Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 61

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

Quick question

[edit]

Hello! I have read through all the materials, and I hope that I am submitting this question to you appropriately. I have a question with which I hope you can help.

I submitted my first Wikipedia page submission in November, and found out yesterday that it was rejected. I have a quick question for you about resubmitting it.

Question: did I not cite the references correctly technically so that they could be accessed?

This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Marvin_Megee

The page is about a unique Mayor in Missouri. I included 14 references to support the facts, which included:

5 references from US newspapers (reference #s 4, 6, 7, 8, 9)

5 references from US television investigations/reports from two states (reference #s 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

2 references from a county election office (reference #s 1, 2)

1 reference from a state organization (reference #3)

1 reference from a state law

All of the references are objective, third-party references (from newspapers, tv reports, county and state offices).

I looked at several examples of other Mayors to make sure I was citing references correctly (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Joines), but I worry that I did not format the references where you could see them.


Thank you for any help you can give me so that I can resubmit the page!

Stewarmd11 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)MichelleStewarmd11 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • See, I don't see any evidence that this mayor is somehow "unique", as you say he is. All the coverage is run-off-the-mill, and I don't see anything that rises to notability by our standards. Please see WP:NPOL. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, without Google news archives I've done about as much for this one as I can, although with her local knowledge and offline access, Stewarmd11 may be able to find more. I stuck one "citation needed" in where I felt the referencing was particularly lacking. He has attracted TV coverage from as far away as East Texas for personally plowing the streets, and statewide coverage for the investigation of his pardons, which are apparently the first state invocation of that mayoral right. (Plus his daughter got national coverage the year before he was first elected, but that doesn't count towards her dad's notability.) I'm honestly not sure which side of the notability standard he's on - but I've added a smidgen more data and a couple more refs, linked the different TV stations and generally expanded the news refs for easier scanning, and mucked about with the wording and organization, so that might help you make a determination. (Note my abdication of all responsibility. But then you know I am a notorious inclusionist.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback! I really appreciate it. I will make the changes and resubmit. I appreciate that you took the time to review it and help me think through ways to improve the page. Thank you. Stewarmd11 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Stewarmd11, as far as I'm concerned you must incorporate more (and broader) coverage. I think that the links in that Google search I left on your talk page can do the trick. We typically don't put much stock in local coverage--such coverage is to be expected. But coverage from a state-wide paper (was it the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel?) goes a long way to satisfy our requirements. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, Google may be showing you something different, but what it showed me at that search was gefukked - all McGee instead of Megee, about a guy decades ago. On the other hand, as she pointed out to me, one of those news stations reporting on his personal snowplowing is in East Texas. Another one of those would be lovely - even if it's on the pardons. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what, it may have been this cold this morning that my eyesight was affected (I'm at work now--much warmer, but my PC here does not show the result I imagined seeing this morning). Drmies (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diamant

[edit]

Did you come across "Diamant", the Dutch user and (I think) administrator? We just got word that he died 16 November 2013. He was only 13 years of age.

Sad.

The Banner talk 21:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess.com AFD

[edit]

Hello, Doctor. Many of the "keep" comments on the Chess.com AFD do not comport with policy. Textbook examples they are of "what not to argue" at AFD. Will the closing admin take that into account?:

1. MaxBrowne: a. Size or popularity does not demonstrate notability WP:RANK WP:POPULARITY, b. Norwegian source is a trivial mention, not substantial coverage c. This is not Canvassing, WP:CANVASS. The admin was not notified in order to sway debate one way. Also, the nominator in question never demonstrated any anti- chess.com sentiment or any deletionist tendencies. In fact, the nominator is a self-identified inclusionist. There is no evidence that anyone was selected because of some pre-disposition to delete. Furthermore, bringing up “Canvassing” focuses on the contributor, not the content, and is only raised as a distraction from the real issue, namely, whether the subject has been substantially covered in multiple reliable sources.

2. Rhodendrites: These sources do not demonstrate notability. As another editor already said, Notability does not mean trivial or fleeting coverage in multiple sources. There is a name for that. WP:MILL. Also, the USCF article does not confer notability, as it is more like a blurb about one action. If that conferred notability it only stands to reason that the other site mentioned in the blurb is also notable.

3. Q6637p: a. Makes the argument to avoid “It’s notable.” b. To bolster this notability, Q6637a reverentially cites a New York Times article which is the epitome of trival coverage. This user clearly does not grasp notability requirements in Wikipedia.

4. Sjkkalle: Same as #2, “totality of sources . . . is non-trivial.” does not comform to policy. As another user succinctly put, “WP:GNG states "has received significant coverage in reliable sources " (plural) - it does not say "has received trivial coverage in a lot of sources.”

5. 2Awwsome: Relies on the cavassing issue, and “It’s notable” without explaining why.

6. Sun Creator: Admits that the sources do not demonstrate notability but argues “Ignore all rules,” saying what would the press think that Wikipedia does not have a Chess.com article? Since this “vote” concedes the subject is not notable and only concludes “keep” on spurious non-policy grounds, this “vote” might as well be for deletion.

7. Epicgenius: “It’s notable.” See arguments to avoid. Concedes it’s “just barely” anway.

8. Cobblet: Easily summed up as “Other stuff exists,” why single out Chess.com. Invalid reasoning puts forth no policy based justification for keeping this article. Also, the members saying that “Wiki_brah” has been singlehandedly responsible for this article having been deleted many times are engaging in sensationalism without evidence. Sheldon Wong67 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Onehub Submission

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I am confused as to why our article submission was declined by you. Our sources are all "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." aren't they?

Thanks for your help.

Liz LizOnehub (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not as far as I can tell. This, for instance, is nothing but a directory entry which appears to be written by the company, and this is nothing but a note on company funding on a website that seems to be little more than a portal for PR releases. The best of the references is this, but I don't know whether Citeworld is accepted here as a reliable source, and at any rate that's the only one that could possibly be called a relevant reference with some in-depth discussion. You're not helping the cause by claiming that pages such as this one should be accepted as third-party sources--it is blatantly not that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rfc !vote

[edit]

Saw your no not vote. While certainly you are entitled to your opinion, I am somewhat surprised by it. Did you look through the list of sources I posted as part of the RFC? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just posted a rationale, which takes a different tack. I have no doubt that there are sources there, but my concern is different. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your note is noted, but citing something like this is dangerous: maybe a reliable source doesn't have to be neutral, but why would we cite non-neutral sources in a volatile context? FWIW, I can't read that particular page, but I have some serious objections to citing a book that in its opening chapter presents a scenario for Hitler's escape from the bunker. Make that "insurmountable objections". :) Drmies (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spam or good?

[edit]

What do you think? LadyofShalott 19:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Says copyright The Belgian Beer Company, which is an outfit mentioned here, as well as BelgianBeerTourism or somesuch. I'm not sure this is so bad. Drmies? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if such a link is not spammy (and I believe it is: "Celebrating & promoting Beer, Food & Belgium") it's not an acceptable link per EL--IMO, such a link should add something to the article in a non-spammy and reliable manner. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lukeno94, I'm going to wait, if you don't mind. I blocked that last IP, though little good it will do. I looked again at the links after re-reading Gaijin42's comment. Gaijin, this isn't a trade organization, for sure, but, and this is very borderline, it could be argued that this link could be used as a reference for establishing some basic, neutral facts in the article. It sounds odd, maybe, to allow a reference but not an EL, but context matters: the EL section practically suggests "company links", at least in the way we use it (which is probably not what it was intended for), and links in that section have a more prominent place than among the references. There are two further options: for someone to evaluate what's in those "articles" and perhaps include them as a reference, or to take this up on one of the talk pages with some commentary for the IP editor, including an explanation of what we've been talking about. Let's face it, a lot of those articles need all the help they can get. For the record, I don't have much of a COI here--for some reason I could never learn to love Orval. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if these two might go along? De728631 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Spam, Spammity Spam, wonderful Spam." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cobrapost

[edit]

