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
[[File:SaidSis.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Edward and his sister Rosemarie]] (1940)]]
water supplies.”<ref>Martin Kramer, [http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3082 Enough Said (review of ''Dangerous Knowledge'', by Robert Irwin], March 2007.</ref> He criticized the military
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zenne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[yeast]]s of the Zenne river valley are used in the production of the regional [[lambic]] style of [[beer].<ref name="Jackson1988">{{cite book|last=Jackson|first=Michael|title=The new world guide to
I assume that your placement of this comment directly after mine is just a coincidence driven by when we each posted, but still...wow. You are one of a handful of admins i respect in person (as opposed to simply by virtue of the position), but i think you might have missed it here. I'm sure you're aware that Kumioko is always going on about the "us and them" mentality; thus far i've not agreed with him; please don't make me rethink that. I know WP:AN is primarily an announcement board for admins, but that function is acknowledged to lead to general community discussion, especially when regarding something which potentially affects the whole community like, oh i don't know, bans or blocks and their lengths. Cheers, LindsayHello09:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption is correct; I wasn't looking at your comments or contributions. There's a few contributors higher up the list I was thinking of (one of them has 700 article edits and is going to weigh in on Kiefer's future here--he has almost 19,000). I do, however, stand by my comment: AN is used way too much as a public forum. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, i agree with you about the public forum bit. The problem is that the community needs a public forum and, the way it's set up, places like the village pump, which i imagine were intended to serve that function, don't really, especially when things like this blow up. I suspect that that isn't a good solution, unfortunately. Anyway, see you around. Cheers, LindsayHello14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking the not so funny Fun Minister for his attacks on Blackmetalbaz. I'm too involved in that goth rock list for pulling out the admin tools myself. And it seems also that he's quit completely about this whole thing. De728631 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Graag gedaan. That person is a bit too hot-headed and shows no willingness even to play by basic rules (of, you know, verifiability...). I remember "det war rolig" from a vacation a long time ago... Drmies (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In unrelated news, would you mind adding Frisians and Frisian history to your watchlist? There's a recurring IP editor from Malaysia who keeps adding unsourced OR bits about the Frisians being of Celtic origin, which is contrary to what the regular sources say. More watchful eyes would be appreciated. De728631 (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits are terrible. If this goes on, semi-protection is the only way. BTW, De, you're of German extraction--happy birthday Saint Boniface, Apostle of the Germans! And how appropriate to say that in the context of those damn Frisians. [This user is from West-Friesland.] Drmies (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that Frisian is the easiest language for native English speakers to learn? If so, can I sign up for a class? After all, I have failed in my attempts to develop conversational fluency in French, Spanish, German and Hebrew. I don't want to be an "ugly American" any more, but perhaps that's my fate. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say, Cullen. You could email Rolf Bremmer; he's the expert. And personally, I think you're quite an attractive American--Mrs. Cullen made quite a catch. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks about that. No matter how many times I see those templates they just confuse the heck out of me. Can never remember what to put there. BTW I don't suppose you'd know whether or not articles written in the Hamilton Evening Journal in 1929 would be public domain by now? There is supposedly some interesting articles related to the Men's Rights League penned there by the creator of Wonder Woman 12 years prior to her debut. Ranze (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ranze, I just placed a note on the talk page before I saw yours here. Don't be confused by the templates. Above my edit screen is a button "Cite", and clicking on that produces a list of buttons that select those templates. (If you don't have those options, a clever person can tell you what to do--something about javascript or commonsensevectors.js or something like that, or maybe just a setting under your Preferences.) If you have a URL for a book, for instance, you can simply copy that in the URL field and press the button next to it, and that produces a mostly correct template. Same with news, though it doesn't work well for old NYT articles. Something from 1929 should be free by now (but I'm not expert), but citing should be done sparingly anyway, and if you do so, you'll never fall foul of copyright laws. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text_2 and, in general, Wikipedia:Quotations. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G'day from Oz; I have just come across List of aircraft in the Pima Air& Space Museum, which is apparently a creation of a COI editor calved off the Pima Air & Space Museum article after you deleted similar info from it late last year. The List is very very badly-done, being unsourced, full of OR and full of spelling mistakes (which is how it came to my notice). I am inclined to take it to AfD, but I don't know whether lists on WP have different standards for inclusion compared to articles and so I'd like your opinion. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and a GAF Nomad, product of Australia. I spent several days there just over five years ago (I have several photos I took there in my User page photo gallery), did the AMARG tour as well; I thought I'd died and gone to heaven :-) Thanks and Cheers again YSSYguy (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tom! I cleaned up the last of the citations though I can't really figure out, from the quotes given (and how they were given) what was really in the original and what was added by the editor. And now that's done--TAG you're it. BTW, the real trooper there is Cailil. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a title given to any Minister who tries to be overly charming, something like this, see picture. That is my conclusion, after much original research. After that they are all put on Cabbage soup diet. Wonder what Malleus Fatuorum alias Corbett would think of that article, since he doesn't like how to do articles. Warrington (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, is there a policy that would prevent me from posting on Malke's talk page after he told me not to, or is it just bad form to do so? Just in case I run into him sometime again and need to put something - I'm afraid that even if it's a notification or something, he'll remove it and try to bring more down on me, from his general lack of listening to people trying to help or explain that I've experienced. Thanks, Ansh66614:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC) (P.S. didn't see the section on my talk at all until over a week later, or else I would surely have apologized profusely on AN/I. Blame Echo!)[reply]
Ha, I can't find it. Opinions differ, but some smarter person will be able to find the actual guideline--I think that in general ANI notifications and things like that are allowed, and at any rate I wouldn't worry so much about those. I mean, some things are done automatically, like AfD notifications, and others are required, like ANI notifications. But maybe someone can set me straight here. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in his wisdom, ended our exchange at Men's rights movement. (1) You might not have seen my reply or (2) you might not want to see my reply, but you may as well proceed with the knowledge of its existance. Your last posting (now removed) did prompt me to add "theory" to my list of words and phrases that mean in my opinion. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(stalker) I'd encourage you to continue that exchange here, if you find it valuable. The bar is always open at Drmies' talk page, and drinks are free :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Drmies, I am very busy off Wiki, but there is some disruption going on that is upsetting User:Miss Bono. See my talk page and hers. User:OneMadScientist seems to be up to no good. Thanks for any assistance that you can provide. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to have calmed down, no? Slash after commentary by two other admins. If admin action is helpful please let me know. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a bit of trouble following the edit diffs, I noticed characters were reduced but since the spacing was compacted it took a bit to figure. Here though, it appears you removed the footnotes marked '2' and '3', which I found essential for interpreting the statement (I didn't make the footnotes, they're in the actual book, probably added by the translators). Number 3 which was removed in this edit "Walter A. Berendsohn was a professor of Scandinavian literature at the University of Hamburg and active member of the League for Men's Rights. He emigrated to Sweden in 1933." I found essential for understanding this interpretation. We seem to have an issue here where translators are recurringly translating "Menchrechten" as "men's rights" rather than "human rights" as it is used today. The term "Mensch" appears to have shifted from back then referring to men, to in a modern sense also including women. This group is spoken of by WW creator also as a "men's" group and his discussion of their issues makes it very clear it's a MRA thing. The problem is just getting a good screenshot of the source documents. I have a text translation but that alone won't stand as a source without the raw newspaper.
Anyway, I'm wondering if there could be a non-confusing way to retain the footnotes. I attempted to keep them in original form by superscripting the notes. Ranze (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was something like that--and I removed it because it seemed not be part of the original text. Yes, there must be a better way to do it, but that probably involves doing it in-text. At any rate, there is a discussion on the talk page about whether the material should be included in the first place; I was not aware of a history of those changes so I'll wait and see what pops up there (I don't have an opinion on it right now). If consensus is that it should be included we'll figure it out then. In general, it's best to keep footnote formatting in a quote in a footnote limited to the bare minimum. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Season 2 table in List of Wild Kratts episodes had been messed up by an IP user which is 99.230.35.247. Please restore the table and try to warn that user. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.91.133 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I browsed around some and it shouldn't be too hard to expand this to DYK limits: 1500 characters (for a new article). It's just that this is a biography on a topic I don't care so much for. But basically, it starts with expansion to 1500, properly sourced and all. Then, compose a catchy hook (shouldn't be hard with this topic!) and nominate it (the rules are at WP:DYK, but I can do that for you). Typically you'd have to review another nomination (quid pro quo), but since this would be your first I don't think you have to do that. I'll do one for you, if you like, so you can see what to look for. And then you get a wonderful DYK thank you template on your talk page, and your article on the front page...and maybe listed here, Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Statistics#All-time_DYK_page_view_leaders... It's quite fun. There's a couple of military people in that list, and a couple by yours truly, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok - so then it gets lots of views, and others come along and improve it hopefully? Is that the point of the DYK? to attract more editors to the article? Also would you mind if I asked what part of the topic you don't care about? I thought you were a student of gender identity, no? Anyway, thanks for the explanation. There are many wikiprocesses I still don't know about. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's more to entice readers, not editors. The article should be finished, or at least be decent, by the time it runs. And gender is fun, but I don't really like writing biographies. Look at the article--it's grown a bit. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With my additions it's at 1000 characters now, so it doesn't need much more. If you can cobble together a paragraph (or two) on her military history, that would be great. A picture would be even better. Does she have a press agent? Drmies (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ack, just realized it must be within 5 days - argh. I contacted the publisher, she sent me pics, but then held back as she wasn't sure on licensing - she was ok with having the book cover there though, but I'm a little unsure about that - I'm not sure we should encourage her to release the book cover itself as free, since she's publishing the book (a pic, ok, but not the book cover). Anyway, will it pass DYK without a photo? Seems most users would want to see that. i can try to expand today or tomorrow and submit.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures aren't necessary. Just a bit of expansion and maybe some shuffling, that's all. The book cover is usually fine as fair use of non-free content, but only if it's in an article on the book, and there's little chance that some busybody will claim "she's only notable for the book" and move it. If the publisher sent you a photo of Ms. Beck and gave you permission to use it, you could try and upload it on Commons and send an email to (some talk page stalker help me out...) OTRS, in which you forward their message; I've done that before but it's been a while--I did something like that for this image, now to be seen in all its glory in Henrik Vibskov. The easiest thing to do (for you!) is to ask the publisher, or whoever holds the copyright for the photo, to upload it to Commons directly, with the proper license. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've now gotten pictures directly from the subject herself, but one of them still looks pro, so I'm awaiting a response - will likely upload them within a day or two and then have whoever the copyright owner is send an email to WP. Sheesh what a pain it is to get images, but I guess better safe than sorry. I've expanded the article a bit and filed my DYK (crediting you too, oh master) Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Kristin_Beck. Take a look and plz add other hooks, and any other tweaks to the article. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but neither Zimmerman or Hollisz have edited since last year, and Do Not Delete never returned. I'll tell you what, though. This has gone on long enough. I'm going to indef-block all of them; if they ever wish to talk, they can do that from one single account. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow reply...sleep happened. That works for me. Zimmerman can talk on his original account and go from there. I hope this is finally what gets his attention, I really do. Thanks for your help on this. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not really involved in the dispute but I have noticed that an article that I have contributed alot too has been the subject of a dispute for a few days. It is a user named Geebee that runs a pro-Jodi website of somekind that has heavily edited the article, and it seems that alot of Pro-Jodi Arias stuff has been inserted. The user is showing the telling characteristics of someone who wants to "win the discussions" as evident on the users extensive use of the talk page. User Bishonen referred me to you and I thought I could atleast ask you to review it. Anywhow If you could take a look at it when you find time it would be appreciated. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Bishonen put you up to this? Thanks a lot, Bishzilla, but you'll have to butter me up for real. At any rate, I just went through that article, removed some text, and warned the editor. Babba, websites and stuff--be careful not to wade into outing territory. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishzilla carefully smears delicious garlic butter all over the little Drmies.] Nothing like an atomic-deathray-grilled little user of a summer's night! [Tucks in enormous napkin to protect spiderman suit.] bishzillaROARR!!17:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the help Drmies, and concerning the "outing" he himself refered to his own site at first and has published info about the "Wikipedia situation" at the site. Anyhow lets see and wait what the user does with your latest warning. Once again, thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No rhetorical questions, please: this is a happy place. Also, probably not, since I just got out of the pool. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pool. It's not even 60 here today, and the dogs won't go outside. When the rain stops they'll be delighted to dig in the mud, though. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yanking plug from wall, hoping to dissolve this IP. At least I'm teaching all weekend, so that will cut down on the free time. Do me a favor, though: if you ever run across me in a different 99 incarnation, just block my account, as a humanitarian measure. And feel free to keep in touch via e-mail. Cheers, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, K-pop is the new Israel-Palestine, abortion, yoghurt, Ryukyu islands, Scientology, Transcendental Meditation and Lyndon LaRouche, all rolled into one! How thrilling! Apply for jobs today! Oliver Keyes is hiring! Cullen328Let's discuss it04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha! There must be something with this user talkpage because I keep reading the best jokes around. That's getting too much. Lol. :) On a more serious note I have never seen this amount of socking in K-pop before. It's like a sock-apocalypse. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις05:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To you too. Have a great weekend! Btw, I stand by my appraisal. You encapsulated this mini-crisis so well and in such a funny way. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις05:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Oliver Keyes will be hiring me anytime soon. No one should be surprised at socking there though Vgleer (or whoever) had a point--couldn't SM hire someone with better English skills? No, I think there's a meat machine there, all churning out the same articles with the same layout and the same style of writing and referencing. Pre-video, video teaser, video, single, digital single single album, comeback tour, second comeback tour, names in six different scripts. Remember the one that had blood groups? And the official color of the fan club, first as an announcement and then as a comeback color? If CU were a fishing expedition, it'd be like throwing a net over a salmon farm. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That dog looks hungry. I have requested a topic ban of Geebee2 at ANI here because of his recent edits. Given your previous concerns on his edits I figure you may want to weigh in. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, DS. She doesn't eat much in the mornings anyway. Thanks for the note, and for the detailed report, and thanks to BabbaQ as well. And Bishonen, who deserves an honorary seat on the board, or at least a t-shirt. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very much. Ed, do you know why I can't answer the questions on Meta? When I click on edit (for any section), the screen tells me the section does not exist. Editing the whole page shows me that there's a whole bunch of tags/code that scares me. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they're both me, Cullen, or I'm withdrawing my sizable investment from your hedge fund. But there's really not much to do there in the way of endorsing, though I appreciate your private donations to my election fund, with a maximum of $2500 of course (if you want to give more do so secretly through Eric Corbett). Drmies (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for that wisecrack, I hereby endorse Drmies, Phoebe Ayers and Kat Walsh. There are lots of great candidates, but I think that you, Drmies, will best represent the rank-and-file, while Phoebe and Kat are highly experienced with the inner workings of the foundation. All three of you are splendid people as well. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cullen. Maybe wisecracks will be like Clinton's saxophone. I certainly don't have much to offer in the way of inner knowledge. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just voted. I must be getting better at these things because it took less than one week for me to figure out the instructions. I particularly liked the "receipt as evidence of your vote". Other than Drmies, Matthew, and Tom, I knew absolutely no one. Ignorance rules. Of course, all of this is supposed to be super-confidential, but according to the Washington Post, the administration has a deal with the foundation - well, you know the rest. I found a way to exploit that back door and voted for Mrs. Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I think there will be plenty of detractors also; one of them just saw the need to email me--"Ah, Drmies, power-hungry much?" No, not power-hungry. The person obviously also doesn't know that the Board doesn't come with power... Bbb, I actually have met a few of the candidates, including Thelmadatter, who is a fine editor and a great asset for Wikipedia and the Education branch. Do I get to vote (for) myself? I'd vote for her if I weren't running. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been here long enough to vote for anyone, but if I could I'd vote for every candidate who posed with a beer in hand. EricCorbett22:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooookay, let's cut this off now. Drmies, this is your talk page, so feel free to revert. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 00:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"I haven't abused the email function to bitch at you [User:DanielTom], nor have I made any false claims about you. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)"