Hi, I noticed, as an admin involved with DYKs, could you please post a reminder during the review to check the article. I went thru my review which you told me was bad, and while the links were a bit off as you told me, I found the language was pretty much acceptable. Not too great, but it wasn't bad. However, I've noticed that the article Cobrapost, which hit DYK yesterday, had awful English. I have rewritten only one line but I feel it needs a massive bit of copyediting to have hit the main page. Thank you, for helping out. Cheers, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this version, the only sentence that is blatantly incomprehensible when reading quickly, is the one starting "In November 2013". And even that sentence makes sense if you assume that the claim in question is the contents of the next sentence.
This comes up at DYK from time to time, and if a submission meets the DYK criteria (of which there are many), it needing improvement in other ways - even significant improvement - does not disqualify it from appearing on the main page. The thinking, apparently, is that if a Wikipedia reader happens to click on the hook, and sees that the article needs improvement (which this one does) then they can improve it. This converts a reader into an editor. It does work...
There's also the question of where to draw the line. On this, people disagree. WT:DYK is normally the place to do so.
The version of Cobrapost I looked at shows clear signs of being written in a slightly informal style of Indian English. (Repeated use of "along with", repeated omission of the definite article, and so on.) That's more of a WP:ENGVAR issue than a "this is genuinely incomprehensible" issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And while we're on the topic... the version of Homanje that you passed for DYK has better English than the version of Cobrapost referenced above, so I wouldn't see poor English as a reason for declining that either. The hook is indeed rather dull, and I do hate dull hooks. The notability of the topic might be seen as "unproven" by the two references provided, but it's not normally up to the DYK reviewer to assess notability. "There's very little to say" is not a decline reason if the DYK submission meets the length and sourcing criteria, which this one appears to. The incorrect wikilinks problem does not stand out to the casual reader (or even the casual reviewer). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've written six articles which have made it thru DYK, most recently TNFRS and KFES, both of which were written with Indian English. Indian English, as such isn't the issue, it is the tone of the article, along with the grammar. Just pointing out, there is a the in front of Narendra Modi, which I believe shouldn't actually be there. Is there a possibility of having a thorough English Check before it gets pushed? I remember, over a year ago, Nikkimaria would ensure it'd get properly copyedited before allowing it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there has ever been an arrangement to have all DYK submissions copyedited before approval or before going on the main page. The volume of submissions probably precludes it.
I did make a proposal, a month or two back, to reduce the volume of submissions in order to allow for better quality checking; but that proposal was roundly defeated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) As Demiurge says. We're all volunteers. When I was involved at DYK, I would copyedit all the articles in the prep set in addition to rechecking their hooks had references and other eligibility criteria, before taking the final pre-Main Page step of moving the set to a queue, but there's no requirement for anyone to do that copyedit. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look at Cobrapost in a minute. But let me say this. I think that it is the responsibility of the reviewer to make at least basic copyedits. That is what I think the reviewer's job is. These articles go to the front page and are meant to advertise us, so they should be good, or at least decent. I don't see why that would need much justification or formalization. I do not think it is the job of the person moving hooks or articles to the queue--and Rsrikanth05, I am an admin, and I am involved with DYK as a volunteer, but I am not doing anything administratively in the DYK process; I'm just another submitter and reviewer. Now, I got a few hundred DYKs under my belt, and every one of those comes with a review, and in many cases I have made extensive copyedits; in the case of Homenaje that was necessary to fix the prose and the citations. In fact, I would have sent it back: I would have argued that something with only two references needs more better sourcing, if only to prove that this is an album worth noting (enough to warrant an encyclopedic article), and to show off our encyclopedic skills to a new readership (that's what DYK is for also: to pull people into Wikipedia). In many cases I have in fact gone out to find more, better references, for instance: anything to make the article as good as it can be within the limited scope of DYK (in terms of size, for instance).

    I didn't see Demiurge's proposal (I'm only sporadically active in the behind-the-scenes of DYK), but anything that improves quality and quality control is fine with me. We rely a bit much on the kindness of strangers like Yngvadottir, and on the QPQ review process, where too often writers whose skills are lacking (in English prose, in citations, in plagiarism checks, in OR, in the particular subject matter) review articles and just OK it without doing what I think needs to be done. I do not believe in the "it meets the requirements so it should go to the front page" mentality: it bypasses basic editing, for instance, which should be a given for any article. In general, if something is written in acceptable Indian English (or US English, or BEV, or whatever) it shouldn't be excluded for that reason, of course. And now for Cobrapost. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoever wrote Cobrapost should thank Yngvadottir for this excellent copyedit with a barnstar and a large order of french fries, mayonnaise and all. Thanks Yngvadottir for making us look better every single time you touch an article. I'd promote you from admin to editor if I could. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already copyedited it. I do that. In an ideal world, the reviewer would fix things as a matter of course - that's part of the wiki ideal, that when you happen upon an article that needs copyediting, you copyedit it. In practice, QPQ means, as you say, that articles are reviewed by people no more required to have good English skills or experience with Wikipedia than are their fellow submitters at DYK - and as a forced process, it's likely to be done perfunctorily, which has been a perennial problem at DYK since QPQ was introduced to solve problems resulting from not enough people doing reviews that included ... perfunctory reviewing. One of the strengths of the DYK process is that the article - and the hook - are viewed by many eyes before they reach the Main Page, and that's the best antidote to these problems given that QPQ is the best solution that's been found (even though I dislike it, and contributors left DYK because of it). I used to wish very strongly that other experienced editors and editors whose English skills are good would look more carefully at the articles (and the hooks) at their particular stages in the process, and I actually spent quite a lot of my breaks at work vetting prep sets after I was made an admin, so that I could move them forward to the queue in good conscience. (I sent at least one article back for reference improvement, as I recall.) But this is a volunteer gig. I liked DYK partly because it was a workshop environment, and it also mattered a lot to me, personally, that the requirements for DYK were in the final analysis no higher than for Wikipedia articles in general: that they be on notable topics, referenced, and written clearly enough that a reader can understand the information. Beyond that, it's the wiki process: improvement by whoever cares to pitch in. (Blushing thanks, edited after edit conflict.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best way to stop a company owner and his wingman?

[edit]

For quite some time I am trying to keep Sol (Laptop) and Ubuntu (operating system). At the last article user Rezonansowy is thwarting that all the time. The article Sol is a bit different, because that article is filled with promo by the company founder/owner. At least, I have the strong idea the author DSNR and founder David M. Snir are identical.

I start getting angry here, but they keep going on. Advice needed... The Banner talk 11:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I weighed in on the Ubuntu talk page. I don't know if you can argue anything about "wingman", but you can certainly make the case (on WP:COIN, maybe, and perhaps CorporateM has something to say on the topic) for DSNR being too closely involved. If you argue that case, at the least a topic ban could be granted, for instance. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to deter a COI editor is to show that is not a good use of their time to continue. Unlike other POV pushers with unlimited time and patience, COI editors have only a very small amount of time they can devote to Wikipedia during the work-day and are quick to give up when their efforts are in-effective. However, when you bait a COI editor into argument, resort to personal attacks and stalking, or are otherwise hostile, you transform a COI editor into a traditional POV pusher. They are no longer acting out of their professional role to promote the company or product, but instead are defending themselves against insulting personal attacks. The outcome is that you make the COI editor more persistent than they would otherwise be and cultivate endless disputes. COI editors can be thoughtfully persuaded that their goals cannot be met here and that their time will not be well-spent. That is what our default response should be in most cases. I disagree with the anti-edit-warring stance on the Talk page. Any POV pusher should absolutely be blocked from editing by thoughtful, neutral editors who will revert any change they make that isn't clearly acceptable, however to deploy such a tactic, you must be confident you are in the right. I don't believe you have strong-enough consensus to deploy the tactic in this case. CorporateM (Talk) 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) To The Banner, you are treading very closely (and probably in fact violated) WP:OUTING. Deal with sourcing, or pov, or whatever other policies, but attempting to out the coi will only lead to a ban for yourself. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my involvement with a sockpuppet investigation. I stay in the wings for now to see what happens. The Banner talk 19:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as outing, Gaijin. I do believe, The Banner, that you've been a bit heavy-handed in the matter. I do not think you can make the claim you're trying to make for Rezonansowy--in fact, I would urge you to drop that name from the SPI. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edit-warring SPA needs to be blocked though. I gave them a COI warning on their user page and reverted, and they continue to POV push in article space. POV pushers will always claim there is not enough consensus and cherry-pick their supporters to make it sound like they have support. 14 edit-wars is long enough if that's the actual number.CorporateM (Talk) 22:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, checking the edit-history, THAT account did not revert 14 times. Who was reverting 14 times? Someone made this claim - I do not know if it is actually true. CorporateM (Talk) 22:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My approach would to take it easy on the issue. No one is even trying to get rich out of the laptop or the software, and a very quick look makes me think that it is a matter of open-source enthusiasts promoting a good cause. Such promotions need to be gently opposed—we don't suspend WP:N, WP:RS and the rest, but their abuse of Wikipedia is at the extremely minor end of the scale. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't consider my warning on their talk page over the top. Frankly, I hadn't thought of what kinds of financial interests were at stake. Drmies (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is most probably not COI. Plus the Sol laptop page is reasonably neutral. CorporateM (Talk)
And LondonLinux is now blocked as a sock of DSNR, after CU. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

input requested

[edit]

I would appreciate your input at Talk:Gun Control Act of 1968#removing the Alleged Nazi connections section. GabrielF (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Drenthen

[edit]

Thanks for calling my attention to Wikipedia's copyright issues with respect to the page on Martin Drenthen. I've no problem with the removal of the page, but would be happy to re-launch the page more appropriately formatted. Do I just re-create the page? Or does it need to be cleared by the admins first. Thanks for your help, and for your work on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmyth123 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the easy answer is that if it is rewritten it can be put up again. But, and there's the longer bit, it will be deleted again unless a claim of some notability can be made, with references to support it. You might want to have a look at WP:FIRST, and a way to submit a draft is WP:AFC. I looked at the page again and I don't see how he would automatically be notable (the relevant guidelines are at WP:PROF) unless it can be proven, with reliable sources, that he has great impact in his field, for instance. I looked at his CV as well, and I see no published books there (I'm kind of curious what it takes to get tenure in the motherland...). If he has published books, and those have been reviewed in peer-reviewed journals, that might help toward notability. Het beste, Drmies (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's one I wrote up for a Dutchie: Rolf Bremmer. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for your reply. I'll look into it before reposting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmyth123 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Encyclopedia of the Dead

[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Gautam Krishna

[edit]

Hello Drmies. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Gautam Krishna to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, your desysop is in the mail! Yes, and I'll tell you why: no reliable sources given for what is as yet Crystal Ballery, and in addition, I'm a bit concerned with BLP, since this is about a seven-year old boy. Hey, do what you think is right: if I thought it were some blatant violation I would have nixed it already, but as yet this is a judgment call, in my judgment. Groeten, and thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I considered BLP-PROD myself, but I see your point about him being seven-year old. Then again, he's already gossip-magazined from here to tomorrow, so the immediate exposure damage is already done. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, he is? Tough luck for him; what seems great now might not be so great seven years from now. In the meantime I was involved in other subcontinental matters. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you presenting that as evidence I should feel at least as bad for you as for Gautam? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leuk is anders, Martijn. DYK that Drmies thinks that reference to IDONTLIKEIT can sometimes be considered a personal attack? Drmies (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, did you say something? WP:IDHT. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me template you for referring to a well-respected admin, M. Hoekstra (or, as my mother would type, M.Hoekstra), as deaf. He, mijn oma, die in Hem woonde, is net vredig ingeslapen. Hoef ik ook niet meer mijn hoofd te breken over de vraag of ik snel op een vliegtuig moet springen om haar nog een keer te zien. Ze was een hele fijne oma; ik hoop dat jij er nog een hebt. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gecondoleerd, ik moet het helaas ook al weer een paar jaar zonder stellen. De wijsheid van omas is nooit te overschatten. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK that on a phone (mine at least) that prod is covered by a simple "this article has issues"? That seems less than adequate to me. LadyofShalott 03:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel possibly needed

[edit]

Hello Dr. An IP has been repeatedly posting what he claims is the full name and other personal details about pornstar Lisa Ann, but has been equally repeatedly reverted because of the source being p*ss poor (apparently some kind of user contributed scandal site). This time he posted on Talk:Lisa Ann, and also gave the claimed full name in the edit summary. So could you pls take a look at these two diffs to see if a revdel is needed? (diff #1, the IP's post, diff #2, my revert). I can add that posting her full name has been discussed on the talk page of the article, but rejected. Thomas.W talk to me 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC) (And sorry about your grandma', I know what it feels like to lose a really good one...)[reply]

David Horvitz

[edit]

Hi Drmies, the David Horvitz page continues to be vandalized. Do you have authority to give it some kind of protection? This is a little bit above what I grok about Wikipedia process, so direct me elsewhere if needs be. Also, I made a good faith edit adding many citations and pruning excess. I did that a few months ago. It seems that good faith edit was reverted. I didn't save the text as I figured it was a new start for the article. Is there any way to recover that, or is it a revesion permanent and non-recoverable? Thanks. --Theredproject (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the "around thing"

[edit]

I probably can't be considered "around" for Wikipedia purposes -- Caught in landslide, no escape from reality. (Hopefully you read this before it's reverted as a copyvio.) NE Ent 03:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann. You were involved in a prior discussion about that user. -- Lexein (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the matter was closed soon after this was posted. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks !

[edit]

I was thinking of giving up Wikipedia recently. The angst and vitriol were just wearing. Your continued level-headed editing have made me re-consider. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, don't blame me for any relapse in anyone's continuing process of Wiki-withdrawal. I cannot be held responsible. There is a certain amount of vitriol, that's clear. I don't know if I'm very level-headed, but I see some on both sides of many disputes. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Sent Me to the ER

[edit]

Do you watch TLC? What kind of learning can this promote? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right, gentlemen, ladies, and small furry animals: we don't have an article on saxophone penis and I am unsure where to redirect it. This blog entry appears to have links to relevant articles in medical journals. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but what do we call it if we are to leave those patients with "the tiniest shred of dignity"? BTW, a Lego man with a saxophone, that's not very dignified. "Dignificant". Drmies (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was the article writer's frequently repeated point, but we don't have Ram's horn penis either. Under the circumstances a redirect might be best, but lymphedema appears to spend time on specific sites only in connection with causes, so I don't see how to insert a mention there to justify a redirect. Pity, because I bet people are looking to us for information on something with two weird names like that. I also don't see TB specifically mentioned in that article, but the MED:RS people will eat me for lunch unless I cite a higher-level study. So that's where it will have to stay for now unless someone else is braver and has a lot more medical knowledge. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe writing Peyronie's disease is a trifle easier, but at least we have an article about it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Cheer

[edit]
Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Sonora Matancera

[edit]

The edits that have been made to the article which I am writing on the history of Conjunto Sonora Matancera are, in the main, unwarranted. I have included references supporting the argument I am making. Where I haven't done so is simply because this information is common knowledge. Alan1-11-1951 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia?

[edit]

There are other examples of fine writing by the same author for you to read if you dare.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the prices to be paid for the "anyone can edit" mantra. Those in authority would far rather ban me than that editor. Eric Corbett 01:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pff. It doesn't compare to what I ran into just now. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, at least you take the time to try to clean it up. I think Eric should tackle the Turkish pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not much chance of that, for reasons I won't bore you with. Eric Corbett 01:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true, sometims I press rollback before I block. Let's see at $1 a rollback and $5 a block ($10 if I block the wrong user), I'm a rich man. Do you think this is real? What about this, same author, which I didn't have the guts to delete as a hoax. Give me a bark break.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave it a 50-50 chance I was wrong in the deletion, which is partly why I brought it here. I knew you couldn't resist a challenge. I suppose that makes the Russian film article about alcoholized Koolaid real as well. I'll write you a check for $30 from the same account I deposit my earnings here. On a more sincere note, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies told me Wikipedia is a multi-level marketing site. Drmies is my upstream admin, so I give him 70% of the profits first. I've been trying to recruit other editors to be admins, but with no luck so far. Are you saying Drmies has been cheating me out of my money? Bgwhite (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yngvadottir, Writ Keeper, Uncle G, Eric Corbett, Bbb23, Lukeno94, I'm surprised to see that Gansu Uyghur Kingdom still isn't GA-nominated or even DYK ready. Strange, since last we spoke I cooked breakfast, lunch, dinner, cleaned the house, did laundry, changed the poopiest and stinkiest (cotton) diaper you've ever seen, went grocery shopping, got Liam back to sleep four or five times last night, and finished up Onfim and nominated it for DYK. The last edit on the kingdom is mine--strange. Did you all have that many dingleberries to take care of? Or was the Fresno State-USC game that enthralling? Get busy--come on, man. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We bought a Xmas tree, which is sharing a room with Rosie's artwork. We also had a bunch of other things to do, none of which was as interesting as poopy diapers. On Wikipedia, I got bogged down in a Koren pop singer article - total mess. BTW, where is the missus in all your choring?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 01:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dude, this is Christmas time. I just got off a flight, worked until oh-dark-thirty, slept in, found out that my mother's detached retina was in fact just a migraine aura (good thing we decided against going to the ER), went to a Christmas party, and am now rather drunk. All while @Sitush: has been pestering me about some policy about NLT anns me trying to evade his hawklike gaze. Man, I've been busy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am run off my feet with Yule (although at least the dog is no longer so urgently sick) and now I have to stay 4 extra hours at work because someone called in sick. Waaah. However, one of you who still does DYK really should nominate Erika Sunnegårdh. Andersneld doesn't appear to have had a DYK yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cold?

[edit]
Best wishes
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Onfim contributions

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I've noticed you've added a lot of info to the Onfim article. However, your inline-citations do not follow the wikipedia short citation guidelines (WP:CITESHORT). See Help:Shortened footnotes for complete the complete guide. The commas and page syntax makes it much clearer to the reader, that's all.

--CyberXReftalk 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wicks Steve

[edit]

Hey Drmies. Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wicks Steve? There's a drawer full of socks, notably one who predictably had to invoke WP:OWN in removing sources from the article, that's causing trouble. The explanation by the suspected sockmaster was: "Removed unnecessary references, as each mention the school in its own article." Maybe WP:DUCK would apply to some of them? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up the article and blocking the sockpuppets. I've removed a New York Daily News tabloid source from the article. I think the fluff/junk in the article is gone, but if there's anything remaining, I'd be grateful if you'd take an axe to it. Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Cunard. I wouldn't have done it if they weren't so obvious; I hate intervening before CU and taking the wind out of their sails, but in this case I'm sure they don't mind. Plus, it seems they're busy these days... Keep up the good work, Drmies (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if the socks weren't so obvious, it'd be best to let the CUs work their magic first. Thanks again! Cunard (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited one of your posts

[edit]

Greetings and salutations. I wanted to let you know I made this edit to your post at Talk:Gun control. Please feel free to revert for any reason you see fit. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I put the link in that way so that it could be seen how ridiculous that URL was, not for someone to actually click on it. But that was a few days ago, and I suppose the point has been made. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
Holiday Cheer
Victuallers talkback is wishing Dr. Mies Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger


inspired by this - you could do the same

Professors should know better

[edit]

She thinks quite a lot of herself and has a slew of meat (sock?) puppets to help her. Unlike Dickinson, she's hardly reclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I can't comment on that, but these edits certainly aren't helpful. Let's assume that Mnellsmith just needs to be better acquainted with our guidelines, and I see that two editors have written messages on the user talk page. I assume you're making reference to Bunboyindc? Give them a welcome-coi template, if you like, and I can't blame you if you revert those last edits since they are formatted highly incorrectly. Or, or and, you could go through them and see if there is anything worth saving and thus improve the article, pruning it while leaving some content properly verified. My uncle looks very critically at blanket reverts... Drmies (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's winter. Blanket reverts are prophylactic. I've had run-ins with Prof. Smith, and it's not just a function of ignorance of Wikipedia, it's a real attitude. The Archives article is worse as it has no sourcing except the wonderful "Citations and References" section. Bunboyindc isn't the only one, just the latest.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your Uncle notwithstanding, I have no problem going through and deleting any puffery that is unsourced. Why on earth must we leave unsourced puffery in a BLP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either, but my Uncle likes to think that sometimes there's wheat between the chaff. It's like the US. You wouldn't want to roll back all of America, cause you'd get rid of Colorado and Washington--and where would you get your weed then? Also, you'd lose Peyton Manning, and that's not desirable. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Mr. Precision, anyway?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is going on in there? Is it some kind of feminist convention? Look at the latest non-citation citation added by ... some other feministic literature prof type. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sheesh Sandy, what a male chauvinist pig you are sometimes. "Feministic", come on--I count myself one of those. If NORA etc aren't verified it needs to be cut; individual research projects that have no independent sourcing really oughtn't be in. Oh, Rosie (4) likes to take her baths with Liam (16 months); I just had to explain his little nutsack to her. Oh, to be young again, with everything working, and all its promise! Drmies (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's further reading at User talk:JamesBWatson#Martha Nell Smith. For what it's worth, I am disappointed in an English professor who doesn't even attempt at all to work with Wikipedia's citation style. Dougweller, this should properly have been marked as further reading. It is a collection of things that supposedly touch upon the subject of the article. Interestingly, it excludes such publications as Christensen 2007 which devotes an entire chapter to "Digital Dickinson" and says quite a lot about the Dickinson Electronic Archives throughout the book. For starters, it gives the names of the people who run the site, which our article doesn't have. We're missing even such basic information.