Drmies, if you think bitching at someone in an Email is abuse of the Email function, then I cannot help but wonder what you might think of a certain Email I received from an Admin acquaintance (or friend perhaps) of yours, which did quite some bitching at me in quite some foul language to boot (including calling me "a mother-fucking asshole"). (In addition to some off-the-wall generalized accusations to boot.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly never send such an email and have never received an insulting email from any Wikipedian, administrator or not. Surely you are not blaming Drmies for an email that some other unnamed person sent? Cullen328Let's discuss it22:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ihardlythinkso, I think you should hardily have a word with your little friend, not with me--that person with a talk page full of lies and rancor. BTW, if I ever want you to comment here, I'll invite you, OK? And I have no opinions on any emails you may have received or will receive, unless I sent them. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I did not come to your Talk to make "comment". I came here for what I wrote clearly above, to ask about consistency regarding your understanding and claim DanielTom "abused [WP] Email" by "bitching [at you]", and in light of the Email I received from an Admin containing name-calling at me as "a mother-fucking asshole". (If you considered this a question from a user to an Admin to explain their behaviors under policy, well, that would be a fair interpretation. So your response telling me to not come here when "uninvited" isn't really appropriate now, is it. As an Admin you are supposed to respond to clear questions, and mine was pretty darn clear.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking Drmies to comment on a comparison between one or more emails that he may have exchanged with a retired editor, and an email you report you've received, but Drmies didn't send and apparently hasn't read. In my opinion, that question isn't "clear" but instead is baffling and impossible for any reasonable person to answer directly. Cullen328Let's discuss it00:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, based on my interactions with you after the ANI filed by User:Quale on what turned out to be a notorious long-term troll that you and Drmies defended, the followup discussions with me at your User:Talk, FYI, I don't approve of how you think, and I'm subsequently not interested in anything you have to say. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ed. Ihardlythinkso, I asked you not to comment here. Don't comment here. Instead of insinuating something under the guise of a question (that's not even rhetoric 101, it's remedial English), go post your complaint on ANI or look in the phone book for ArbCom's email address. As for OGBraniff (another insinuation), that he was a long-term troll wasn't clear for a long time (you certainly didn't know), and I didn't defend him: I only told you to stay away from them. Your talk page is full of your lies, sneers, innuendo, and insults, and baiting seems to be your middle name. If you can't stand the place and it's terrible, terrible admins, you are free to leave. Cullen doesn't need me to defend him: he's a gentleman compared to whom you...well, you are not. One final thing: someone called you a motherfucking asshole? (did they hyphenate it?) Sheesh. One wonders what it was that you said, especially since you're not known to present all sides of a story. And now for the last time: stay away from this talk page. I'm an admin but you don't pay my salary, and I have no interest in your blather. Go chat with your little friend who, in the last few hours, has trolled me twice more via email. 01:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone PLEASE tell Esoglou to stop edit warring and running off Eastern Orthodox editors [30] Please. LoveMonkey 23:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
LoveMonkey, maybe you should take this to ANI, or ask EdJohnston what to do. I don't really know how to help you here. Also, please include, in your signature, a link to your talk page or your user page. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 03:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC). 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.
Thanks--I appreciate the note and while it comes as no surprise it's nice to hear that it's not just me. Not that I know what to do about it, mind you... Drmies (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that Oliver will do what's right. BTW, he told me in a few of his emails that I shouldn't block him because that would ruin my chances in the election, baiting me to block him and ruin my chances in the election. I don't know if he has much of a point, but yesterday I decided to just leave it be. I'll admit I'm jealous of that gorgeous head of hair, but there's more important things in life. Like waffles for breakfast! Hey, you on your way to LV? Have a great time! I'm very happy for you two that you get to go on a fun trip, and I hope you make the most of it. We'll be expecting your uploads on Commons. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I'm less generous. As a preventative measure I've revoked DanielTom's access to his talk page and the email button. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Weird; I actually got a quite pleasant email from him around the time of his retirement, though I don't recall the exact message or context. I can't help but feel that there's been some awful misunderstanding (of his or ours) buried somewhere in his past that has led him down this path, and had that one issue been cleared up, none of this would have happened. Not that that really matters; what's done is done. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also had a nice email off him, not long before he went on a rampage on his talk page. I'm not entirely convinced the emails he sends are entirely genuine. At any rate, User:De728631 as now revoked talk page and email access. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Writ, I got a polite email asking for TPA to be reinstated, and in response I got a rant on his talk page, and now a bunch of insults and baiting operations via email. And just now the obligatory "hope you're happy" (that's a quote) note. He could have been happily retired, or making a comeback for all I care, but he chose to email me and bitch at me for being abusive, a bully, power-hungry, unfit to be an admin, having lost my mind and tact, and suicidal (all these are quotes) in relation to my running for the Board. Now, he has my email address since I emailed him back to tell him I was reinstating his talk page access, so I may have an ongoing problem. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not altogether surprising, I suppose; I know I sound different between on-wiki and IRC, and email is likely analogous. It probably has to do with a) size of audience (IRC > onwiki > email) and b) amount of thought, time, and effort that goes into each communication method (email > onwiki > IRC). I have also heard that I come across differently in person than I do online, which is much the same phenomenon (I wonder Drmies has noticed; I think he's the only person, aside from the Teahouse folks, who has talked to me in both situations). For one, I tend to use profanity significantly more in real-life (depends on the audience, but I have to make an effort to avoid it at some times when it would be inappropriate). Writ Keeper⚇♔16:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WK, I don't think you're much different in real life compared to online. I found you to be (don't blush now) just one of the nicest guys ever, and you are being just that, a really nice guy, on Wikipedia as well. You have a mix of proper manners and easy-going colloquialness that comes across well in both venues, at least to me. I haven't met a lot of others that I know well. The Lady had dinner at my house; she's much the same in real life: nice and friendly and great with kids. More later. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I don't mind being compared to Aeneas. I've been called a lot worse. And to have been loved by a woman who had suffered so much, and then accomplished so much, that would have been an honor. Still, Saint Sebastian might have been more immediately accessible from a dramatic point of view. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing problems across numerous articles that basically amounts to spamming of the Aam Aadmi Party, a new-ish Indian political group. Many such parties in India last little more than a few months but they generate a lot of heat & they are increasingly aware of how they can use WP for their propaganda purposes etc. If you or any of your stalkers should come across references to the AAP then I'd appreciate it if a bit of scrutiny took place, mainly wrt WP:DUE and WP:PRIMARY. Ta, and sorry for using this as a sort of messageboard. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're listed in Template:Indian political parties, so they'll show up just about everywhere. Is their inclusion in that template justified? Are there specific articles/editors you are concerned with? Drmies (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ANI? I'm still trying to catch up on 4 or 5 days of inactivity - not got to the drama boards yet but, yes, ThinkingYouth is one of several names that seem to be involved. Off to bed but will look tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nose hair wax? Davidiad, you're disgusting, and I should revdel this from the history. I'm leaving it only because, being like Aeneas, I respect history and historians. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're supposed to put nads up your nose. Whats with all this Aeneas talk? It's starting to make me wonder if this account is compormised. You know he existed before the Historia Britonum, right? davidiad{ t }03:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, with all due respect i believe i was unfairly tageed with vandalism. The artic;e i tried to delete was far to short and i will copy and paste the entire thing onto here "Russell G. Lloyd, Jr. was mayor before Jonathan Weinzapfel took his spot in office.
Insert non-formatted text here *all credit to writer. The article does not have to be removed but if you review it and remove the vandalism tag that would be great. Thank you my fellow wikipedia lover and contributer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwidesunshine (talk • contribs)
I am, Wesley, thanks, and I hope you are too. It's been over a year, and I think of your mother every now and then. As it happens, I thought of you only yesterday: if it hadn't been for Eurovision Song Contest 1994 (on Koninginnedag--a day on which strange things have been known to happen), my life would have been very different. But that's a whole nother story. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed a year has gone by; how time moves so quickly. We (close family) had a gathering over the weekend as a memorial-type thing. Was sorrowful yet happy at the same time. And so much that has happened since my mother passed away too; such as volunteering at London 2012 Olympics; and only a couple of weeks ago I was accepted as a volunteer role at Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games too. So all is running smoothly lately. Keeping myself busy on Wikipedia too, rewriting articles such as OGAE, which was in a very disastrous and neglected state. But I've given it some overdue TLC. Wesley♦Mouse00:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I was trying to smooth over an edit conflict and I accidentally only kept my post instead of both of ours. DrPhen (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. When you encounter an edit conflict, open a new browser window with the new document in it and copy and paste from one window to another to avoid such issues. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Argh, I've been backing, copying and then backing further and going to the edit window again and pasting and having it fail sometimes. That so much simpler. Learn something new everyday. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on my netbook the screen with two edit windows takes up too much space, and scrolling isn't easy. But on top of that, if you open a new window you can click edit for just the section, instead of having to add it to the entire page--and so you run less of a chance of more edit conflicts with other sections. Chris, I expected you to post another ANI notification here, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to get a real editor to look at that. Oh, I love you like a brother, but I don't like how you do the references with those titles like "Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 1940, (untitled)." Brr. I left you a few more (little) notes. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more star for your trophy case, Crisco. Wanna check me to see if I filed the paperwork correctly? Well done, my friend, and I meant that about the medal. They ought to give you a fucking pension for all the good you've done for Indonesian culture and history. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies engaged in warring, vandalism, sockpuppetry, deletion of sourced verifiable citation and encyclopedic content, personal attack, cyberbullying, cyber attacks on Fistful Of Metal, Neil Turbin, Deathriders, NAMM Metal Jam pages: ====ATTENTION====
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ==== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonsoftheserpent (talk • contribs) 03:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually coming here to ask for your help with this guy, as Dennis is away and I would rather be castrated with dull fishing knives than file an ANi complaint. I guess you're INVOLVED now that you've reverted him (thank you, BTW). That no one has blocked him yet is unbelievable; I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as the last time I reverted a troll I was the one who wound up blocked. This kind of crap is the reason I don't spend much time here anymore. I think it's time for a new policy to trump all others- WP:NOSHITHEADS or something like that. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh. Drmies does all those unsavory Wikipedia actions everyday. You forgot browbeating, name calling, swearing and fish slapping. Plus everybody knows Dennis is a sockpuppet of Drmies.
Joefromrandb, I don't remember your name. But, your attitude towards ANI makes you one extremely smart person that could never be an admin because your IQ is over 50. I think I'll start asking you for wise and sage advice, unlike the drivel Drmies hands out. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Bgwhite. I'll see if I can get you a slot in Remedial English this summer, so you can more properly process my drivel. Pff. Wikignome! Drmies (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is "fish slapping" taking a fish and slapping someone else with it, or is it slapping a fish with one's own hand? And which is the more grievous violation of Wikipedia policy? Thanks in advance. Zad6814:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I knew you'd go there. That's one hell of a fish slap. DYK that I used to watch Monty Python with a friend of mine, back in the early 80s, who had a remote control for his TV consisting of an eight-foot pole? Ha, has an article on the Dutch wiki. Go ahead and stick that tidbit in his Dutch article--they don't care for sources and non-trivial information there anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is one; it's called "The Law Of Internet Nerds Who Think They're Clever And Funny, But Actually Are Neither, And Just Go Around Quoting Monty Python All The Time In The Absence Of Actual Wit Or Original Thought." We're still working on the name. It's mostly only invoked with respect to the Holy Grail movie, though. Writ Keeper⚇♔17:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am amazed. That is exactly what Mrs. Cullen and I drank with our leftover chicken curry over Japanese noodles this evening. I should have remembered to put the bottle in an ice bucket but I was too busy pecking away on a certain encyclopedia website. I hope your wife returns soon. Men were not created to sleep alone. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the website that harshly denounces Abe Lincoln, U.S. Grant and Teddy Roosevelt as "RINOs"? Just yesterday, one of my sons asked if I knew about the Star Wars wiki, and I remembered that it was called "Wookipedia". Isn't it late, good sir, in Alabama? Cullen328Let's discuss it05:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes, Mrs. Drmies away, and all. Did you know that we had a Boston Terrier come visit with us last spring? And never left? A delightful chap, named Dexter. Very well behaved. First dog we've ever had, though the cats through the decades are beyond counting. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there my friend, longtime no "see" hope all's the best it could be and more by you,
again, a simple request from a simple man, can you please check the dutch reference in this guy's article and see if i translated it correctly? I admit, i "peaked" at GOOGLE TRANSLATOR, but i'll be damned if i used the "sentence" that resulted from their mixes entirely :)
My lab dog (not a pet, a friend) died a month ago, aged almost 11. He did not suffer heavily that was a bonus, it was like one day he was on cloud nine, the other he was "kill me please". He is missed, cute little thing inspiring us while we write in your page will too when it gets its turn.