  • Christensen, Lena (2007). Editing Emily Dickinson: The Production of an Author. Studies in Major Literary Authors. Psychology Press. ISBN 9780203931912. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Bushell, Sally (2013-04-22). Heffernan, James (ed.). "EDITING EMILY DICKINSON: THE PRODUCTION OF AN AUTHOR By Lena Christensen". Review 19. Dartmouth College. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

It's sad to see that the person has received more editor attention than the WWW site. For the record, in this case I'd have had no objection to just zapping the biography back to a stub and concentrating upon the article about the DEA. The latter is the more informative and generally useful subject for the overall readership, and we tell readers next to nothing about it. Readers are better served by our telling them all about a WWW site that is one facet of Dickinson scholarship than they are by our telling them all of the fiddling details of every program ever that one such scholar has been associated with. We're suffering from the disease of putting everything in the form of biographies again. Yes, I know, Doktoro. It's a biography of an English Professor, and we want those in order to fill the English Professor Vacuum here on this talk page. Nonetheless. ☺

Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • We should have biographies on literary scholars so readers can figure out what those scholars' scholarship means--so yes. Uncle, we're sharing some white space on a website's page right now when we could be sharing a delicious Founders Backwoods Bastard, but hey, we grab what we can. It's a pleasure to see you again (I wish Kelapstick and Writ Keeper could join us); I hope you and yours had a wonderful Christmas/Festivus/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa. We had Hoppin' John for dinner tonight so we're both season and area-appropriate, even if we're damn liberals. I'll have a look at the science you dropped here tomorrow. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

[edit]

Hello Drmies and assorted talk page stalkers,

Could you take a peek? There's this new editor who has 37 edits to that page in less than a week, and zero to anything else on Wikipedia. The user seems to think that hyper-indignation and verbosity are very persuasive. It would be nice if an uninvolved editor (not me) could hat some endless discussions, and gently instruct the new editor on the purpose of article talk pages. Feel free to trout me if I have behaved poorly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. Now you know, Cullen: don't go around calling people "buff" anymore. I saw that Acroterion, who may or may not be a buff, has weighed in; I also see that there isn't enough critical mass in the universe to balance what is no longer a wall of text, but a whole parking garage full. Happy days! Drmies (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may or not be gaining weight (my wife asserts that I am, and that I can no longer be called "buff" in its adjectival sense) but I don't outweigh all of the words concerning that terrible four-letter word. I'm going out for a nice dinner and when I get back I'm going to hat the lot so no more server kittens get killed. Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my own defense, Drmies, I mistakenly but sincerely thought that "buff" was kinder than "kook". You know how Mark Twain said that you shouldn't pick a fight with a guy who buys ink by the barrel? This guy is prepared to hurl every electron in the universe my way, in the 21st century fashion. Thanks, Acroterian, for your help. I was once buff and I am sure you were too. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About 10 years ago I was in college and worked at a local grocery chain. One of the managers recommended a 500+ page book about the JFK assassination to me and said that after reading it I would be convinced of a specific theory the book was intended to support. However, instead, I learned that the wisest thing for one to do is to admit where they just can't know for sure. CorporateM (Talk) 01:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing "for sure" CorporateM, but I do know what is highly likely as described by the best of reliable sources, and what is a body of speculative and contradictory axe-grinding. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I hate to pull rank here, but I got two words for you: Tachash, and Tachash. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article mentions "The Daily Holocaust", with reference to Leviticus 6:8-30. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a strange phrase, and Google News gives you nothing but weirdness--but it's attested, though I must plead ignorance. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That older version, before the redirect, looks like the devoted work of an obsessive-compulsive Chabadnik who thinks that "article" and "book" are synonyms. But I ask neutral observers to compare it to Robert Lusk. My secret shame is that I welcomed and encouraged the editor who wrote that "masterpiece". Does anyone own a machete? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for that usage of "holocaust", you know how "gay" used to mean "cheerful and upbeat"? Similarly, before the unpleasant events of 1933-1945, this word referred to a sacrifice at the ancient temple in Jerusalem, where a sacrificial animal was slaughtered and burned to ashes. See Holocaust (sacrifice) and Red heifer and Cattle in religion#Judaism. Happy reading! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I bet no-one ever described Robert Lusk as "gay" in any sense of the word. Thanks for the elucidation! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Xanthomelanoussprog. I like to spread holiday cheer, my way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

[edit]


Epicgenius (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Epicgenius (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

[edit]

User:Sportsguy17/Happy Holidays 2013

Policy question

[edit]

What is the threshold a username or their edits must exceed to be considered for redaction? There were two users banned recently for hate speech names, and I was wondering if those would qualify. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - I'd say probably per WP:REVDEL. Those are so pejorative, that I'd be appalled if they said it was OK to not revdel it. Those are grossly offensive usernames. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those users weren't banned, they were blocked indefinitely for username violations (besides the first one also being a trolling you-know-what). I think I blocked the first one. I see Callanecc has revdeleted their contributions and username on other users' talk pages; I guess I wouldn't have done that since it doesn't really pass the RD2 limit for me, but your mileage may vary and Callanecc's does--I have no disagreement with it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also saw that Legoktm had RevDel'd some of it. I think Drmies got the third account "Homosexuality..." account which were active yesterday. After doing some more investigation and talking it through with a CheckUser it's very much a long term abuse issue, lasting more than 2 years. Had it not been for the past accounts (that day and historically) I probably wouldn't have RevDel'd as much as I did. Though it may also meet the criteria for RD3 as well. However as Drmies said, mileage does vary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, this is ongoing? I didn't know that--did you see an SPI was quashed per DENY yesterday? So I nixed a different one--yeah, I saw two go by, one I blocked and Secret got another one. Well. Another day, another troll. Thanks Callanecc, Drmies (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, yes. I saw a couple of those months ago. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow...and I thought homosexuality, and the hatred thereof, were recent inventions...what's next, Nisus and Euryalus were actually boyfriend and boyfriend? What is this world coming to... Drmies (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure is, there were four or five yesterday alone and I think I had ten on a quick look. Legoktm and I got one each as well. But there's a couple CU IP blocks, a global IP block, some semi protections and an abuse filter now so hopefully that'll do the job. Their main/only target is user talk pages of users they've had interactions (of one sort or another) with in the past. Drmies, just ask the (ancient) Romans their opinion of homosexuality ;). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, stewards have also locked the accounts, as they've done the same thing at simple. wikipedia. --Rschen7754 02:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Rschen, what does that mean? Is it something meaningful? Or does it just mean they can't use those accounts in other wikis? Drmies (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks for the reply! I remember similar accounts popping up a few months back. I've only seen a few, in addition to a user who uploads hate speech on the commons and edits the image into templates... have a few of those too. I'll check out the REVDEL policy though. Just thought I'd ask as I remembered someone struck a name from the user creation log once. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Drmies, what Rschen means is that they are unable to log in to their account on all wikis. Since I'm [obviously] not a steward, I don't know what it does regarding account creation and autoblock, but it definitely is a good way to invoke WP:DENY. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 22:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page revert?

[edit]

How can you revert a talking page? Do we have to send only good comments? Where is free encyclopedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soghomon_Tehlirian&oldid=587454731&diff=prev --Kafkasmurat (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Ah! Santa is getting help from the Bishfish? Lucky him/her! Drmies (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
Merry Christmas
Wishing a you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from Edinburgh. Blethering Scot 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd closure

[edit]

I've closed this. I'm delaying immediately implementing in order to give you (or whemever else) a chance to listify based upon your (and others') comments. - jc37 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism of the closer, but damn. Another impediment to people using us to research unpleasant topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Did you see the "it's sexist" comment? By someone who hasn't thought much about it and apparently hasn't been mugged. I've done both. Thanks for the note, Jc37; I've already washed my hands of the matter. Merry Kwanzaa. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season. Hope are having a wonderful time! Hafspajen (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some weasels think precipitation events are great!  :-)   Or is that a mongoose? — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember: A Boy was Born, - returning your wishes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hafspajen, thanks for the card. I hope you're having a nicely landscaped Christmas as well--no doubt everything is white there and all the flickar are on a Barcelona beach. Did you get any nice presents? I got a set of skillets, very nice ones. And a winning lottery ticket! I won $15! Drmies (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is very green here, thank you. We only had two days snow, and than nothing. I got a lot of chocolate, drums, a puzzle and a lot of books. No frying pan, but a rice cooker! Do you want the girls back? And who gave you that lucky winning lottery ticket? Hafspajen (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
 Drmies, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day.
Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thiyya Redirection

[edit]

I have noticed that Thiyya article has been redirected to Ezhava, There are Ezhava thiyya and Thiyya groups, to resolve disambiguation can we setup WP:MOSDAB page. Also, I support the decision to remove thiyya wiki article published in 2012 because it was Ezhava thiyya and a separate article not needed when we have got Ezhava article already, but the one redirected on 24th December 2013 was Thiyya (not Ezhava Thiyya) . Would you please place back the article in WP main stream.irajeevwiki talk 06:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Call me a grinch, but I won't--this is clearly too contentious a matter. You'll need to get some kind of consensus that this if valid, on the Ezhava talk page I imagine, or in some other way. The decision to protect the redirect not some individual administrative decision, but it was based on legitimate concerns which will have to be taken care of. A proposition for a better, valid article can be made on that talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IBM and the Holocaust