VASCO!!!!!!!! My favorite Portuguese editor, welcome back. Good to see you. Dogs: ours is getting old too, poor Sadie. She has a hard time getting up the stairs, but she still has the softest snout in the world. I hope you are well. I made a little tweak to your article: the title was an incomplete sentence and I made the translation reflect that a little. Stay out of trouble! Drmies (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any of the talk page stalkers are probably better equipped to answer that question. I have a hunch you're correct, and it would be very helpful if those selections of templates come with default settings properly checked. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta tell ya, Writ, you know I'm not that smart, and 216, I appreciate this pointer. I'd appreciate a script even more. Damn you're smart! Drmies (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done; here is the change. Since square brackets are what Wikicode uses to denote URLs, any square bracket that's actually in a URL will interfere with the formatting. Fortunately, URLS have ways to encode characters to avoid such things. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Writ (if I may), I just softerblocked Trconsulate (talk·contribs), and noticed that the "Block account creation" was still checked--I thought the idea was that a different user name is allowed so account creation shouldn't be blocked? Also, I wish that the templates in the "User warning" pull-down menu had the same names as in the "Block" menu... Drmies (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know what that's about, but I know that I'm finally friggin' done with your damn user script. It's at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/blockDefaults.js; just install it into your common.js page by adding the line importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/blockDefaults.js"); as usual. The current defaults are very barebones: only revoke talk page (which automatically checks the appropriate box) and {{softerblock}} (which automatically unchecks everything, as is appropriate) are handled by default. But much of my time was spent making a nice GUI for you to make your own defaults; there's a link to it from the Special:Block page, and hopefully the instructions there will be clear enough. Let me know if you have any issues, questions, or comments. Writ Keeper⚇♔04:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. I'll have a look tomorrow, once I've digested this delicious Rochefort 10. Why don't you have a cushy job, with your skillz? Even Ucucha got a fancy job programming stuff, and all he knows is rats and guinea pigs! At least you know a poet or two! Thanks WK. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but I made the post before I saw your own and cited the evidence where Lucia lied to you about the troll claiming it was me. It was a rather obvious attempt to deflect and justify her personal attacks at ANI. Normally, that kind of stunt would get a harsh warning, but as you can tell I've been trying to resolve things hoping there was some chance of peace. Lucia seems to be completely opposed to that and intends "justice" on me; so at this point I have little reason to remain silent. Everything is too personal for her; I think I may actually need to do the RFC/U at this point. I just don't know what to at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The unfortunate thing is that the ANI thread was started by someone who doesn't seem to know what they're doing (you understand that I'm biting my tongue), and has made some questionable (biting again) edits in the process in relation to her. Seriously, a bunch of know-it-alls are trying to police the joint. Anyway, I'd say let the thread run for a while. But I'm beginning to think that Lucia Black needs a long, long block. Say, was that RfC ever closed? Drmies (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was told that it was obvious and didn't need a formal close; I only insisted upon the MOS-AM one because it was critical. Lucia's issue with the WP:LASTWORD is often best solved by letting her get it or it could run forever. While I don't like how the ANI started, I'm sure our troll friend is watching and Lucia is ripe for the drama, meaning a general on-guard needs to be done. Lucia won't take my advice or anyone's for that matter; she's going to end up getting herself blocked, but hopefully she's off Wikipedia for the current splinter of ANI. This ANI will probably sink fast enough; while Lucia has over a dozen warnings for personal attacks and such; few were formal twinkle ones, probably per "don't template the regulars" and most need no formal restating, but the several at ANI and currently on the talk page are valid even without the twinkle icons. Anyways; I want to stay out of this latest drama, since it doesn't really concern me anymore. I got some busy work to do... but yes, the current admissions of her hatred for me show that there will be no "peace" and she had no intention of listening to the community. Wikipedia seems to be a giant battlefield for her; she seems to get more out of the senseless arguing than fixing articles. I've long since tried to limit that interaction to the minimum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off to class right now. Perhaps a stalker can look into this? Reverting Materialscientist is punishable by amputation of wifi access. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't one of my options on the block template. However, I did block the user for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR. @Samudrakula, fewer exclamation points and a little less over-the-topness would be more effective, although I understand it's hard to type anything on this talk page while looking at that dog. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, we need to start the conversation again because quite frankly I do not understand what's going on with the pages I created. I am a grad student, and I am simply interested in all things Augustine and the various scholars who have contributed to my intellectual growth. Firs, as far as I can see, Augustinian phenomenology is a new field within phenomenology, and it is rooted in Augustine's own phenomenology. Second, now you tell me that you have removed Craig J. N. de Paulo's listing as a Heidegger scholar from the Heidegger's template when many of his books and articles listed on his page clearly indicate that he is a notable Heidegger scholar. If twelve books and 133 (WorldCat, Philosopher' Index, etc.)articles on Heidegger does not make him eligible for this listing, what would? There are others listed who are not as accomplished. Since I am not an expert in creating or editing these pages, I am sure that I have made many mistakes but everything that I have ever posted is true to the best of my knowledge. I also try to reference as much as possible using links, etc. Please help! Augustinestudent (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. I like to think that I explained well enough at the AfD why WorldCat hits really don't mean much. For starters, what proves your man as a notable scholar is not how many libraries hold Edwin Mellen books, or his books. It's proven by reviews and citations; that's how academia works. I see no evidence whatsoever in that article that he is notable as a scholar in the first place; the only reason I didn't nominate him for deletion is that he may pass WP:PROF because of his position. So really, you can never bring up WorldCat again as an argument for notability, and the same works for the Index. Being noticed by other scholars, that's what counts (like the h-index).
Second, I am really, really disturbed by some of your edits, as I noted at the AfD. I do a bunch of legwork, and then you go and borrow one little bit of it and completely misapply it. And I think I explained my reservations on "Augustinian phenomenology" often enough at the AfD--you still don't seem to recognize that the term is used in multiple ways.
I don't think your issue has anything to do at all with Wikipedia: it has to do with other, more academic matters, like proper citation and interpretation. And it has to do with what you think is simple math: 12 books. Well, 1 book with Oxford UP is probably worth more than a dozen with Peter Lang and Edwin Mellen, and no matter how much you defend Mellen, it's an academic reality which applies here as well. What's more, even an OUP doesn't count much here--unless it's been reviewed in an academic journal. And that's what's missing here: reliable secondary material. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...I'm not responding to CSD's latest tirade only because you asked me to back out, which I am respecting. But when an editor posts such nonsense where he again attacks the entire project and the quality of all of its editors, it's difficult not to respond. As I asked elsewhere, why would an editor who despises the project so much be so upset about not being able to participate in it? ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--his latest tirade is directed toward BWilkins, not toward you. (BWilkins is a tender sould, and I am sorry he has to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.) Even if it weren't I'd just leave it be. There is only thing that can come from a response: a response by CSDarrow. Which in turn should be followed by a response from you. Which should be followed by a response from CSDarrow. Which will be followed by the death of the last polar bear. So yeah, let it go. I think you know what I think which is probably also what you think: that they are not here to improve the project. It certainly seems like that right now. But let him blow off steam; maybe he'll feel better and he'll come back with more firm, encyclopedic goals. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you didn't read his latest post, or mine, very carefully. Only the first eight words of his latest comment were directed to BWilkins. Obviously, the tirade, overall, was (once again) against all editors and the entire project. Finally, I clearly explained to you that I would not be commenting again on that page (twice). Wow, I post a friendly comment telling you (again) that I will respect your request, and in return I get a lecture fit for a 10-year-old. And if you think he has ever had, or will ever have, "firm, encylopedic goals", you are either very naive or very sleepy. (I'll assume sleepy.) Perhaps you forgot these classic lines: "Unless something is done Wikipedia will eventually fail or fade away, and replaced by something by Microsoft or Apple. Wikipedia has better attract higher quality people and take careful stock of the culture that has evolved over the last few years, else this incredible human experiment will crash. I thoroughly recommend people read and participate in Wikipediocracy, whilst it is still functioning constructively". And you were saying? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune - you should be a poet. I don't think Bill Speareshake has yet been used as a pseudonym ;) - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Call me naive or sleepy, whatever you like. The tirade is directed in part at BWilkins, and BWilkins, it seems to me, is taken as emblematic of what is wrong with Wikipedia. I get that, and I don't really care. What's the point of reading and responding to rants? I don't think you understand that, as an admin, I should see this glass as half-full, otherwise I should have blocked him indefinitely in the first place. You're welcome to register with a name, run for admin, and embark on a mission to eradicate every foul word said about our project. But I see little reason to revoke his talk page access just because he's angry with the way we run things and wants to rant a bit. And if you think that I spoke to you as a ten-year old, perhaps you should seek more mature company than mine. Good day. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Bish, that's what I meant. Haha. Thanks. And sorry to Drmies for my somewhat harsh tone. It's just that when you have an editor who's repeatedly bashing Wikipedia and the "quality" of its editors, and saying things like "I thoroughly recommend people read and participate in Wikipediocracy", it's a pretty strong indication that the person is not interested in bettering this project. To me, editors like that are potentially far more dangerous to Wikipedia than all the petty little vandals who are just bored and want attention. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to call CSDarrow a troll, but in general I prefer not to feed the trolls. Believe me, there's a half dozen editors that I'd like to give a piece of my mind, people who have done worse than say bad things about the project. Not listening to them (or pretending not to!) is hard but I find it's better for my blood pressure. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Sorry in advance for the hijack: this is unrelated to the above, except inasmuch as my use of the word led me to it, but isn't it weird that snark (punctuation) redirects to the irony punctuation article, which doesn't actually mention the word "snark"? Writ Keeper⚇♔17:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snark is really all I have, Drmies. Snark and Google searches. Anyway, looking at the RfD things, it doesn't really fit the criteria for deletion per se. Redirects are cheap, and it is being used, in the dab page for "Snark" at least, so it's probably okay. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Drmies! Well, we have tried clear away your reservations regarding that nomination to the best of what we could have done... Please go, have a look and tell us what you think.—Шαмıq☪тαʟκ✍ @14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi, can you detail on the talk page for AKB48 what specifically needs to be cleaned up for the fanpov tag? I have tried to make the Concept, Membership, and History sections neutral, although questioning the notability of specific events and information was met with resistance as you can see on the talk page. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your message on my talk page and was saddened to see that you underestimate me. I have participated on over 100 AfD discussion, almost all of which went according to my vote. I am very aware of notability guidelines. I might remind you, for instance, of WP:NRVE which states that "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Just because the Shinoda article is bad now does not mean she is not notable. I suggest you do some searching for sources before turning pages into redirects, or better yet, seek consensus first per WP:CON. Working on Japan topics, I know she is notable and can prove that. (Note that I saw you turning other AKB48 members into redirects, but I did not undo some of those because I did not have an argument to claim notability.) Michitaro (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I underestimated you I have no doubt that you will prove me wrong in the proper way, with arguments and sources. I did see that you did not revert all of it, and I appreciate that--but I have serious concerns about the two you did revert: I do not see a valid claim of notability and I am quite serious about the BLP1E point. In addition, it's not hard to see that most of the content of those articles falls not under them but under the group. I am not a fan of deleting valid articles, but in my opinion that's not what those are. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have written down my basic reasoning on the Minegishi and Shinoda AfDs. I can certainly expand on it, but the basic reasoning is as follows: 1) the current state of the articles is not in itself sufficient reason to delete; 2) even if one finds them a part of an idol industry, they both have received sufficient independent reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG on an objective standard; and 3) while the argument against assuming that the notability of a band passes on to the band member is valid, looking at these two on a case by case basis, there is enough evidence of notability on an individual basis for each to warrant a separate article. I believe these two are rather clear-cut cases, but I am less convinced by the notability of the other AKB-related articles you brought up for AfD, so for the time being I will stand on the sidelines for those. Michitaro (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 14 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mathijs Bouman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dutch "TV economist" Mathijs Bouman is known for such one-liners as "if women pay fewer taxes, men will vacuum more often"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mathijs Bouman. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Only a rapid scan. Truther screeds hurt my brain, and it looked more like conspiracy theories than anything else. I suppose that most statements about conspiracy theories can be considered BLP violations unless very carefully phrased, and Jensen doesn't seem to be particularly meticulous.—Kww(talk) 19:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again i come to you so you can come to the rescue (about bloody time i helped you in reverse, but we edit in different fields it seems), let's see if you can oblige (i know you will, as it involves your favorite team and that who will be coached by the son of god!),
The article is Miralem Sulejmani. I'd like for you to retrieve references in Dutch for the following sentences: 1 - intro, him being the most expensive transfer between Dutch clubs (that one is optional, i just wished to replace the horrible TRANSFERMARKT.com table with a newspiece that's all); 2 - him signing for Ajax, there is a source from the official web, but it's DEAD; 3 - his solo goal against Juventus; 4 - him falling out with Franky de Boer.