[edit]

You recently deleted sourced content from IBM and the Holocaust while pointing to the WP:PLOT policy, however, it does not appear that you have read it. The relevant part says: "articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." This is exactly what the article had until you deleted it. While I agree that the long quotes should be removed or paraphrased, you deleted the most important parts of the book that have in fact received broader coverage. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for further information. I have restored the synopsis in part, and reduced it to less than 789 words, which is a standard and acceptable size for non-fiction synopses. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read lots of things, though I usually have at least cursory knowledge of the things I cite, the bible excepted. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I treat the bible (and all so-called "Holy" books) as works of literature. And when you get down and dirty into them, multiple, interconnecting narratives appear linking disparate stories, myths, and legends across cultures around the world. For whatever erroneous reason, academia has fought long and hard against this idea, but more and more evidence emerges every day showing trans-cultural diffusion in every discipline, from art to literature, from music to science. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly where I was going, but hey, Merry Christmas. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

[edit]

Dougweller (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the tale of the ancient wiki boomstick , or , TW-BL vs TW-AP aka TW-WL

[edit]

Hello again Drmies, hope you are enjoying life to the hilt.  :-)   Kvenland's true ruler has alerted me to Leavitt Bulldog where good breeding always helps, see also Olde English Bulldogge, perhaps you might also be interested in helping there, even though you've shamefully switched from soggy doggy to youneek youneekorn for your talkpageGreetz. And now for Something Completely Different, it's wiki-flashback time... voila!

(( Jargon key: AP==approval-process aka whitelist , BL==blacklist , TW==Twinkle-wikitool , RB==rollback-userright , AWB==ancient-wiki-boomstick ))
unk. ʍaunus specific editor[1] is mis-using the power of TW
(+) Ryan Vesey TW-AP, or at the very least, TW-BL
# TParis Or tie TW to RB
(+) TCN7JM TW-AP I would not oppose... tied to RB is too steep (shouldn't need that to auto-CSD-tag a spam-article)
+ Snowolf TW is implemented via common.js/vector.js, which any admin can remove TW from
+ Drmies TW is waaaay too easy for such editors and invites snark and damage (I don't care how we implement the solution)
(+) Salvidrim RB too *wimpy* (TW is more powerful than RB... not as potentially-destructive as AWB though), TW-AP should be same as AWB-AP, and TW-AP should replace/ditch RB
# Cabe6403 TW-auto-CSD-tag-feature *not* tied to anything special, but TW-revert-feature tied to RB, (( and presumably TW-super-features tied to AWB-style TW-AP ))
+ Scottywong TW-BL is easiest, and no additional bureaucracy required
+ Lukeno94 agree
+ Salvidrim agree (change from above), and the .js Twinkle-settings page can be admin-salted to enforce the BL, I guess?
+ AutomaticStrikeout agree
+ TCN7JM agree (change from above)
+ Ryan Vesey agree (change from above), and we don't even need an RfC if the TW-devs will implement the TW-BL in the code
+ King of Hearts TW-BL used to exist, why did it get removed in the first place?

WP:CONSENSUS says... nine votes for TW-BL, two votes for TW-at-least-partially-tied-to-RB (aka TW-whitelist... two or three pro-TW-BL folks specifically were unhappy with this as too WP:BURO), one abstain, zero opposes. This was back in April... was action taken, to implement the TW-BL of some sort?

p.s. For my motivation here, there is a currently-stalled redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted current proposal with which I am involved and for which it might constitute WP:CANVASSING were I to mention it to the eleven folks here. So consider this question about TW decisions of April 2013 one of idle curiosity, please.  :-)   p.p.s. I know canvassing applies to mainspace-and-article-talkpage content-disputes, as well as to RfA voting and AfD voting and such things... where else might it apply, or not apply, in wikipedia-policy-related-and-wiki-tool-related-discussions possibly involving bangvotes, specifically, when talking about implementation details of blacklists and whitelists and approval-processes and all that jazz? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may not have known this, but with the new Notifications system, you just might have mentioned it to all eleven of us. TCN7JM 16:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Tip of the day: {{noping|username}} is a nifty little template that solves such problems by eliminating notifications when mentioning/linking to a username. Thomas.W talk to me 21:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good tip Thomas, thanks. But actually, I intended to notify the eleven (less redlinks I was too lazy to fix), about "it" meaning the April discussion of a blacklist-for-Twinkle. Drmies was involved back in April, and I happen to know them already, but I wasn't sure they would know the answer. So in this case, I did intend to notify... but I redacted my explanatory sentence (a very different "it" but metaphorically similar), which was about a current December proposal. *That* sort of conversation would involve me using Thomas's noping trick, or more likely, just plaintext usernames without hyperlinks. p.s. TCN7JM, can you answer my question below, if Drmies does not know? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I think I need more words. Are you asking me to revisit an old ANI discussion, weigh a consensus, and implement it? I'll have a look when I can--I still don't have my house back, to it might be a little while. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, not really my request, nope.  :-)   Back in April, the consensus was weighed, the decision was in favor of implement, overwhelmingly. The question is, did it actually *get* implemented inside the codebase for Twinkle? Or did the strong consensus just end up being all talk, no action? In other words, if somebody were to download the latest copy of Twinkle today, would it or would it not check a blacklist, before it allowed that somebody to click buttons abusively? The old ANI thread was a reaction to one such mis-use of the wiki-tool, but that one particular pseudonym was dealt with back in April by the third comment in the thread... most of the remainder of the discussion in the table above was about FIXING THE WIKI-TOOL itself so that such reactionary-emergency-admin-incidents would be straightforward to deal with in the future. I'm just not sure the wiki-tool was actually, you know, so to speak, fixed. Is it fixed, now, so that Twinkle supports the blacklist-checking-feature, today? p.s. You *should* have asked Santa for a house; then you would have had a place to keep all your dolls.  ;-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my edits at User talk:AzaToth and the discussion there for the most recent news. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! :-)

[edit]

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)


~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Drmies, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our regards to Zwarte Piet, the kids, wife and dog. Best wishes, cracker.  davidiad { t } 04:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same to you, David. It's been a pleasure getting to know you, and who knows, one day we'll actually meet and drink delicious beers and talk smack and bewail the tragedy of the South: good people, bad thoughts. (My brother in law, a Yankee of some sort, introduced me to the Drive-By Truckers today. And then we had some of the most delicious beers I've ever had, right here in Montgomery.) Take care, and thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kafkasmurat

[edit]

Would you be interested in warning Kafkasmurat against battleground statements made on article talk pages?

"Article consists of hate speech by Armenians. Genocide or Nazis has nothing to do with Pan- Turkism. These may be mentioned but shouldn't invade the article. "Armenian view on Pan Turkism" would be suitable title for these." --Kafkasmurat (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[2] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would be, but I'm still working on dessert (vanilla ice cream with dulce de leche and various cracky toppings), and after that (see note on brother in law, above) there's a lot more beers to follow, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out for tonight: I am otherwise occupied. If it's an urgent matter Beeblebrox will be glad to issue an unwarranted block. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, we should review the article. Or should be able to talk. At least a warning maybe?--Kafkasmurat (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

This bit about "regular quotes or fucking quotes" made me laugh out loud. Thanks, I needed that. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Dutch

[edit]
Sir John Falstaff says: there is nothing wrong with the "Dutch way". I like that myself.

I'm finally doing some work on our article about Roekiah. Question: what would a good translation of "De vertolkster van de hoofdrol Nji Roekiah gaf spel te zien dat bij ieder waardeering kan vinden." be? Our friend Google gives "The performer of the leading Nji Roekiah showed that you can find. Appreciation for every game", which makes absolutely no sense. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like The performer of the leading role Nji Roekiah played in a way that attracted appreciation from everybody. The Banner talk 11:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Banner's is fine. Crisco, let me note that your original sentence is stilted and verbose, and attempts to sound well-educated. No Dutch person ought to speak or write like that. Better: "Iedereen zou de hoofdrolspeelsters talent kunnen waarderen." And I see from the double-e in "waardeering" that you're dealing with a pre-1950s source. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A review, please?

[edit]

I don't know if this is OK to do, or the correct way to do it, but I imagine you'll tell me if I do it wrong. ;-)

Would you do a review of the Assault weapon article? I think it could use a lot of improvement, but my progress there is slooow. "The guys" seem to respect and/or trust you way more than me (I am working on it).

Thanks.

PS: If you want to see a source nightmare, check out the Mayors Against Illegal Guns article. I've been slogging through it, standardizing citations, finding archived URLs for broken links, trying to understand how to take what's there and make the article better. (It's in serious need of updating.) - Thanks again. --Lightbreather (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is some complicated stuff. I had a quick look at it and, at first glance, it looks to be pretty well balanced to me, incorporating some of the features we'd need to see in such an article. So, good work. But I'll look more closer when time (and energy) permits, and may get back to you. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Newman

[edit]

There's a minor edit war going on here, which I'm involved in, over the image in the infobox (no one is anywhere near 3RR though). I am curious to know if you agree that the image [3] is better than the one in [4]. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 08:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better picture, yes, but a picture by himself is more appropriate in an infobox. In my opinion. --kelapstick(on the run) 14:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, diabolical...it's awfully technicolor, yes, but I've seen those movies in those colors so for me it's not so weird. I'll have a look at the talk page. But whatever we choose, we should make our readers realize that he was one of the best-looking men ever. I watched Cool Hand Luke a couple of months ago; he is lethally handsome. Hey K-stick, you know one of the best beerstores I've ever seen is only a couple of blocks from IKEA? I'm drinking a Engelszell Abbey Benno right now. It's pretty amazing. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppetry return on The Biggest Loser (U.S. TV series)

[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you protected the above page for 6 months due to sockpuppetry (the protection expired last month). Would you happen to remember the parties/behaviour involved with the sockpuppetry? I've had to make multiple reverts on this and related articles (e.g. The Biggest Loser: No Excuses, The Biggest Loser: Second Chances, etc.) due to several editors (189.71.226.175, 189.81.56.43, 189.71.241.51, BobJohnTom) colour-warring over the presentation of the tables in each article (generally changing text to make it difficult to read) and was wondering if the cases were related. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 20:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you browse around in my talk page archives you'll see more mentions of the show--one editor is on the case, but their name escapes me right now. What we have called the Biggest Loser Vandal is an IP editor that locates to Israel--the one I checked from your list goes somewhere else. That other editor keeps a list, so search in my archive, if you will, and hook up what that editor (you'll find their name in all those articles as well, reverting massive data dump-like changes from IP editors). I've semi-protected the three articles you mentioned; if there's other, just let me know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old pants

[edit]

I feel compelled to bring this to the attention of the talk page lurkers here, it is so spectacular an example of recentist dren.

Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know, I had totally forgotten about the Eelcos--hadn't thought about them in years. (There was a boy named Eelco, with tight rolled pants, white and upper middle class; I'm sure he had a moped too. Anyway, he and his other friend looked so alike that we referred to them as the Eelcos, so we wouldn't have to remember the other guy's name. I'm sad to say that my best friend in the second year of high school joined the Eelcos while in his fourth year, and I lost him forever.) Oh, the article should mention that those jeans were typically bleached. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we citing a Dutch newspaper for what it thinks the proper English term should be? You all know I'm all in favor of reliable sources from whatever language, but this would not seem to be the place for such a source. LadyofShalott 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, rollen is rolling and vouwen is folding (pleating?), so I think it makes sense here to point out that the pants are really folded (in any language) rather than rolled. Also, Trouw's authority is impeccable: they started as a "resistance newspaper" in WW2, so I have faith in them even in the matter of folded/rolled/pleaded pants. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I explicitly addressed the talk page lurkers rather than you, Doktoro, because I knew that you would immediately leap at the chance to garner some more youth cred, and side with the recentist editors who believe that rolled up trouser cuffs are an invention of the turn of the 21st century rather than the turn of the 20th (as is actually the case). It does, however, make me chuckle to see how soon afterward you forget your chase after any and all youth cred that is to be had and start talking of your faith in things from World War 2. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have edited it to make it seem less like we're trying to quote the Dutch on proper English (certain Dutch professors of English notwithstanding), but still make the point I think you were trying to make. Please check that I haven't inadvertently misrepresented the source. LadyofShalott 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Onion Lady, you make a good point. It is not inaccurate to observe that we have content on trouser cuffs already in Wikipedia, although many editors are sure to be misled by Doktoro and his old newspapers written in Foreign trying to make out that people didn't know how to turn up trouser cuffs before they invented the idea in the 1980s, and that we have to call them Rolled Trouwsers or something instead of turned-up pants legs. Observe the still dangling hyperlinks above, however. Uncle G (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uncle, I have ventured into strange territory before on your instigation, but I'm not going there. I might see if I can snatch a picture of an Eelco on a Puch Maxi, but I am not willing to learn more about trousers than that. Also, I'm really not feeling it these days. Uncle, happy new year; I hope this finds you and yours well. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Hope you are having a wonderful time!!!! Hope the New year will bring more Wikihappiness to you.

Hafspajen (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year and all that crap

[edit]

Just popped in to say hi, and that I hope things are going well for you. I did a little reading, all kinds of retiring and stepping down and controversy....too much for me to get involved, and I seldom come to Wikipedia logged in anymore. Anyway, try not to drink too much tonight, and by all means, try not to drink too little. You still owe me a beer or two, hoping to collect on that some day.

I set up a home studio again (I play several instruments), construction has kept me busy. Been itching to do something truly creative, need to learn some video skills, etc. Always learning new things. If I create anything worthy of YouTube, I will send you a link. You like Psychobilly, right? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gelukkig Nieuwjaar

[edit]

You beat me, and I'm 7 hours ahead of you! Just back from a party with 10 people and 5 nationalities: my wife (American), the hosts (Lebanese), two Syrian couples, and a French couple. Heard some music I hadn't heard since I was a student (Rare Earth, Get ready, long version). Going to bed now, before my body realizes all the stuff I have eaten and drunk... Will get to your question on my talk tomorrow. Gezondheid, Geluk en Succes in 2014! --Randykitty (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My stalker is at it again, but I'm sure he'll argue that he's not

[edit]

Remember my interaction ban with Pete/Skyring? I'm feeling frustrated and restricted by his actions again. Two recent instances, but both on the same topic, the very contentious issue of the naming of Soccer in Australia. I've been a major contributor to discussions there. He hasn't. But he has recently decided to get involved.

Firstly, there was this. He began a new thread immediately after a post of mine at the end of the previous one. His topic wasn't really a new one, it was really about exactly the same matter as the previous one that I had been contributing to, and many others before it. I could have made a quite informative response to his initial post, correcting a false claim he had made and pointing him at some better information, but because of the interaction ban, I chose to hold back. In his post he explicitly asks "supporters of the current title" to respond. Well, I'm one of them, and I have some answers, but...

Now we have this. It's not immediately after a post of mine (there's one in between), but the indenting and content makes it obvious that he is responding to what I had said two posts earlier. It contains an accusation of "a lot of egotism" being invested in the discussion. He avoided saying whose ego, but given where his post sits... I again feel very restricted.

I don't like the line he has started to push on this topic. It's based on a common misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the linguistic situation in part of Australia he's not familiar with (and it's where I live, so I am). I'm certain that some displaying that lack of knowledge are doing so quite deliberately because it's one of those inconvenient truths that very much diminishes their case. Obviously it's not appropriate to discuss details further here. I would normally try to clarify the situation for such editors.

So, how do I proceed? I reckon he's pushing the boundaries of the envelope yet again, but that's for others to make formal judgement on. I'm sure that, if challenged, he will again argue that it was just a mistake, a misunderstanding, and that the policy wasn't clear, and that he just forgot, and, well, you've seen it all before. Even if it was an "innocent" mistake, he seems to make an awful lot of them, and that's a competence issue (and he's no novice here). My problem is that I feel that almost anything I post on those pages now is going to be, at least in some part, a response to what he has posted. (Just as his posts were to my comments.) That's interaction. And it's banned. Where do I (we?) go from here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the interaction ban violation at WP:ANI#User:Portillo and football (soccer), and per my comments at User talk:HiLo48#Comment layout, I feel I should urge that action be taken. I checked the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia (1089 edits).
  • HiLo48 has made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014. In the December edits, 19 mention "soccer" in the edit summary.
  • Skyring made 3 edits in January 2014, 3 edits in December 2013, and 5 edits in August 2013, and no other.
The above is crystal clear—everyone watching the standard noticeboards knows that HiLo48 has been strongly resisting some editors who want to change "soccer" to "football". Skyring's January comments argue strongly against HiLo48's position. If an iban means anything, it means that poking your opponent is not on, and it certainly means that joining an ANI section where your opponent is a significant contributor is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

[5]. I'm inclined to let it go, particularly because it says such nice things about me and my "ilk", but I thought I'd ask for other opinions, and this page is so much more pleasant than WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker): Looks like alot of bitching and complaining from the user and with the suggestion he is going to contact some department of the British Government about Wikipedia fundraising. They will be surprised when they hear there isn't crap the Brits can do about an American company. :) But not much of a legal threat in my opinion, just bitching and complaning. :)
As for the article they were complaining about, I transcluded my Why Was My Article Deleted? page to their talkpage. It will help explain to them why the CEO of that company wasn't notable (which is, I'm assuming, why the article was deleted). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree there's not much need for further action here. However, since the editor has actually had WP:NLT pointed out to them on their talkpage previously (in connection with another business-related article where they also desperately wanted their own way, and apparently had a COI as well) I'm going to drop a final warning on the NLT issue on their talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker): I missed the previous NLT warning, so that is worth doing. Any other legal threats, no matter how vague (or bitchy), I would block the user...two warnings are enough. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Bacon for Good Article

[edit]

Hi there Drmies-- I just nominated Bacon as a Good Article, and I'm telling you because you are a major contributor to the bacon article. I did a little cleanup with User:Ross Hill and I submitted it. Thanks for the contributions :) Newyorkadam (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

P.S. I like the unicorn :)

  • Thanks. Ha, I made those edits in the good old days, before we had pull-down menus to insert citation templates; hence all the empty lines and the vertical setup. I think you got some work to do on that article; GA reviewers don't like seeing tags. I just removed one of them, placed without discussion, but there's more left. Good luck with it, and let me know if I can help. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newyorkadam, your "In popular culture" section needs expanding. Right now most of it is taken up by references to a YouTube show; Bacon mania should give you some material to write a brief recent history, in a paragraph or two, about the importance/resurgence of bacon in our culture. (And Bacon mania should be explicitly mentioned in that section, with the "main article" template, since that's exactly what it is.) It should probably touch on this sort of reactionary feeling, which kind of boils down to "I hate Obamacare and will eat more bacon just to piss the lefties off". (Exaggerating, but only mildly.) This is a trend that is signaled in the UK as well. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Association of European Border Regions concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Association of European Border Regions, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Brousse - New page submission

[edit]

Hi,

You have reviewed the above page for me and commented that I require more references.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Olivier_Brousse

I have included the following references, are these not relevant or sufficient?