If you do not wish to insert them in text mate, just send me the URLs, i'll do it myself. Kindest regards from your friend VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASCO! --AL (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one for the most expensive transfer: "Dat is nog altijd de duurste binnenlandse transfer in de Nederlandse voetbalgeschiedenis"/"That's still the most expensive transfer between Dutch clubs" (liberal translation, since "binnenlands" is hard to translate. "Flop", in the title, means "flop". :) And now I'm going to digest my lunch for a little bit. Vascoooooooooooooooo, I'll be back later. And you will repay me, at some point in the future, when I'm on your doorstep with a car full of hungry children. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation of signing with Ajax is here and here. The Juventus goal--in February 2010? Here's something in Dutch--I found no description in the news archive. The only stuff I find about De Boer and him is that in 2012 he was quite happy with De Boer and thanked him for his trust, like here. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry too here man, i forgot the most important arguably, can you find some source for his ban after the move from Partizan to Heerenveen? All the rest in cleaned up. --AL (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies (and talk page stalkers), can you help ascertain which came first, the content of the Wiki article or this copyrighted version [33]. I'd tagged the article as a copypaste job, then removed the template out of uncertainty. Once that's settled, the neutrality issue still bears observation. Thanks from above the Mason Dixon, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Given the notes, numbers for which are in the text on the external websites but without appropriate references, I'd say that they copied it from us. But that's not watertight. Yeah, where is Moonriddengirl when you need her? Slacker--first thing I'll do when I get my seat on the board is dock her pay. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Cullen, but I'm raising her child--which is about to walk without so much as a kiss or a word of encouragement from MRG. Let alone a check to defray day care costs. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That went into the ANI archives without any sort of formal conclusion, despite what looked like clear consensus to impose some sort of topic ban. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, your unblock statement surrounding Kiefer was, in my opinion, brilliant. Thank you for donating your time to Wikipedia ... with resolutions like that, you make this a better place to contribute, and consequently a better encyclopedia. GoPhightins!02:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or I just signed my death warrant. Thanks regardless. I was kind of in the middle, caught or not, and I realize that one can rarely make everyone happy. I do wish NYB could have been my ghostwriter, though, and I'm not going to pat myself on the back for it. But hopefully something good will come out of it. For now, I'm tired. Maybe I should go write an article. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, Dennis! Sounds like you had a great time on your twentieth. I hope Mrs. Brown had as much fun as you did. I'd love to see the Hoover Dam but hope I can avoid Vegas--as you may know, I'm a hardcore communist environmentalist, and even seeing it on TV hurts my soul, haha. You missed a bit of fun in the meantime, but nothing unusual. Except that I was called an abusive admin a few times and a member of the Wikipedia Gestapo. Par for the course. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Being a former canyoneer, I do object to dams--but that one is impressive. Hey, I'm done wikiing for the day. :) Drmies (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one opposed your wording substantially, since there is no real difference between your wording and Bbb23's. The thread was archived (I really HATE Mizsabot, by the way ;) ), but might as well put in the topic ban. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've asked Bbb to look into it and do the paperwork. My brain isn't working so well today. Also, I'm lazy. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, just read the message you left on my talk page. Sorry for reverting, but like you said there was no explaination and when I looked at the history and seen what that editor had been up to in previous edits, combined with the fact that he had already been warned on talk page about removing the templates, I just assumed that he was removing them again for no reason. Cmr08 (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Johnson (Minnesota politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concordia College (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.
...since that noticeboard is protected, I'm seeking protection for SPNRC High School, which is being used as a high school yearbook page by multiple accounts, likely the same editor. Thanks Drmies, and happy weekend, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking of Gsundaraiah (talk·contribs)? Sorry, I hate to disagree, but I don't see enough recent activity to semi-protect. I did leave the latest IP a note, following yours, and if it continues I will semi-protect. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Echh, I'm punchy. You're right, Bbb23. Drmies, I'd gotten tired of reverting at the high school article, and lost track of the time frame. Look, I finished a nice long piece on him for publication, and have nothing with an immediate deadline, so I'm languishing here before the next job, firing off a few miscalculated shots, and waiting for this evening's Leinenkugel's Summer Shandy to kick in. Apologies. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got a bottle and a half of that here for you--turns out everybody here despises it. I'm sipping on what I call a Gripenberger, and I may have stolen that from a Sjöwall and Wahlöö novel. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor removedsourced content from the Movies! page (it's an American TV network, in case you are wondering). I reverted twice (up to my 2RR limit) and posted a warning on the IPs talk page. The anon is using an IP registered to Sprint PCS in the Charlotte area, so rangeblocks are out.
While typing this up, the anon reverted a third time with the edit summary "e/i not welcome nor noteworthy. do NOT revert!". Obviously the warning didn't get through to them.
If you get some time, could you please review the Tube Bar main article & album listings that I created to verify my work. Since I am a fan, I don't want to be bias, the article and album listings should be notable. Thank you for your help, and I am glad to see you are running for the Board. Tyros1972Talk15:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tyros, thanks for the note. I had a quick look at three of the albums, and it seems to me that you are doing just the kind of thing you should be doing to make those articles valid. Thanks, and have a great weekend. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Drmies I really appreciate you taking the time. Now I am keeping my fingers crossed that you make it on the board, you certainly will do a great job. Tyros1972Talk20:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I open a new message topic because the other one is already way up in the "charts", this makes it easier for you chap,
found out this ref about him being banned by FIFA for his contract with 'veen, maybe this about covers it (see this one http://www.voetbalzone.nl/doc.asp?uid=172190), you please tell me if otherwise, i'll search further.
Vasco, it may well cover it, but you shouldn't cite it: it's an opinion piece (someone drawing conclusions from their own research--not journalism) on an unreliable site. I'll look around some. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kristin Beck, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kristin Beck served as a Navy Seal for 20 years before revealing her gender identity as a woman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kristin Beck. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you Bbb. No good deed goes unpunished, it seems. I looked at the talk page yesterday, but at the time it was only a monologue with a bunch of stuff copied from his own talk page. Whatever case he wants to make shouldn't be made on the ER talk page, obviously. Just thinking about it makes me want to be done wikiing for the day--like yesterday. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree it's often a thankless job. I think you should do whatever you feel like today - and any day for that matter - and if you don't feel like being here, you should go enjoy yourself. Of course, I miss you when you're not around, but I console myself with the fact that you're just a hop, skip, and e-mail away.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I got an email from Dennis too (see, I do like to do these things transparently), and left a note on Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page suggesting he take it to AN. You probably know this feeling from the EW noticeboard: there is no way in which you can do it right, it seems, and the nice people are always less loud that the rest. Anyway, we'll see. I am done with this case. Baby Liam is laughing at me across the room with a wooden mushroom in his mouth: I'm going to play with him. Thanks Bbb, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I've been thinking very hard about this since you unblocked Kiefer.Wolfowitz the other day, and I feel that the following needs to be said on-wiki. I think that your unblocking Kiefer overstepped your authority and was very disrespectful to Wikipedians. Here's why:
so I don't think you can seriously argue that there was a consensus among editors for Kiefer to be unblocked after just 12 days.
You are not uninvolved. It is evident both from Kiefer's talk page (e.g User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#You rang) and from this that you and Kiefer have been friends for some time.
You surely must be aware that WP:BAN#Authority to ban states: "Except as noted above, individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans." The "as noted above" consists of the community, ArbCom, anyone delegated by ArbCom, Jimbo, and the Foundation. So you have no authority to impose a ban, though I suppose you may ask editors to pledge to act as if a ban were in place (probably with no sanction should they break the pledge).
In the case of the proposed IBAN with User:Demiurge1000, Demiurge1000 himself said that he did not agree to it, and you surely cannot unblock X on condition that Y refrains from some behaviour.
As for the RfA topic ban, several editors in the original AN suggested one, but it was for a complete topic ban, and consensus had not yet been reached. What you did was to forestall such consensus and at the same time to water down the condidtions so that they are all but toothless. For example, they do not prevent Kiefer once again going to an RfA's talk page and doing something like this followed a day later by this, which, since the candidate had not challenged the original oppose, might be considered bullying. And now Kiefer is challenging even the feeble terms you put forward. Finally, a condition of the topic ban would have been that other editors must take care not to bait him (and Horologium wanted it stipulated that other editors could not even reply to him). So a condition of the unblock is that he can say what he likes as long as he doesn't thread it, and the rest of us are constrained not to respond as robustly as we might to an editor in better standing. That's absurd.
To summarise all that: even if you want to say that you were seeking an undertaking to act as if a ban were in place, you didn't do very effective groundwork to ensure that either "ban" would work.
At Horologium's talk page, you said: "For the talk page stalkers: please let's not turn this into ANI. I could have emailed Horologium privately, but I prefer to do this here, in between the privacy of email and the dramah of a board. At some point the community will be involved, if this ever gets anywhere; for now I'm interested in Horologium's response (and, possibly, RegentsPark's, since he started this thread). Or, pretend you never read this." What did you mean by "At some point the community will be involved"? Because what I see there is you asking the community to wait its turn, and then never giving it its turn. In the end, its was Dennis, not you, who did so.
What you should have done, I suggest, is to get your ducks lined up properly and then to raise a block review. On the basis of the three-paragraph quote from Kiefer that you provided in italics here, you never know, but it might have moved things some way forwards, at least if Kiefer had been willing to play ball on his talk page. As things stand right now, I don't see any mechanism for ever reaching a consensus about this, beyond the "if that's all that's feasible I suppose we'll have to live with it", which seems to be what's emerging from WP:AN today.
I think you should carefully reconsider this. The technical detail is covered by responses to it on the same day. My point concerns the level of respect your words and actions have shown to the community, including non-admins, who are just as much the encyclopedia writers as the admins are.
This is all very important, because there are a few editors who, for one reason or another, have some resentment about Wikipedia and take every opportunity to chip into any discussion to air it. Maybe some of them have good reasons for that, and I'm not judging anyone, but it's very distracting and energy-consuming and really quite unfair to the rest of us. As I've said elsewhere, we shouldn't have to jump into a fire if we want our say on who can block us and delete our articles. Admins give us precious little protection from people doing that, and when an admin undoes some little bit of respite that we've been given, and bypasses due process to do so, then it's very bad. In summary, this unblock has been very disruptive.
A discussion is not a vote, in theory. Do you dispute Nick's statement that IRC canvassing disrupted that AN vote? Did you notice how many of the pitchforks were held by students of a adoption school of WTT etc.? Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Stfg: My unblock requests were denied three times. Drmies took a chance with me and unblocked me, a very unpopular decision (and still is with some). Drmies doesn't just take a chance though, he makes you keep up with the conditions he sets forth when he unblocks, to check in when there are problems, etc. He never had to with me, but I don't think Drmies would hesitate to reblock me or Kiefer. So, while the unblock of Kiefer is unpopular, let Kiefer win people back. Let him earn the community's trust back, he will have to, just as I still am.
@Kiefer: I recommend, as someone who has been there, that you stick with very gnome-ish edits, uncontroversial cleanup, maybe work on that article you have always been wanting to work on but never had the time, do not make any waves...hell, get out of the water entirely. Steer clear of any and all discussions or articles that might cause problems for you. Remember, this is a one-time chance and you won't get a second if you screw up, better yourself, mind your Ps and Qs and stay out of trouble. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to stay out of dramah, but I've had no problems in the (admittedly brief) time I've worked with Keifer, and I personally think any admin who can successfully avoid getting an indef is a good admin. Hitting the banhammer is easy. Convincing the other party to change their ways so you don't need to is better. It's also harder. Kiefer, I don't know what your relationship with Blofeld is like, but I've had to drop a GA review for Paco de Lucía, and that might be something you could pick up. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stfg, I have already indicated that it is entirely possible that I was incorrect in placing the RfA ban on Kiefer. I thought (just to repeat myself) that I had enough consensus. No, I did not consult the admins who had declined previous unblock requests; I did not and do not see any reason to, not that I don't appreciate their opinion. Yes, I did have contact with Kiefer, as I indicated. I suppose I am a "friend" of Kiefer's, or at least I was, to some extent. I am "friends" with lots of editors here, including some blocked and banned ones. That does not make me incapable of acting objectively, I think. As I noted, I've not always agreed with Kiefer, and you may have noted (though you didn't) that I didn't actually "vote" for or against his indefinite block. If I were an unobjective member of his party surely I would have spoken against it. As it was, I understood the reasoning for the block and its extension, and it saddened me.
As for my "elitist" remark, I don't think I'm the only one who on occasion detects a lynch mob mentality. I've noted it before--in the case of Youreallycan/Off2riorob, with whom I have a mixed relationship, with Pumpkinsky (not the most recent incident), with Malleus, with a lot of editors who have made both friends and enemies. And while I am not going to spell out in exhaustive detail what I think, I will reiterate that dramah threads too easily attract comments from just about everyone, including (in the thread you pointed at) editors with just a few hundred article space edits and little else. Note also that you yourself, in your count above, included all "votes" (as far as I can tell), even though those discussions are not votes--and you use it as an argument to claim I don't have a consensus which, you argue, I should have. Pile-ons easily get out of hand. That's all I want to say about that right now, and that's what I was pointing at. And I don't believe the whole "us poor editors have no recourse" bit: in fact, this very discussion should prove the opposite, except for that you are not on Kiefer's side (I think).
You are welcome to ask for my bit. You are also welcome to ask for one for yourself, and I for one might not oppose you; I don't know, I'm not that familiar with you. And then you can see that there's a lot of things that are easy, a lot of them, and some are not. I did what I could and what I thought was right and proper, with input and without the intent to shut off anything. Finally, I disagree with the very premise you outline for an unblock of, in this case Kiefer, but perhaps others as well, and at least WP:UNBLOCK does not require me to call a vote. (Also, see Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap, which I agree with). You have doubts about my uninvolvedness? I can only reassure you that I unblocked Kiefer not because he is a friend (which remains to be seen--and I don't say that because of recent events, but because "friend" is a difficult concept) but because I thought it was the right thing to do, with the restrictions I thought were reasonable. I don't know if you know this, but the previous editor for whom I stuck my neck out (ineffectively, I'm sad to say) was Ottava Rima, with whom I have never been and probably never will be a friend. Still I'd like to see him back. Now, you can point at all the Kiefer edits you like that you find troublesome since the unblock (I haven't looked at any--I also have a day job, I'm sad to say), but hey, you have recourse: you can always start an ANI thread or ask a friendly admin. Non-admin editors are not completely powerless. And let's face it: it shouldn't be hard to find an admin willing to reblock Kiefer if he, in their opinion, steps out of line. That's sad for him, and I'm not sure you appreciate to which extent his career here is hanging by a thread, and yours is not. So yeah, I stuck out my neck for him since I think he is (or certainly can be) a net positive, but I would probably do the same for you, and I don't even know you very well. I probably still would, even after you (possibly rightfully) question my competence and (not so nicely) my ethics. And now I'm going to cook dinner, and let you all go back to writing articles and nominating DYKs and reviewing GAs. Slash or making all these threads even longer. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, thank you for taking the trouble to make that very thoughtful reply. It has become obvious to me in the last couple of hours that what I wrote to you doesn't meet with much approval generally. So soon after the event, it isn't yet clear to me why, but I expect it will be in the morning. Meanwhile, I'm sorry for anything wrong I may have said, and for adding to your stress over the affair. I do want to say three things: first, I don't and never have wanted the bit taken from you -- I know you do great work as an admin. Second, I don't want and never have wanted the bit for myself. And finally, perhaps there's a silver lining for you in that several more people who I respect have come here and to WP:AN to say they approve of what you did, and I accept that that is the general view. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stfg, with that kind of evidence, Drmies could be convicted of being friends with 500 editors on Wikipedia. I confess that I laced his One-Dimensional Man with pcp, which did allow me unusually easy mind control of him, as I have done with other administrators in the past, so you really should not blame him. Blame me instead. Kiefer.Wolfowitz23:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiefer, I think you and I would probably get along a lot better outside of Wikipedia! Also, I've never done PCP, unless someone slipped me some that night (in 1994 or so) I did acid. But I'll give no further details, since Chillum caught enough flack already for doing a little bit of weed. I'm sorry, I'm tired. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiefer: Well, I don't want to go on debating now. I realise there was some jesting in what you just said, but please understand that I don't play the blame game or harbour bad feelings about anyone. People is people, and even if I comment on actions and support proposed sanctions, it's only my take on what may help the encyclopedia, and it's without personal hostility. --Stfg (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed. Thank you. (I'm not sure from what you wrote whether you saw that I had replied directly to Drmies 5 paragraphs above this, as well as to Kiefer just above your comment.) --Stfg (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to see a positive solution when people are baying for blood, even more difficult when the subject seems masochistic. I admire you for sticking your neck out when others wouldn't and wanted to let you know that. WormTT(talk) 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(apologies for the fanboyism) I third it - especially the attached advice. Being a parent is rewarding, but hard at the same time exhausting - if we could find a WP equivalent of "who wants to go to the swings and run around for half an hour?" to get all that hyperactivity out of people, then life would be easier. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see off-topic slander in the section you point to. I don't see any on-topic slander either. I think there's a stick there (maybe more than one) that needs to be dropped. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A user goes off on off-topic crap and I can't respond or defend myself because the discussion is closed. It has no place there. I'm only asking you because you were involved with the addition of the "do not modify" tag and chose to include it for unknown reasons. If you're not willing to remove I will ask some willing to. To be clear I'm speaking of the "Refactor and deletions by UrbanNerd" in the discussion, which has no place there. It's even labelled "Off-topic; not a matter to be discussed and edit-warred over here". UrbanNerd (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those few remarks don't really qualify as crap. But go ahead and ask someone else--someone willing and competent. Or you can choose to leave it be, given that it's gotten you in hot water before. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Drmies, I made no attack upon you. I was corrected the libelous remark that was launched against The Edwin Mellen Press, which also infers slander against all of those scholars who have published with this publisher. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our place to make such judgments. Universitybuff (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were attacking Hairhorn in this edit. It should be clear to anyone who clicks on it that this is so--and anyone who investigates the issue will see that you were wrong in your accusation. There was no libelous remark launched against Mellen, and no, noting "infers" slander on its published authors. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on this? I was reverted soon after removing a rather promotional section, and would prefer reinforcements to heading down the edit war path. Thanks, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm usually pretty conservative in what I cut from school articles, and still meet substantial resistance; WP:BULLETINBOARD would be an appropriate guideline. I am finding Leinenkugel's to be a sympathetic beverage. Though not for breakfast. A man has to draw the line somewhere. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Mrs. Brown agrees 100% with that sentiment. Or she can't wait to try 20 years with someone else. Hey, we had fresh eggs again this morning. I want chickens! Drmies (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. I know in some places, "livestock" (inc. chickens) are not allowed. I have a friend who loves to talk about her illegal chickens. LadyofShalott01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last year, my university's student president-elect was thrown in jail for not paying his "chicken at large" ticket, forcing him to miss his swearing-in ceremony. Ed[talk][majestic titan]20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Drmies! Hope you're doing well! Just want your suggestion, an user (Special:Contributions/Baigmirzawaqar) has just made few edits outside an AfD and I have tagged his vote with {{SPA}}, but he is continuously removing that. I have also discussed the matter in his talk page but he is still edit warring. What should I do? --Zayeem(talk)16:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm about to run off again so there's not much I can do. But the talk page stalkers know what should be done, and no doubt they will take care of it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have "et al" in italics? I think that it's FA material. It's funny--I hear all the time that GA really has no prose requirements, etc etc. And that FA is impossible. But look at the things we got through--without a hitch, really. Actually, I think that Coral Island is such a strong GA that, yeah, sure. Mind you, the scholarship in our article, that's pretty much exhaustive. I think I got everything I could. Gotta go for now: the girls are love-tagging their stuffed animals. It's cute. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We both found everything we could, and if I'm not blocked I'll put it up for FAC when the Tiger article is done. But what the Hell is "love-tagging"? EricCorbett01:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this, "to defeat the attackers". We need to define who "the attackers" are--what was it again? There were good ones and bad ones, and didn't they refuse for someone to be executed? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summary, paragraph 3, "Food in the shape of fruits ...", next paragraph opens "Less welcome visitors then arrive in the shape of British pirates ...". davidiad{ t }03:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "in the shape of", maybe. I don't mind it, esp. since Eric wrote most of the plot summary. That other sentence, I like it. I suppose you can tell he wrote it: two or three times now I have momentarily stopped at "The account starts briskly", and every single time I read the rest of the paragraph and think, yeah, it does start briskly. I like that. I think Eric (well, Malleus) was really enjoying himself when he wrote it up. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was. It was one of my favourite books as a kid and it brought back some nice memories. I've fixed the "shape ... shape" thing btw. EricCorbett14:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting observations on Margaret Drabble's work there. I'm girding my loins for an assault on William Harrison Ainsworth's Lancashire Witches, something I've been meaning to tackle for ages. EricCorbett15:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OED cites a nice instance from Scott's Lady of the Lake--"He girt his loins, and came." Possibly one of the earliest references to a kind of penis pump? Drmies (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm going to have another read through the whole thing over the next day or so, and whenever you're ready I'm going to nominate it at FAC. EricCorbett19:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha yes, I forgot about that. Since he is born we haven't lost a national championship yet. You in the South, Davidiad, you know how important it is. Eric, there's a t-shirt here, saying something like "Football is not like religion at all. It's much more important." Drmies (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the first meeting I went to down here there was a lull, and the conversation turned to the Razorback–UT rivalry. Completely tone-deaf, I said that I was pretty sure that no one in Austin knew there was any such rivalry. Since that day I've eaten so much poorly prepared pork and even bowled four times trying to win back a little goodwill. I'm still the Yankee dick who said UT doesn't know Arkansas exists. davidiad{ t }00:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible for you to mediate a situation via my talk page please? Both myself and Pickette have endured, shall we say, "negative" interactions with each other. I have tried to seek peace, but to no avail. Anyhow, we are discussing the issue now via my talk page, and are both thinking of some sort of mediation, without going through the ANI route (a bit like the now defunct WP:WQA). I know that you are very good at being impartial, which is why I thought of you first as a potential mediator. The discussion is taking place at User talk:Wesley Mouse#Issue. Thanks, Wesley ☮ Mouse17:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have undone the removal of some contents after checking that numerous editors contributed to that particular section. I feel that I should apologise in case I have missed a good reason for the removal but could not understand since it seems relevant to understanding the history of this movement. Perhaps a discussion on the Talk page of the article would be helpful. Thanks for your understanding. Bamkin (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Arman. I appreciate the note, but let's just leave it be. That discussion is headed quickly for a "no consensus" anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Makes me thirsty. It's a funny story--they were squatters, messing around. Their brew tanks have a window in it, in case there's nothing on TV. They bought a German brewing set-up which turned out, "after reading the manual carefully", to be quite easy to operate. They've gotten some money from US investors but don't yet have a salary. Nice. Hey, did you see the card I just got? The mail is non-stop here. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is funny. That card is adorable. I think you need a new sockpuppet alternate account for the name to which your card was addressed. LadyofShalott04:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found a nice easy case for you to do your magic on. Bulgaria in Radoslav's Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013. It is clearly a false article as there is no such contest in the world, never mind in Europe. And by looking at this Facebook page, it looks like some over-enthusiastic kid who lives in a fantasy world making up their own contests and using Wikipedia to "promote" their fantasia. I don't even know why it has gone via AfD when a speedy is clearly the solution on this. Enjoy! Wesley ☮ Mouse04:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping it, I had just started improving the heck out of it prior to opining at the AfD; we have so few articles on þættir anyway, it's criminal. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, thank you so much for cleaning up the article as it needed it as unfortunately most of us are fresh editors writing it of non-english mother tongue but above all not wikipedian expert editors. I have only a point for to you as I have gone through the person story since long now and it is that you are very much right that absolutely no hypothesis has to be made referring to personality like the Pope, but why to erase his religious experience which is the fulcrum of the person life as activist which he and his family has suffered badly and which is his main social fight to help preventing abuses. Himself has exposed it and beside all the italian newspapers of the time which reported his battle against the church even in the guardian interview of nowadays he has mentioned it and which is the most reliable source. Therefore i think that although it is a tough subject it is of public interest to know such concealed facts and not to be hidden. It is like to repress true achievements done by notable people like James Wales (not to compare). Please find the right way and according wikipedia guidelines to revert it back or kindly advice how it has to be put taking in consideration also our journalistic effort to research verifiable sources which should not be an in vane work for dedicating our free time to contribute to wikipedia expansion like you do. Many thanks.DrKlain (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the content is over the top, the tone is not neutral, and the sources are...let's say thin. If decent and relevant content (including his religious experience) is written up neutrally and all the elements are well-sourced, you won't hear a peep out of me. Two more things: who is "we"? And, please see User_talk:Eric_Corbett#Hyperactive_friar for other evaluations of the article. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help as the aim is to rather hear a lot of “peep out of you” or of any editors helping to clear over the top contents. Unfortunately the writing of this article has been complex since the beginning due to language problems by translating from Italian which give the puffed up tone at detriment of the neutrality as well, and poor online sources as mostly are offline and as explained in the note of the article itself. Moreover, to be honest, knowing and following the story of the guy since long I believe that affects a bit the writing “neutrality” as well. However, most of the information of the Toriello’ s early life comes from his place where he has grown up and from journalists who have written about his story in the time when the facts happened and whom have kindly accepted to help me writing his article as there is no much online sources. So by referring to “we” I just refer to these journalists and some users who are helping me to expand the content of the article. Kindly to preserve neutrality and tone I need help to translate in the proper English so if you don’t mind, before to publish anything on Wikipedia I will consult you if you will authorise me and give me your availability. But regarding the well-sourced point , although poor , all Toriello’s story it is condensed in these online scanned Italian newspaper article cuts and which user FreeFrogRange editor has “approved”. Kindly advice again. Thanks very much.DrKlain (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Drmies. Although I did not hear from you, kindly give your approval for this content editing:1)"For that, and because of the French cultural influence, Toriello acquired the nickname of “Angelo o’ francese” as an inheritance from his father. By nature extroverted, since young he has always drawn “attention” around him for his eccentricities". to be added in the introduction;2)In 1992, after having had many experiences in different life directions, Toriello embraced the priesthood path by becoming a catholic Franciscan Friar - although at the age of 13th, himself endured abuses by his religious teacher whilst following his vocation - a priest who supposed to be the spiritual leader of the young seminarists of the local parish and who some time later was charged of pedophilia. In1996 he was forced to quit the monkhood path as he publicly exposed the religious institution deviations. In fact, he launched a toll-free line centre for child abuses, a project to help victims, but it was soon forced to shut down by church’s pressures. Regrettably, Toriello’s precursor action was misunderstood by the Vatican congregation in power of that time enough to embitter their relation. To be added to Toriello Early life paragraph. Both content lines are well sourced by the the italians newspaper articles and some english as well. Thank you very much. DrKlain (talk) 10:33, 28 June 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.