^ http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=24174979&privcapId=26419589 Jump up ^ http://www.bfmtv.com/economie/olivier-brousse-la-grande-saur-sera-bientot-retour-551172.html Jump up ^ http://www.lejdd.fr/Economie/Entreprises/Actualite/Environnement-la-naissance-du-geant-Saur-attendra-499011 Jump up ^ http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10yoq5_l-invitee-de-l-economie-avec-olivier-brousse_news Jump up ^ http://plus.lefigaro.fr/tag/olivier-brousse Jump up ^ http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2013/02/04/la-direction-de-la-saur-est-remaniee-alors-que-le-groupe-doit-vite-etre-recapitalise_1826668_3234.html Jump up ^ http://www.boursorama.com/actualites/olivier-brousse-president-executif-du-groupe-saur-dans-le-grand-journal--2-juillet-1-4-b53af2561fb2ed9af36ce7ac11a16871 Jump up ^ http://www.lesechos.fr/05/04/2013/LesEchos/21411-084-ECH_rachat-de-la-saur-----les-trois-offres-assurent-un-ancrage-francais--.htm Jump up ^ http://www.menaeconomicforum.com/mef2/portfolio/6494/ Jump up ^ http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/fp2e-eau-brousse-13010.php4 Jump up ^ http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/henry-crown-fellowship-program/lists-fellows/2006-great-xpectations-class Jump up ^ http://baltimore.citybizlist.com/article/connex-becomes-largest-public-transportation-company-north-america-0 Jump up ^ http://www.legrain2sel.com/olivier-brousse-president-executif-du-groupe-saur-interviewe-par-bfm-business-dans-le-grand-journal-14008/ Jump up ^ http://www.arabnews.com/kingdom-seen-regional-water-management-hub Jump up ^ http://www.globalwaterintel.com/news/2013/27/saur-poised-renaissance-following-debt-agreement.html Jump up ^ http://www.waterwastewaterasia.com/detail.php?tid=1088 Jump up ^ http://www.fp2e.org/Site/FP2E/Organisation/bureau.php

Thanks

Laura

LauraGeaves (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Laura, you'll forgive me if I don't go through all of those links: many of them are to pages on company and organization websites, and those don't really count. The very first of your links is to a directory-style page, most likely written by one of Brousse's people. The second link, to BFM TV, is helpful, as is the third, possibly--but they seem to lend credibility to an article about the company, Saur, rather than to the CEO. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Drmies!

[edit]
Happy New Year!
Hello Drmies:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Wes Mᴥuse 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

complicated page move

[edit]

I always mess this up, so...

Can somebody move User:Vejlefjord/St. Aug's Abbey (Draft) on top of St Augustine's Abbey while preserving both histories? Bgwhite (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it or isn't it?

[edit]

If you have a moment, take a look at this and tell me if you think he violated his topic ban. The precise wording of the ban is near the bottom of this section. If you don't feel like weighing in, that's okay, too. I'm going to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I honestly can't say. It's tempting to say "yes" on the basis of Kevin Gorman's comment, but that "yes" would be followed by a lengthy block, and I can't do that right now, even if I have great faith in Kevin's knowledge and assessment. Are there any other admins around, with better content knowledge? Natti natti, Drmies (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I viewed it as a violation for a few reasons: Michael Kimmel is a prominent figure in the broader men's movement and a favorite punching bag of the MRM, DV against men is a prominent MRM issue, and the MRM loves using the CTS and Fiebert's research to try to demonstrate that DV is symmetrical. Imho, it's a section so intimately tied to the MRM that someone tbanned from the MRM shouldn't be touching it. Kaldari can probably shed further light, although probably can't take admin action because he works a lot on DV articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a pretty obvious violation per the reasons Kevin listed. Domestic violence against men is a prominent men's rights issues (See Men's rights movement#Domestic violence). If he isn't blocked, I would say at least a sternly worded "final warning" from an admin would be appropriate. Kaldari (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I can accept that, and it is obvious that Memills isn't even arguing that their edit did not violate their topic ban. But I personally cannot construe "any men's rights movement article, section of article, or talk page, broadly construed" so broadly that DV can be called an MRM article per se. If another admin sees that differently I won't disagree, but I can't do it. Sorry Kevin and Kaldari: I think Memills is more trouble than they're worth, but given the language of the ban and the place of the edited material I can't block for it. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Identity Fusion

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Identity_Fusion

Identity fusion is not a neologism. It is theoretically-derived and empirically-validated psychological construct introduced first to the academic literature on personality and social psychological science in 2009 (reference 1; Swann et al., 2009). The identity fusion construct is the central focus of what is known as identity fusion theory, a novel theory about the nature of the self developed by academic experts in the fields of psychology and anthropology (reference 4; Swann et al., 2012). The identity fusion construct and theory engages with other psychological constructs and theories that have Wikipedia articles (e.g., ‘social identity’ and ‘social identity theory’), but fusion is sufficiently different from other theories and constructs to warrant separate status.

Research on identity fusion has been conducted by world-renowned academic researchers with interdisciplinary expertise in areas of psychology, anthropology, and cognitive science (search for the CVs of any of the first authors of articles on fusion in the references and this fact will be abundantly clear). Qualitative and quantitative studies of identity fusion number in the dozens across the references cited. Many of these studies appear in psychology’s most well-respected and most widely distributed and read academic journals (i.e., Psychological Review; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). The academic peer review process for journals like these is extremely rigorous and most submitted articles are rejected. That research on identity fusion has repeatedly appeared in these journals suggests that the identity fusion construct, and the growing body of research on the topic described in this Wikipedia submission, is a topic worthy of publication on the Wikipedia site as well.

To address drmies comments: The identity fusion construct has a specific meaning in self and group psychology that makes it’s usage extremely notable. As already noted, the identity fusion construct was introduced in the academic literature in 2009, so the claim that fusion is a ‘recently coined phrase’ is wrong. It’s also unclear on what the relevance or criteria is for drmies’ claim that identity fusion is “written up by a limited group of scholars”. By my count, 19 different authors have been involved in research articles on the topic of identity fusion. By what standard does this constitute ‘limited’? Furthermore, drmies’ claims identity fusion has ‘not gained widespread acceptance’. Acceptance by whom? The academic articles on fusion cited in reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 17, and 21 have all been accepted by various academic experts who referee their respective academic journals. By any scientific standard, research on identity fusion has gained ‘widespread acceptance’.

In sum, the article submitted here references primary sources at a level consistent with articles that appear in peer-reviewed science journals, is clearly written, and presents a rigorous treatment of a validated and important scientific construct and theory. Please reconsider the current determination of ‘decline’.

Awg22 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Awg22[reply]

  • Awg, thank you for your note. I can't do an intensive library search right now to but I'll give you a few quick arguments. 2009 is recent, first of all. While JSTOR has a couple of hits for the term, most do not apply to the subject of the article, except for an article by Swann (of course). The numbered references you cite all involve Swann one way or another, suggesting that "limited group of scholars" (ie, Swann and co-authors) is accurate. Many of the non-Swann sources appear to reference related issues; I note, for instance, that "Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation" (note 15) does not mention the term, indicating that a certain amount of synthesis is taking place in the article. (see WP:SYNTH.) Such synthesis is fine in an academic article, but that's not what we do on Wikipedia. Searching Google, and then Google books, for "identity fusion" evidences that the term is not so notable as a scientific term in this context that it's accepted in common parlance, and again establishes that it's really a recent term coined by Swann, which this article (well, "press release") verified also. If the term (not the mechanism underlying the supposed phenomenon) has found widespread acceptance, an article is valid--though the article will need to be rewritten to read like an encyclopedic article rather than a precise of a research paper. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorns playing games.

[edit]

It works. And Norwegians are crazy. Word of the year (Norway)? Hafspajen (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HahahahahhaHHhahahha, sorry, but this was funny... Hafspajen (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carly Foulkes is a Good Article? "As of February 2011, she has been in a two and a half year relationship with an actor named Tyler.[4] In 2013, she began dating Nick Mastodon.[49][50]" (emphasis mine) and "'I'm flattered,' says Foulkes, 'but its funny.'[4]" Either we are misquoting the source (I haven't looked), or that "its" needs a big ol' [sic] after it. LadyofShalott 15:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the GA review consists of the reviewer saying the article is "pretty good" but short and then being bullied by another editor into saying it's good enough. That's embarrassing. LadyofShalott 15:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gun control

[edit]

I am aware of your personal opinions on gun control, and your !vote on the RFC, but with the aid of some new blood the discussion may have taken a new turn. While I am not trying (but perhaps hoping ;)) to change your opinion or !vote, I would appreciate any mentorship you could provide in terms of building consensus. (hoping to avoid going down the path we are seeing with MilesMoney at ANI) The sections starting at "current state of the article" and below (particularly the proposed text by myself, and the proposal by Scolaire) would be the area of most interest I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know, Gaijin, since it's such a mess and I got a few things I need to get done that require concentrated attention. I'll have a look when I can and I wish you good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no specific opinion on gun-control, if a non-admin can help. IMO, there is rarely a "consensus" anywhere, especially because it usually isn't a "yes-no" answer. Rather editors must thoughtfully consider the total discussion and make a variety of edits accordingly. CorporateM (Talk) 01:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
 The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Wohhhoho, and a bottle of rum. Nice of you to pop up when calling you. Hafspajen (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What, yours have 64 entries. But basically dont know how to archive, so thats it. And I hate that bot Sagaciousphil‎ has that comes every second week and spoils everything. No bot for me. But I don't know how to do it myself... Hafspajen (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks AnimWIKISTAR-laurier-WT.gif

Hafspajen (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Sommers

[edit]

This one's yours. I removed the A7 tag as well as the template mess that I couldn't (didn't want to take the time?) fix. I'm assuming he's notable because your other Wikipedia seems to think so.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tpg

[edit]

Re [6] -- whom who are you to be editing another editor's comments? NE Ent 03:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
I like apples!
Thanks for your help encouraging some archiving! It will help save me from getting repetitive strain injury when scrolling through the lovely Hafspajen's talk page! Now, while I'm here I'll just have a little scout round and see if I there's anything else I can pinch ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, you're weird. Mrs. Drmies is raising her eyebrows at the music but she likes it. I'll listen again--right now we're all in the kitchen and it's very loud. Also, we're drinking a huge bottle of St. Feuillien tripel and MAN it is good. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skål!!!!!!! Hafspajen (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Am I WEIRD?[reply]

Sound principle

[edit]

I see from your edit to my user page that the "assume good faith" adage seems to be close to your heart. Would you mind looking over some of the recent contributions from Lukeno94, particularly those made to my talkpage, to the "Pointer" section on his own talkpage and to the administrators' incident board, and see if he lives up to your ideals in this respect. Jaggee (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well. I do think Luke came off a little strong. At the same time, they saw something interesting: a brand-new editor who finds their way to the admin board immediately. I'm not really interested in hearing the explanation; I read the ANI thread. So I don't really know what to do here. Your user page could be seen as a violation, and that's how BMK read it, though I don't think it that's bad--then again, a play-by-play account of events, what purpose does it serve? At my age, one is grateful to be able to forget easily.