O-B, you are quickly turning into a hardcore content writer. Stop it or you'll never make admin. Hey, I can't tell you how pleased I am that you got such a hit with the first one. And I hate to tell you, but it'll be hard to top that. Get used to disappointment! Drmies (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help getting off the ground with DYK. it's kinda fun. I'm starting to understand those strange people who have all those little stars and green things on their homepage. Content is the shit. Why have I wasted my time on categories-for-deletion and redirects and RMs all these years? :( Don't worry, I'll never make admin, the recent close I did at Talk:Hillary Clinton (now at move review) will ensure that, + there's a bulldog that hates my guts and I've crossed swords with some powerful admins like SV and BHG, so I don't know why I'd go to RFA just to get the crap beat out of me. But I do love a good RM discussion. If you're really aching for some pain and suffering, swing by Talk:Deadmaus and watch the fireworks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi for various reasons i'm stepping away for a while. Can i leave an orphan on your doorstep? Template:Did you know nominations/Magnus Manske - some sourcing has been debated but I'd love for Magnus to have his day on the homepage - would you mind trying to shepherd it through, or perhaps User:Jayen466 could help? I found a profile on him in a wide-circulation german newspaper, but I dont have the heart for more wikiwork. I'm done. Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added material from half a dozen German-language sources and added myself as co-nominator (if that's okay, Obi). I will also keep an eye on the nomination. AndreasJN46605:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia Black is bothering me on my own talk page despite telling her that she is not welcome; I've explained the issue, why she is wrong, and given another warning. She came to my user page to make a "warning" for pointing out her behavior issues; and refusal to discuss and work together as demonstrated by her response at DRN at that time.link. And yes; the Dragon Ball Z article recreation is still an issue with my sandbox User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox and User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox5 holding the prototypes. Two new editors have joined in the talk page discussion, so it helps, but the problem remains. Since she doesn't want me on her talk page; I told her that any issue will go through a third-party. Considering you know the issue; could you please take a look at User talk:ChrisGualtieri and comment? I don't want to argue with her all day long; her "warning" is non-sense and I am seriously considering ANI or RFC/U, but I don't know if what the procedure would be for notifying those who have issue with her behavior from past discussions or if that would be "canvassing" because I need at least one other person who has issues with her IDHT and personal attacks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better if you had chosen not to respond. Let a note, "Stay off my talk page", suffice. Responding is an invitation to respond. Having said that, I warned her. I'm not going to get into the DragonBall thing: it's not my area, and there's others who know the matter (content and history) better than I do. Sorry, but I can't help you with that. If you want to start an RfC/U (but see the section started by PumpkinSky below), that's fine, and that may be a way to go (ANI is more for individual incidents), and I can attest to a few things (IDHT, for instance), though I am not likely to be of much help in the matter of content, if that is a consideration. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can't see a pattern of misconduct. And so wiki continues to let abusive admins run amok. 13:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Pumpkin, some bad decisions don't necessarily add up to an ArbCom-worthy pattern. Doc James is already getting a slap on the wrist and some advice, which is probably the most you can ask for in this case. RfC/U would have been a better venue to start with, despite your claim that it's useless. I mean, maybe it is useless, but it's usually perceived as a necessary step and since you skipped it you find, unsurprisingly, that you get called on it. Starting with ArbCom is aiming high and it shouldn't be a big surprise that it's not yet taking off. I'm sorry you got blocked, and I logged in (being in of a funk of my own at the time) to unblock you only to find that it already had been done. I will leave him a note as well, agreeing with Dennis--but I don't want admins hung so quickly. Again, if you had asked me, I would have said RfC/U. You're claiming a pattern going back years; taking the slow way is the better approach. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RFCU for admin cases like this is a waste of time. They never accomplish anything, why waste so many people's time? "Some" bad decisions? Are you kidding me? I have 26 of them posted. Wiki is totally fucked up. No wonder it's participation levels continue to nose dive. And Doc is not the only case out there, because people won't file a case knowing nothing will get done because the bullies rule wiki. PumpkinSkytalk14:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...RfcU is probably just a procedural step that doesn't solve much except give the illusion of trying to work things out. But I do think that Drmies is being pretty charitable here. I don't think comparing your situation to the use of the pompous ass thingee to Drmies usage of it is helpful...what I do think is important is that you were blocked for two days for saying that which is excessive and well, ridiculous. Unless I'm not seeing whether their were escalting issues...but I don't see evidence that you recieved warnings or similar.--MONGO14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, I have no illusions about the efficacy of RfC/Us. None. But as long as it is deemed to be of relevance it's a more or less necessary step. And you may know that I got blocked once myself, and I also didn't receive a warning. Now, Doc James claimed that PumpkinSky was a repeat offender, so to speak, and that's probably what made him do what he did without a warning. I don't agree with it: something has to be egregious, and likely to be continued, before a warningless block, and that was not the case here, nor was it the case for my block, which still hurts me. PumpkinSky, I understand your feelings and I will look at your list again. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Fladrif and King97tut cases and the series of involved protections are egregious. Also see the more recent commenters. Not to mention him blocking me is about as involved as it gets (two arb votes against him plus the whole WBB mess.PumpkinSkytalk15:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with that Drmies...blocks aren't fun. The last person that blocked me was desysopped partly for that, it was the impetus of that block which led to a case, which was not preceded by an RFCU. But there are plenty of instances where an RFCU gave the parties time to hash it out or just to let go of the bad feelings and a case was avoided. Now would be a good time for Doc James to do a little self examination so that what happened to my bit and what happened to the bit of the guy that blocked me doesn't happen to him.--MONGO20:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents about RFC/U: It's kind of like when lawyers say it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in prison. RFC/U is usually just a stepping-stone to an ArbCom case, but once in a while, it actually works. Whether it would in this case I don't know, but I believe it is worth the effort to try and come to a voluntary, mutually agreeable solution with any long-term user before calling for formal sanctions. And, if it does escalate to ArbCom, they have no cover left to hide behind as they have already been confronted by community concerns related to their behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone loves the lawyer argument until it's you or your daughter that is raped or murdered by one of the ones that got off scott free. Believe me, whether real world or in an analogous wiki situation, you'd change your view post haste.PumpkinSkytalk23:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This won't affect my view on the arbitration request in any way, but I really wish you'd stop comparing disputes on Wikipedia to rape. As has been pointed out before, that analogy is inflammatory and unhelpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was rape, I said "an analogous wiki situation" as in where someone that should not have gotten off scott free did get off scott free. PumpkinSkytalk00:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying so quickly. It might perhaps be best to drop the term "rape" altogether (and we could probably live without "murder" also). But I'll leave it at that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that blog before--someone pointed me to it a while ago. They're a pretty good example of why I don't read Wikipedia blogs (I say this being blissfully unaware of who wrote it). PumpkinSky, I also don't care for gratuitous (IMO) comparisons to rape on my beautiful talk page. I have a daughter; in fact, I have two. This is a bit distasteful. Beeble, thanks for the comment: I agree completely. Newyorkbrad, it's an honor having you drop by. Please stay as long as you like--the cocktail of the day is the Old Fashioned. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a daughter too and I'm highly protective of her, as I'm sure you are of yours. And I still firmly believe an RFCU won't accomplish a single thing except waste everyone's time.PumpkinSkytalk01:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your email. No worries. I have left my final remarks (and rendered them visible). I am sure it's not exactly what you wanted to hear from me but, as I explained, that's partly a result of the venue (ArbCom request). Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if you're watching, but Kumioko and I are in a lovely little edit edit war over his removal of "pompous ass" from your section header. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I - and I'm sure others - are watching. You've got the better argument, although it's not clear that a sense of humor (Drmies's) is permitted at ArbCom. Still, if Drmies wants to call himselfnot call himself a pompous ass, it's certainly his prerogative.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I totally missed that! That's exciting. Maybe Kumioko has nothing better to do--good thing I didn't tell them the joke of the old man who goes to get a blow job. Anyway, while everyone was thusly occupied we ate hamburgers at Five Guys and had a delicious little nap. Thanks for keeping the place dirty, Beeblebrox. You're a good man, even though you're probably a lousy admin, like the rest of 'em. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mathsci could probably explain better than I as he fixed it, but take a look at {{-}}, which is what Mathsci used to correct the problem. The heading didn't really disappear (look at the TOC); the quotebox just encroached on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't yet look for that, but I will if I have to. I recognize chit-chat from a mile away, thanks to my long professional training. Let me know if there's more trouble. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're in it for keeps, Ched. And I'll look at a few more things before I render myself visible again. Speaking of which, Moby-Dick (1956) is really not a bad flick. All visible objects are but as pasteboard masks! Drmies (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I'm not in charge of anything, NW--I'd set a terrible example. Also, Kumioko is disinvited from this week's beer drinking wiki session, where such prurience is unwelcome; plus, I'm wondering what their comments are made for since it doesn't seem like they spend a lot of time looking at anything. You are still welcome, of course, since you're a big shot and in this case you're doing what's more or less requested of you, and that's fine. I had not seen that there was hullabaloo concerning my little stab at myself and us admins in general; I was busy looking at that long list of diffs. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...to say hello. I may ask for some help with a recalcitrant user here if this continues [34]. I've asked them not to post at my talk page anymore, but we so seldom get what we wish for. I hope you're well. Very best, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I did I wouldn't be able to get admins to do my bidding, they would just be all like "do it yourself". You are not realizing the power that comes with not being an admin. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True dat. See if I got the right version up. Make sure you don't have anything controversial in there or they might pull your visa. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can almost see you trying to keep a straight face there Dennis. The last candidate is an exception to many rules (in a good way). Anyway, How does starting this weekend sound Doc? Is LoS around, or is she out enjoying "real life" still? --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Playtime is over. Sure, I could go for this weekend as a starting point. K and Drmies, did you see what I put up over on that other website? LadyofShalott02:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I was hoping you'd seen, but, guilty. I don't care for that nearly as much as I do the show. (I'd actually finished that months ago, but just realized tonight I'd never marked it so.) LadyofShalott02:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
←Hmmm....Well There were some lovely vacation photos, I have been living vicariously through you as I am stuck in the desert, and believe it or not we got flooded out two days ago (photos to come). Did you know, tomorrow is election day, which means we are not allowed to use explosives. What kind of a rule is that? --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hej! And I thought of you the other day, since we opened the bag of Swedish fish--the red licorice that I think came from IKEA. What was that candy of yours again, Warrington? Drmies (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Polkagris? Swedish Fish? Have been in France for a while, hiking not editing. Liberté, égalité, fraternité",
No, I've never had schelvis, though I've had schelvispekel and I'm still not quite sure what that is (cheap and high ABV!). And why would you want to put sauerkraut on my beautiful talk page? Hey, tell me about France. Are you back? Where did you go? Did you pick me up any creme de marrons? Drmies (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Drmies, hope all is well with you. I am having a problem with User:71.254.85.74. The user added some original research yesterday under a different IP. Today it was added again and I reverted per OR, especially after an edit summary saying the information was "per listeners" (which has disappeared for some reason). A couple minutes ago, the anon, again, reverted back to the OR information. Since I am at 2RR, could you take it from here? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that one after I posted here. I wish the anon would have done that first off instead of relying on OR, but what are ya goin' do? :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Longer, maybe. Ask for it at RFPP--I'm going by the book. I'll revert, you ask for protection. And I'll slap some warnings around. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dennis Brown protected the WSNV page until 17:59 UTC on July 2. I will keep an eye on the page (it is on my watchlist) and if any problems arise after July 2, I will let you or Dennis know. Thanks for your help. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you, or maybe a member of your fan club, might take a look at Robert A. J. Gagnon and especially its talk page. There is a relatively new editor who has spent weeks trying to add a large and poorly referenced "controversy" section to this brief BLP. Several editors have tried to dissuade this editor from this path, but the new editor is convinced that all the experienced editors are completely wrong and that the new editor is 100% right. I have been accused now of incivility, so maybe fresh voices might help, or then again, maybe not. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drastic times call for drastic measures, dear Cullen. If someone accuses you of incivility then one of two things are happening--you've been involved with the same matter for too long, or the apocalypse is near. Preaching to the choir! Drmies (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm saddened and relieved at the same time. You can tell I pissed off a sizeable number of people; no doubt DanielTom and others are congratulating themselves--an election where you can oppose is kind of a new thing to me. Anyway, yeah, I don't know. It's never fun to lose, but for my family it's probably a good thing. Ha, and for the foundation as well, since I'd probably refer to Jimbo as "boss" and that's frowned upon. *Snif* Drmies (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had two bad experiences at RfA, and I won't pretend they didn't hurt, but when I look back now I'm rather relieved they were both train wrecks. I'm really not interested in policing janitorial duties, that wasn't why I came here. But the experience did give me a good insight into the vindictive revenge engine that drives so much of Wikipedia. EricCorbett00:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand you all have been fighting over dragon balls for months. I just need to know that there is consensus for your version to be merged into the existing version. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I've been waiting for months; its been suggested by commentators like Indeath to give it a shot. As the only one working on the article, I don't see how "my version" can be in dispute because they did not make a competing or contrasting page at all. The argument of undisclosed or tiny content details are a red herring to recreation as GNG and all other issues of DETAIL and SPINOFF seem to be met; even TokyoGirl admitted that while it is a bit unbalanced for the English dub history, she explained it was an acceptable content fork for readability even if it rehashes some of the material in the main article. I noted that was intentional because Dragon Ball will be altered to remove said redundancy and address it in better summary style. I guess I'll wait a bit; its not that critical and can be histmerged later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand, and neither did I. Your sandbox is essentially the same, except for the cast list (removed by Ryulong). I thought it was an entirely different thing. Anyway, it's hypothetical since the only way in which I know how to do a history merge (via deletion of the original article) can't be done--Dragon Ball Z has more than 5,000 edits, so only a steward can do it... Sorry, Drmies (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... that's a bit "whoa" right there. 5000+ edits, yikes! Ryulong is doing a good amount of copyediting and tinkering on the article right now; so I'm not going to intervene or make any fuss until he's done; it needed a good amount of tinkering because I had to resurrect the page from that terrible 2008 one. Thanks for the heads up; I guess I will wait till everything has settled before trying to track down a Steward for this. I didn't do a few edits or anything; so I believe the substantial changes and work warrants the histmerge. Didn't think it'd be so complex though... Thanks for informing me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problems at breast cancer awareness are back in full force. I am willing to reopen the possibility of a topic ban (for the both of us, obviously). Is there anyway I can contact you in private? Please. We really need an admin here and I am willing to be topic banned, but I would like to explain the situation to you in private if that is okay.
I could have sworn I saw a FAQ for RFC/U guidelines, but I can't seem to find it now. Quickly, since you seem to have some experience with this. I started one, it's been endorsed by multiple users (including two others who made mediation attempts), but the subject has declined to participate. What happens now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest a good Dutch idiom that would translate to "Idle hands are the devil's playground", i.e. "a child that is not kept busy will get into trouble"?—Kww(talk) 22:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Totally irrelevant answer: The former translates to "Idle handen zijn speeltuin van de duivel" and the latter translates to "een kind dat niet bezet wordt gehouden zal in de problemen komen"...at least that's what Google Translate says. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate is the Devil's tool. I find idiomatic Dutch to be a nightmare of expressions that seem like they should mean something completely different, and I suspect they feel the same about English. I know that I used a literal translation of "turning a blind eye" one time and wasn't certain whether the woman I was talking to was going to laugh or vomit. Their actual expression for "purposefully pretending not to notice something" translates to "peering through your fingers" at something, which, of course, means something entirely different once again in English.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Idle hands are the devil's workshop" is pretty common variation in English, so these aligned pretty well. That grammar certainly never would have popped out of my fingers, and the archaic words wouldn't have come to mind, either. I think I will bookmark that site. Thanks.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Template talk:Track listing. Message added 20:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Oh my goodness indeed. Wow. Maybe I should become a vegetarian. Listen, that's a DYK waiting to happen--why don't you nominate it for Northamerica? Maybe someone else drew the Chicken Run connection...that would make for a great hook. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes! You'd do great as a vegetarian. Even the dog on your edit notice seems to be saying "please don't eat animals!" The chicken harvester seems to be not nearly as bad as what I expected; I thought it would be doing what the article euphemistically refers to as "subsequent processing". As for the article, it's got fewer than 1000 of the 1500 characters required for DYK, but that never stopped anyone from making a nomination. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM01:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's short, Mandarax--just cause I eat meat doesn't mean I'm totally stupid, you know. There's plenty to be found, I'm just not sure if my contract allows me to work with NorthAmerica. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the point is, "we dont have the answer, but we rather not say it outloud". Refusing to get the point shouldnt apply to people who actually want answers. If you analize the discussion more objectively, youll notice a lot of question dodging from multiple editors. And this is AFTER I proposed a compromise that would benefit both sides, in which still havent brought an actual reason why the compromise wouldnt work.
And I know you as an involved admin enough to know you dont see me as any other editor, but rather you get tired of my typos (your words not mine) and dont believe a smartphone edit could cause autocorrect. So I ask you, to see both sides. The only advantage other editors have is bringing up links, in which I cannot because I dont own a computer. I only have a smartphone in which would take literally an entire day to prove that im not the one throwing the first punch, or that another editor uses strong consensus gaming methods.
Maybe you could explain what point im refusing to get? If not, maybe a more impartial admin (in this case an admin that doesnt get irritated by me so quickly to prejudge a false ANI on me, which ended up only reverse blocking the accuser). I think it sounds completely fair. This isnt like a unified consensus where 1 strongly opposes while the supporters have countered them. This is supporters that dont even want to bother answering a relatively important question. And you can see how well Andy has dodged in the "compromise" section, when demands answers about the compromise but doesnt want to answer back.Lucia Black (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very difficult to understand what you are saying--or asking. If you can't prove your point because you have a smartphone, why is the onus on me to guess at your point? I do know that your claim of me being an "involved" editor is bogus, and merely a ruse. I have no strong feelings about you, at least not strong enough to prevent me from judging your editing behavior objectively. And read WP:INVOLVED, which puts the lie to your claims immediately: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I have no involvement with that track listing stuff at all, and am perfectly capable and allowed to act administratively toward you. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cant provide proof the direct way. I can only provide the whole conversation, and even then, I can only point to you which one it is. Thats what im trying to say. Many admins ask for links and dont bother to look at what I can prove.
Regardless, im not saying your involved in the subject to be bias, im saying with me. You claim to have no strong feelings, but your comments and actions dont seem that way. you talk about how irritating it about my bad grammar. You prejudged an ANI about me because it was me and not review the situation. And you dont believe a smartphone edit could accidentally autocorrect a word. (The last part gets me the most).
Lucia, that's a lie. "Autocorrect" has to have an error to correct and you and other editors have made enough grammatical errors that an "auto-correct" function would take action and you would have to disable it. You changed a valid word to its complete opposite. I don't know why you changed it, but the fact remains that you did change it. Blaming anyone but your smart phone or other editors for you own problems is not going to fool anyone. Drop the "auto-correct" line and just admit your own error, because every time you assert this bald-faced lie you dig yourself deeper. If it really is an auto-correct function, you would have "autocorrected" your lack of commas, hyphens and had "analize" auto fixed to the first option of "canalize" instead of "analyze". Your "justice" issue and actions were reviewed independently by three admins; perhaps it is time to admit the mistake? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
autocorrect on smartphone doesnt offer removal of hyphens or commas. In fact, not even on computer. Also, i previously had a mytouch 3G. A smartphone with a keyboard, and it was the smoothest smartphone i had when it came to editing wikipedia. Which i originaly refused to upgrade because of that alone. But now i have a Galaxy S 4, and this phone offers auto correct options already as you type and as you move the curser.oh and it gets worst, if the text is too long, it wont allow me to paste in any links. And it gets worst, due to low internet connection, despite the edit box being mostly loaded, if i type in and it eventually does load, it pushes the cursor midway. And for that momentary jump, i may accidentally edit someone elses by accident. And the worst is if im discussing, i have to edit at the bottom of the page. And because of that it also will jump the cursor to the middle of the entire discussion. I have to manually drag the cursor back done, which is why i dont bother correcting.
So with all that you can see how easy it is to make such a mistake. And it all boils down to why would i even want to change someone elses post? rhe not/now was incredibly small. Even if i wanted to change someones comment, i knew the penalty would be block, so why throw myself in a suicide. Im happpy to take responsibility for any mistakes, but as mistakes, not as vandalism, which banning was completely irrelevant. The unblock system is flawed in the sense that if one was falsely blocked, the process to getting unblocked would be based on the editor sucking upto another.Lucia Black (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lucia Black, I am a friendly talk page stalker. I too do most (but not all) of my Wikipedia editing using a smart phone. Mine is the Droid Razr, and I too have commented to Drmies about the difficulties. My spell checker tried to change his username to "Demise" and that's not a good thing. On my phone, the auto correct displays the word it thinks that you are typing, plus a couple of options. I watch that and click on the right option. If it inserts the wrong word, I backspace and correct. Plus I have the option to add a word I frequently use but the general public rarely uses to the database. For example, my unusual last name and the name of the business I own and the odd names of little towns I do business in.
I have found that smart phone editing requires patience and a willingness to proofread before hitting "save". I go through my edits and capitalize properly, and correct spelling and punctuation. Even then, I may miss a few typos, so I proofread the saved copy and go back and correct typos a few more times until it all looks good. But then again, I am not a professor of English literature like certain people I know.
Occasionally, I make a bad mistake. Then, I correct it myself promptly if possible, or ask another editor with better tools to help me out. I always apologize and never act defensive about it. I take 100% responsibility for all my mobile edits, and am very pleased to have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia using that method. If I was in a dispute with another editor (which very rarely happens), I would never, ever blame the situation on my mobile editing. I take responsibility for all my edits, mobile or desktop.
Mobile editing is the wave of the future, and the Wikimedia Foundation knows that. Those of us who edit that way have to be responsible, learn all the features of our pocket tools, and be team players. That's how I see it, at least. I wish you well. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that I wa snt lying. And taking responsibility doesnt mean block for an accident and then refuse to unblock for insignificant reasons unrelated to the actual situation. But beside the point, I want to know what point im refusing to get? iI feel like refusing to get to the point is too subjective, prolonging a consensus that doesnt actually answer consensus changing questions, shouldnt be seen as disruptive simply because one is the minority. Especially if the minority is actually begging for answers because their willing to support if theres enough reason.Lucia Black (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No autocorrect will change the word "not" to "now" as you did.[36] It was your error and your assertion that its "not my fault" falls on deaf ears. The switching of blame is a false statement; to it bluntly, a lie. Auto correct did not make that change for you, even if you deleted the end character the word would be fine. You make such edits so frequently. You can't even keep yourself from doing it in your unblock request. You made it again just after your post about it! [37] Honestly; you need to control your phone and take responsibility. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia Black, your response to me is filled with typographical errors. If you are going to edit using a mobile device, you have to take responsibility for proofreading and accuracy. For example, why would you type the word "I" or any variation of it, without capitalizing? Please proofread carefully and take full responsibility for the accuracy of your edits. This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris, im ignoring you now. You come to stir even more trouble even after an editor has had similar problems? Not going to happen. You talk big and say no auto correct happens, but im not going to argue with you for something you dont actually proven yourself. So either get or even borrow a galaxy s 4 and edit, or dont nother me again about the subject.
@cullen, im sorry but I cant afford an edit conflict. I could if it was on pc, but not on phone. Copy and pasting is incredibly difficult and it leads me with 4 more edit-conflicts. So for fast paced discussions such as these, I cannot be patient for it. However dont confuse how I handle myself in discussions with how I edit articles. I have less chances of edit conflict in an article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia, no one here believes your not/now typo. But it's immaterial anyway: what matters now is that tracklist RfC, where I hope editors are answering concisely to a specific question. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucia Black. I know about edit conflicts, and have dealt with them countless times myself. Please don't tell me how "incredibly difficult" it is when I am a mobile editor myself. So, post your comment quickly in a fast moving conversation. Fine. Then, go back and proofread your comments, if you expect people to take your comments seriously. That's what I do. That's what I recommend to you. Just a friendly hint. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
@Drmies incredibly judgemental to believe such a mistake would be done intentionally, and I know you know better than to believe it was intentional especially if one editor is strongly trying to tell you that it does happen. Even cullen agrees, so dont say "no one here believes you". Its demeaning, disrespectful and simply not true. But the worst of you not believing is you judging me by not believing a very probable truth. Which leads me to believe that this isnt impartial. (Unless you disregard everyone who ever said such a thing, then it would be worst, because thats a speedy block ready to happen without even able to defend themselves).but you know what? It will be discrimination everytime you block an editor and not give benefit of the doubt when it comes to this until you actually use a smartphone to edit wikipedia yourself. Im using the Galaxy S 4. Try it out for a week or a day or maybe even an hour and then tell me straight out you had no issues.[reply]
@Cullen, eventually typos get disregarded in the process of a discussion. If an editor focuses too much on the typos and not on what the editor is actually saying, itll go nowhere. For example: currently a trademark discussion and its going quite smoothly into my favor despite the troubles of typos (and in case chris believes im using I win/lose wording, when I say in my favor, im just trying to clarify consensus is leaning toward my view, not that its a game and im trying to win it).Lucia Black (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucia Black. If you truly believe that you have no obligation to try to correct large numbers of obvious typos in discussions, then please be prepared to deal with people who will think otherwise. There is a big difference between an occasional typo, and a swarm of them that interferes with comprehension. Eventually, that raises basic questions of competence. Again, please note that I edit mobile too. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe they have too much weak faith. Honestly, I do try to edit, but im not looking for a lecture of responsibility when it comes to typos. I understand the issue, and find it important, but I dont like to be told how important, because I already know. But still, I can only go so far when it comes to fast paced discussions.Lucia Black (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, SL93, a user with a previously clean block log, lost his rag when he was baited by User:Scott Martin. It's obvious that SL93 was particularly outraged because an admin was speaking to him like that, and I can't blame him there. Please unblock him, or I will. Bishonen | talk18:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, pish and tosh. It was SL93's choice to turn up on my talk page and start making veiled insults. And no, that wasn't "baiting", it was ridicule. Teenager-grade insults are only worth being laughed at. — Scott•talk19:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Martin, that was admin misbehaviour. You have caused an editor in good standing, with a previously clean block log, to be blocked. The dialogue between you and him reads exactly as if that was what you were going for. As an admin, you're supposed to know better than to bait a user like that, and also better than to respond to Drmies, Worm and Kumioko as you did on your own page. Especially, you were supposed to learn something from this request for arbitration and the following motion. Bishonen | talk19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I've already commented elsewhere on the nature of SL93's behavior on my talk page, so won't repeat myself. But I must state for the record that your reading of that dialog is completely wrong. That needs to be said aloud, because your suggestion is a slur on my character. Not a deliberate one on your part, I'm sure, but an aspersion nevertheless. For what it's worth, I also think that Drmies overreacted badly by blocking him. If it merited a block, I would have found some other admin and asked for them to make a block. I don't get upset by name-calling, so didn't do that.
SL93 also appears now to have quit the project. I will not have that held against me, because it's not my fault. Okay? I hope he changes his mind after sleeping on it. — Scott•talk22:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did somebody say it was your fault SL93 retired? Not that I've seen. I say it was your fault he was blocked, that's all. But thank you for acknowledging my criticism more fully than with pish and tosh. I'm sure it, my criticism, is lucky to be on this page and not on yours, or it would be blanked by now like the others.[38][39][40] I note especially the uncomprehending edit summary with which you removed a collection of rebukes from highly respected users: "Some people need to read WP:TPOC more clearly". For all the world as if the original small WT:RFA incident had been still the issue at that point. It wasn't; the issue was, and still is, your baiting and your own need to read several sections of WP:ADMIN. I don't think you need to worry about Drmies' and Worm That Turned's ability to read policy "clearly". Bishonen | talk23:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
For the record: I overreacted badly? Two people overreacted, and none of them were me--don't try and deflect anything on me. Scott Martin would have found another admin? I am another admin--in fact, I'm a whole nother admin, given DrKiernan's warning. I am beginning to question your abilities as an admin. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not deflecting anything. You exacerbated the situation with an unnecessary block, that's now going to sit on SL93's record (until such point as the developers finally allow us to correct block logs). I'm glad that you've apologized to him for it. I didn't see this warning that you refer to; I was having a stupid conversation with him - which I've also already apologized for, as you've seen - and then he was suddenly not there.
I love this "abilities as an admin" business. The last time I performed an admin action was a week ago, when I did a history merge. And last month I did some speedy deletions. My "abilities as an admin" didn't feature in this kerfuffle at all. And by the way, if I was going to block someone for things they were saying in a conversation, I would consider it good form to inform the person they had been speaking to, rather than leaving them hanging when the other person vanishes. Even if that other person had been saying rude things.
Let me quote you: " Mmm, misreading much"--I didn't apologize for blocking him. I am, however, sorry to see his block log no longer blank. As Bish said, if the block was unnecessary, you could have undone it, but you chose not to. And--you're suggesting that I should have spoken to you about what SL93 said? Sorry, but you're not that important. In my opinion their comments were over the top. Your feelings don't come into account. The warning is on SL's talk page, BTW, under the heading "civility warning". Thank you for dropping by. Remember that none of this would have happened if you had not escalated the matter yourself. My future endeavors will be fine, thanks, and I hope yours will be too. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to belabour this further, in fact I'm going to bed now, but Scott has also written on SL93's page that it was a complete surprise to him when Drmies blocked SL93. It's a complete surprise to me that he'd say such things. If Drmies overreacted badly, Scott, why didn't you support my request for Drmies to unblock? You were nicely positioned to. For that matter, you were nicely positioned to do the unblocking yourself, if you didn't hold with the block. Instead, you wrote this just below my request. Bishonen | talk00:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Because you wrote directly to Drmies "please unblock him or I will". That seemed pretty unequivocal. And I wrote what I did because you had, as you have been all through this, accused me of "baiting", which I am still waiting for you to retract. — Scott•talk01:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to keep waiting then. Worm has offered to go through a blow-by-blow look at how you escalated the situation, and if you want me to substantiate what I've said, I'm also prepared to do that. I wouldn't much enjoy writing it up, and I think you'd enjoy reading it even less, but say the word and I will. Then you can repeat your suggestion that I retract. Bishonen | talk06:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Bish, you know Drmies is not one to rush to the block button for rudeness. Half the people who stalk this talk page would be blocked if he were, but how can you possibly defend actions like these [41][42]. More to the point however is that instead of threatening to sumarrily undo the block yourself, a block review at AN would be far more appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the unblock. I'm afraid I set the whole thing off by correcting the grammar. I did not mean anything disparaging by it, it was just annoying seeing a header with that mistake. I would ask that he be unblocked. It's enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I gave it half an hour. I've unblocked. I hope it doesn't offend you, Drmies, but I don't like to wait any longer. Wehwalt, I don't think anybody blames you. Bishonen | talk19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Well, it seems I missed a bit of excitement. This looks like a lot more fun than swim team at the YMCA was. Bish, I don't mind; I'm not offended--not as offended as I was at the "retard" comment, which might have been a regular insult thirty years ago but is now completely unacceptable. That it happened to be directed at an admin was of no matter: I don't know Scott Martin from Adam, as far as I know.
I wish SL93 the best; I was really surprised to see that coming from someone with whom I had occasional interactions which, I think, were always positive. What I didn't see mentioned above is that SL93 received a warning from another admin, one also not know to block from the hip. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bish, those are interesting links. I didn't know Scott Martin was Hex--though that doesn't change much since I wasn't aware of those cases/motions; didn't know there was a history. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Crap, two edit conflicts, are you people ever gonna stop posting? Yes, there is a history.) What could possibly be more fun than the swim team at the YMCA? I hope it was synchronized swimming. I dunno, but perhaps you do know Scott Martin from Adam, if you click on the links in my second post above. Bishonen | talk00:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Bish, those are interesting links. I didn't know Scott Martin was Hex--though that doesn't change much since I wasn't aware of those cases/motions; didn't know there was a history. And I just read what he had to say in response to the thread that I started. Well, I don't know if there is anything at ANI, and I don't know what Eric said etc., but after reading that I should have been off to write an encyclopedia rather than ask him to cool it down, he's on his own. As for Adam, ha, I plead Alzheimer, but I'll have a look. All these names are confusing. There's a Scott Mac too, but I forgot if he was good or evil. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna comment on how incredibly fast this went through, and discovered that it didn't yet. It's currently in Prep 2. So it's still gonna be very fast, but just not that fast. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM00:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, that template is usually added by a bot when the article actually makes it to the main page. If promoting from T:TDYK to prep you don't need to worry about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I was surprised myself. As a matter of fact, I went to DYKSTATS to see if it was one of the high hitters for May. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm humbled by my error! All the DYK queues were empty and only one prep set was built, so I tried -- for the first time ever -- to build a prep set. Had fun finding the articles (figured that collection would be a hit) Then I got confused by the instructions, because it sounded like you were supposed to do all this stuff. Thanks for everyone's patience with my flubs! Montanabw(talk)16:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, dankjewel: interessant. (Cont'd in English:) I am going to add that--Wikipedia is not generally a source for Wikipedia, but I think there's good reason to accept this (besides WP:IAR) as a reference to events on Wikipedia. Thanks. BTW, the user, after one more vandal edit, seems to have left us. I will keep an eye on this and, if needs be, semi-protect it. Thanks, and I appreciate the spirit of cooperation, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite an "iconic" figure in my country's football, mock petitions for him in the national team, folks with too much time on their hands if you ask me...
My request is the following if you please (as i "may" have told you already i'm a simple man, so my requests will always be about the same subject): i added several refs to the article, two in Dutch. However, i did not like what i saw in the Google Translator ("trekt" or "aantreken" - i suppose that's the correct verb form - being translated to "draws" or "attracts" or even "affect calculation"; "duiken" or "duikt op" getting "diving" or "emerges" on the other end), left the wordbattle a bit dizzy to say the least.
Also, i think there is a great possibility that mention of him being the second best Portuguese player abroad that season is plain 'ole vandalism (more mocking for the poor guy), he scored his most goals ever in a year that's a given, but the comparison with "The Special One" Part 2? Hmmm...
Haha, that's a funny tune. You know you're a redneck if... I made fried non-green tomatoes the other day, to embellish an otherwise dull sandwich. It was fun. I need a fryer. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, I'm going to have to cite you for abusing Wikipedia by attempting to turn it into a vegetarian social network. Expect Mandarax and me within the next week. Don't get any chicken for him. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all are starting to get to me with all this food talk (is that propper use of y'all?). I took some bacon from the kitchen this morning (shhh, we aren't supposed to take cooked food out) so I will be having bacon, cheese, and Dijon mustard sandwiches today. He doc, are we doing this thing?
Someone I once wrote an article about (long since deleted) told me "y'all is singular; all y'all is plural...if I invite y'all over for dinner, only one person had better show up" LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cranked up the smoker today (shown) and did two racks of ribs, plus some bacon and a couple pieces of that hot Italian sausage that I didn't cook the other night. Went great with beer. Too bad you guys don't live nearby. And yes "all y'all" is the plural of y'all, although sometimes "y'all" can be used as a plural as well, just as "you" can. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER01:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cripes, Dennis, do you ever not tempt a guy who lives in a place where pork is both hard to come by and not as tasty as in the US/Canada? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it said before that "y'all" is singular, but not in my language, and I don't know anyone who uses it that way. Y'all refers to two or more, and all y'all refers to three or more. There can be an additional distinction of meaning: "Are y'all going?" = asking the group if they are coming (even if only some of them might be); "Are all y'all going" = "Is every single one of you going?" LadyofShalott16:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not conducting an edit war on the Silesia article simply reverting what I understand to be vandalism, the blanket reverting of a series of edits. I stated this in each edits summary. Am I in error about what constitutes vandalism? Rsloch (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In short, yes. See WP:VANDAL--it requires evidence of willful disruption of the project. I see a content dispute which needs to be solved on the article talk page, one way or another--discussion, an RfC, whatever. Not this. But note that I warned your counterpart also, and I have no dog in this fight. Maybe you can place a (neutral) message on the talk page of the relevant Wikiproject? Drmies (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then we disagree over what amounts to wilful disruption, but this wasn't edit warring just an attempt to follow the rules, however wrongly.Rsloch (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know I revised the article and copy-pasted the text to Word so as to check any typos and spanish words that could have remained. I corrected every mistake I saw. I reckon its prose is good enough to be GA, though I think those mistakes had to be corrected. I have also taken away unnecessary flag icons. I've replied saying this same thing, in Talk:C.A. Peñarol/GA2, but just wanted to make sure to inform you.—Nuno93 (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I came across an unusual, sleeper SPA. More than five years ago, they uploaded a Photoshopped version of a painting and substituted it for the genuine thing in an article. Then no edits until today, when they tried passing it off as the real thing in seven articles, including the article about the painting. I reverted them all, put a notice on the file, and issued a warning on the user's talk page. If you inspect the fake at full resolution, you can see that they've altered the "hand of justice" on the staff on the right. I actually came here to ask you or one of your followers if you knew what the hand gesture meant. But then I decided to try to investigate on my own. I checked the hand gesture article, and discovered that it appears to be a shocker. Especially in light of this, I think I may have been too gentle with my warning. I would say that this is a vandalism-only account. But I'll leave it to your immense wisdom and judgement to decide if any action is called for at this time. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM09:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax, words fail me right now: I'm a bit low so I can't find the vocabulary to tell you how impressed I am. You are a gem. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about wisdom, and I continuously question my good judgment. But while I'm pondering, this account won't be doing anything else. Thank you, Mandarax. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... And thanks for the block and deletion, so we won't have to go through this again in 2018. I wasn't positive whether the image should be deleted, because I kept thinking of L.H.O.O.Q.. But Darthmullet ain't no Duchamp, and it's definitely best that it was deleted so it can't accidentally (or intentionally again) get used in place of the genuine article. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM18:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, very subtle; although it's been said that the vandal is "no Duchamp", I've gotta admit that the hoaxy image was skillfully executed. It's the kind of thing that could have easily stuck around undiscovered in those articles for years. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM21:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does "the unmediated knowledge the boys gain on Coral Island reflects both the tradition of Robinson Crusoe's" mean? Are we talking about the genre, in which case wouldn't "Robinsonades" be better, or are we talking about Robinson Crusoe himself, as opposed to the book? EricCorbett13:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User 99.224.131.58 has now made 21 blanking edits to the article without reasonable explanation. He claims NPOV but doesn't acknowledge that he can't just delete 70% of an article's text, that is fully referenced and cited. The nature of the text appears to paint the subject of the article in a bad light - I would imagine that at 21 blanking edits claiming NPOV, the user was trying to censor this, Furthermore, the subject of the article and the IP user are both from Ottawa which could potentially infer they are the same, not that I am saying that but it is possible given what the IP user was trying to do. I made contact and invited them to check out WP:BLANK, WP:OPINION etc.. but there was no acknowledgement. I then invited them to discuss the issues they have on the article's talk page but again there was no acknowledgement, only more article blanking and a claim in the talk page that I am a bad user with negative motives.
Clearly, 21 blanking edits without acknowledgment of my attempts to help the user is beyond dispute and is vandalism.
They also deleted this message I placed on their talk page.
Consequently, I'd like to state that I respectfully object to your edit summary where you said "stop fighting, or I'll block both of you." At no time was I attempting to engage in an edit war, I was simply undoing massive section blanking and advising the user that there are policies they should read, policies to follow, and I invited them to discuss their issue with me on the article's talk page. I reported the user to AIV after his 13th blanking edit (and 4th warning, with the warning templates containing links to WP:BLANK, WP:CITE etc.. and an invitation to discuss their problems on the talk page) several hours ago but the user continued to make blanking edits.
One could dispute whether the editor engaged in vandalism, but they certainly engaged in edit warring. And it takes two (or in this case three or four!) to engage in edit warring. As it happens, the editor was (in my opinion) correct in their removal but of course utterly wrong in their methods. So I have taken the perhaps unusual step of removing the information (in bits and pieces, with explanations in edit summaries and on the talk page), as an editor, and blocking the IP for their unacceptable edit warring. To ease your mind, perhaps, I'll tell you that it is very unlikely that I (or another admin) would have blocked you all. Thank you for your report and your note, Drmies (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is BollFoot? I reverted you: the IP cited an UEFA website, and that takes precedence. As for the empire, I don't see much use in fighting over some guy's possible first or middle name. Big deal. Also, you're lucky you didn't get blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are not playing on Arena Națională. Clubs from Andorra and Luxembourg can host this round on own stadium. They play on Stadionul Marin Anastasovici, trust me, Romanian press. UEFA has reviewed the arena. I provided him and you official websites sources of the two clubs. This Canadian IP was already involved in war edits. He likes this. Bollfooot (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This young man had a bizarre public psychiatric breakdown, reported by reliable San Francisco media outlets. The article is at AfD, where consensus is to delete. Can someone close early? It would be a kindness to delete this ASAP, per BLP policy. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. Based on a recent discussion, I have quickly drafted this. It is in no way definitive, but the effort is to keep it very simple and on track. You are welcome to develop this further on its talk page or tweak the draft until such times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to RfC space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, uh, you know, why is that called an anthology? Anthologies usually are selections (and usually from works by more than one author) of a period, language, etc. These are written to be part of the book, no? Drmies (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay, so poetry collection would be the right term I guess (blast me not paying attention to English terms). As to if they were written to be part of the book or for another reason, sources are very much unclear on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STFU Crisco; I've already caught it. I got a family to deal with here, and no one cleared the breakfast table forme. He also compiled an anthology of South-African poetry. It's odd that, as far as I know, he never looked to your side of the globe. Which reminds me that I've had a few dealings on the Dutch wiki with Spraakverwarring, who has similar interests to yours, and I've namedropped you on their Dutch talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, namedropping (thanks). I think it's because little of the Indies stuff was in Dutch. I mean, S.E.W Roorda van Eysinga's "Malediction" was in Dutch, and I think some other Indo writers wrote in Dutch, but (if I recall correctly) Rob Nieuwenhuys in Mirror of the Indies is quite adamant that most of the poetry was poor (btw, our friend van Hoevell is in the book too). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm having fun with my anthology. I should go get it from upstairs, from my special Komrij bookshelf. I'll have this up at DYK tomorrow or so--no, Tuesday, since tomorrow I'm teaching Whitman and Dickinson. I can do old Walt, but Dickinson, that's hard to teach, unless you're a New Critic who in his usual 50-minute kindness is willing to completely forgo any attempt to get at what matters. And that's probably the part I'll play in class tomorrow. I enjoyed your comment above--yet another thing not taken seriously enough by our historians and, what's the word, media gatekeepers. Dude, have you compared your Chinezenmoord to the Dutch version? No comparison. Also, I'm finishing up all the mint syrup I made, and let me tell you, two tablespoons of syrup requires 2 ounces of bourbon. It's tough. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emily Dickinson? I don't think I've read any of her work, actually. My formative years were... rather neglectful. I'll just have the old standby: a good cup of coffee, with some chocolate syrup to taste. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our greatest poet, pal. "I'm Nobody! Who are you?" Really, she defies every category you could throw at her even if you took two weeks, instead of half a class period. I'm not sure if I know of a greater poet. Coleridge, Milton, Dickinson, Chaucer, Kafavis, Shakespeare, Holderlin--am I missing anyone? Drmies (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing--done. BTW, there was a bit of history in the DIFF article, but not enough to warrant keeping those things in there. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this edit of yours, for instance, contains little evidence of a revert of vandalism, besides the changes to those numbers. Please see WP:VANDAL. Indefinite semi-protection (or full protection? you aren't clear) is an extraordinary measure which is rarely taken, and then only in cases of long-term socking for instance. It's not going to happen for this one, as I said before, at least not unless it gets dramatically bad. As a sidenote, if you want to put this up at GAR, the prose will need some serious editing. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In simple English, how do I close an AfD? I know there's a template somewhere but the instructions start talking about removing templates from the article first and then get still more opaque. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synechron Technologies meets the conditions for early closure: the article could have been deleted A10, no one has spoken against making it a redirect to the pre-existing Synechron except those who simply want it deleted, and I plan to then AfD Synechron. I managed to do a histmerge yesterday! I am not ineducable! But it's almost as hot as Muspell here and folks keep yammering at me and my head is mush. Can you or a talkpage stalker explain it simply? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm way too stupid to answer this; I wouldn't be able to do it if there wasn't a little arrow next to my TW button, which has the entry "close" when I'm looking at an AfD. You can do it by hand, and I used to do that, but yeah, it involves a few steps, copying and pasting templates all over the place. Do you want me to do it? and someone else (like Writ Keeper or Bbb23) can come along and tell you which blahblah.js to modify in which way, or which box to check in your preferences after which you do a history merge purge splurge of your VisualEditor user interface etc. etc. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those instructions were the ones that flummoxed me. I did it, messily but ultimately correctly (spelling errors, "merge" when I meant "redirect", and I still don't know what they mean by "FIRST delete the three templates if they were added first ...." so I removed the template from the article first and ... yeah. I don't do scripts, because when I go to add one a warning comes up to the effect that I am about to irretrievably damage my computer, plus I reckon I would be incapable of figuring out how to use it. In any case this is probably all to the good, or I would be one of those people causing mayhem with inept rollbacking and so forth. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You click your heels three times and repeat, "I want to go off-wiki", while Jimbo, looking beatific in a beautiful gown, waves a wand over your head.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I, too, trade Wikipedia biographies of painters for paintings by those very same painters? And then write a Wikipedia article about my art collection? Please, pretty please? Cullen328Let's discuss it22:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, you can do whatever you please, just like everyone else around here. After you've created your article, please tag it for speedy inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Rschen7754 22:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
... Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Red Lacy puppy
Not done Sorry. You're not allowed to take a break. MBisanz talk 01:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Said may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
.jpg)
.jpg)