    As for my ideals, well, I used to have one single rule: never to eat at McDonalds. And then I had kids. So I'm sorry to see you got off to a rough start, if a start it was, and I hope you can forgive and forget. Luke, play nice please. BMK, take it easy--those Yankee manners are a bit abrasive to my southern eye. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You picked me up on the use of the word "culprit", that I had used in referring to the editor who had added copyright-policy-violating content, and you replaced it with the word "editor", apparently because there was 'no proof that the "culprit" intended to commit a copyright violation'. I was hoping you might demonstrate your impartiality by commenting in the use of the words "slander", "lies" and "trolling" by Lukeno94, and the absence of proof (or otherwise) supporting their use. No? Jaggee (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:3 steps from anywhere. Yeah, and I guarantee you that I'm 6 degrees separated from Jack Nicholson, but I've never met the guy, nor am I ever likely to. Just as correlation does not necessarily imply causation, possibility says almost nothing about probability. There are myriad distinct trajectories for new Wikipedia editors, and very, very few of them involve interfering with a GA, posting on AN/I and ending up here, all within 24 hours. Remember, having an open mind doesn't mean that you have to let your brain fall out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now the guy's just gloating, pushing the envelope - the innocent newbie act - as far as it will go. He's got his finger in his dimpled cheek, like Shirley Temple, looking down bashfully as he slowly rotates his toe in the dirt. "I'm just a poor wittle defenseless newbie, won't you please smite the big, bad man for me? I'd be oh! so grateful for your im-parsh...im-parsh...im-parsh-yaltee." Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume good faith, and assume that you are not just another arrogant, unpleasant, rude and stupid person, but I cannot follow what you are you trying to imply. You can see by clicking the "contributions" link for me that I have only been here since yesterday. It isn't that complicated - is it? Whose toes have I trodden on, or what unwritten rule (or even written I suppose) do you think I have transgressed? I feel distinctly unwelcome, and do not comprehend why. I found an apparent violation, and took what I thought was the correct action, no more. Talk about hornets' nests. Please try to see it from my perspective, and try to answer the obvious questions first. Jaggee (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not "just another arrogant, unpleasant and rude person", I am this specific arrogant, unpleasant and rude person. The thing is, though, that, like you, I'm not stupid, which is why we both know precisely what I'm saying, and we both know the truth of it as well.

Please do keep posting, though, more grist for the mill. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page stalker) Drmies, you have my permission to remove this and trout me, but it seems likely you're at teh supermarket or something. BMK: please stop mocking the editor, you don't even know what their native dialect of English is and whether they can pick up on your cues, and it's just possible your assumptions are wrong: as they just explained, Drmies edited their userpage, so that led them here (not the reputation of this page as ANI 2.0). Jagee, I'll post to your user talk in a mo. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and I suppose it's still a possibility that pockets of the moon are made of green cheese -- after all, we've never been everywhere there. No matter, there was no "mocking" of dialect, just of the absurd contention that the editor is a clueless newbie, when it's apparent to anyone with eyes to see it that he's not. In any case, I do know that Drmies likes his talk page to be a happy place, so I'll let things lie as they are, as I believe I've made my point (although I've changed no one's mind, of course). I'll await the two likely possible outcomes here: (1) the editor mysteriously drops off the face of the earth, or (2) the editor continues on his merry way, providing more and more evidence and, eventually, is determined to be a sock of a banned or indef blocked user, or perhaps just of someone who doesn't like Luke. Stay tuned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) BMK, I suggest that you treat Jaggee with good faith. They may very well be new (in fact, many new users know of policies very well). That does not allow you to be rude to them. Jaggee may have made a mistake (i.e. posting on ANI instead of on the article's talk page), but their edits are pretty valid. Drmies can probably sort this conflict out from here, as I know that they know more about BMK's behavior than I do. Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've laid it out to them on their talk page, so the trouts may now start flying. I'm afraid I just have a low tolerance for mockery, even after all these years on the interwebs. /me waves to the unicorn. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be a good idea to develop a similar lack of tolerance for socking, it would actually be useful. In fact, I'd support the idea that the entire project should be CU'd, every single damn editor, and undeclared alternative accounts be shut down. (But, of course, I'm also in favor of common sense stuff like no IP editing, so we know that I'm part of the lunatic fringe.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, just the opposite fringe from me '-) I'm pretty intolerant of socking - I've been involved in cleaning up after Pumpie, for example, and I just wish he would learn.English. so he could be unblocked and his stuff could stay - and be useful. But online privacy is extremely important to me; there are people who've suffered very badly from having their legal identities revealed online; there have even been deaths. It has to be a personal decision whether to self-identify, I'm afraid I'm quite serious about that. Also IP editing is a gateway drug :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yngvadottir, I've had to clean up after Pumpie's mess before as well, and his sockpuppets do make quite a mess. Maybe we can talk about that somewhere else…
    Anyway, editing on other accounts should probably at least be tolerated if you don't abuse IP addresses or other alternative accounts. I'm not in favor of socking, though. Epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yngvadottir, you should be on payroll. Yes, I was at the supermarket, and at swim practice, and then out for a walk, and little Rosie (4) rode without training wheels for the first time--so I'd like to say that I had a pretty productive morning. I'll let you in on a little secret: what I call "diplomatic" is really selective reading. I see a bunch of editors, some of whom I respect very much and others whom I don't dislike (I don't dislike most people), hammering away at each other and I simply choose not to read all of it.

    In other news, I forgot to buy dishwasher detergent, so don't be surprised if I'm absent for the next eruption of bad temper. I do have a suggestion: step away. Make a sandwich. Read a good story. Then come back to this joint. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (watching) Thank you for good advice. Only, sometimes it doesn't work. Step away, - I did (see user and talk). Only: I forced myself to read the last two archives before the season, all of it, and wonder if stepping away is enough? - Going to play the piano, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the book, will look closer. - Define "doing well", Stepping away and playing the piano (in suitable B minor) probably does me well. Digesting the discussions mentioned above does not: my user pages haven't been this empty since a few months into Wikipedia. Kept (since 2012): "Wer ein Wort des Trostes spricht, ist ein Verräter" (pictured). - I am looking for a good translation of "awesomely weird" to German. The one of Google Translate is awesomely weird. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And we've lost (hopefully temporarily) another good editor - a content creator and also willing to get down and do the dirty work that can wear us all out. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:-( I too hope it's temporary. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For more sound sound: what do you think of translating Move Like This (the first of the four links) to Dutch, or whatever you speak? We did German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I started. Why? Drmies (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the title, and the idea of getting together after a long pause, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha Gerda, I ran into some trouble over there at the Dutch wiki, with some editor placing an "improve" template. Then I improved it, removed the template, and the editor put the template back and undid my improvement. So I'll get back to it after the Dutchies go to bed. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning repeated deletion of Crescent Cymbals entry

[edit]

The entry I created for Crescent Cymbals has been deleted. This is a cymbal company, same as Paiste, Sabian, Bosphorus, and numerous others that have an entry on wikipedia. The original submission is a work in progress that I intend to update as I acquire more information about the company.

I'm at a loss as to why Bosphorus Cymbals entry is preserved yet this one is deleted -- *I* created the Bosphorus Cymbals entry, so I'm at a loss as to why one is deemed "OK" and the other is not.

Please allow the page or elaborate EXACTLY what's wrong with it. I urge you to compare my entry to Bosphorus Cymbals and reconsider. Thanks, Mike BigMikeATL (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)BigMikeATL[reply]

(talk page stalker) Why is one there and the other deleted? That honestly probably has to do with the vagueries of who gets to a given article when. Bosphorus Cymbals as written could probably be deleted in the same manner. The problem is neither article gives evidence of notability - a jargon term as used on Wikipedia. Has either company received independent coverage in the press? If you can, for instance, show that a company has received attention in Drumming Today magazine (I'm making that up, but whatever actual drumming publications would be where you want to look), you'd have a much better argument that we need articles on those companies. LadyofShalott 02:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Lady is absolutely correct. I'm looking at Bophorus right now and see no reason for keeping it. Thing is, that article was posted years ago; since then we've increased the number of eyes on newly created pages--that might well explain why the one is still there and the other one isn't. Yes, reliable sources, that's what we need. I write guitar and amp articles, not drum articles, but the rules are the same: find reliable sources that discuss the company and review its products. One more thing: it may be a cymbal company, like Paiste and Sabian, but that doesn't mean it's a cymbal company like Paiste or Sabian, if you catch my drift. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicted addition to my post) The Crescent cymbals article didn't even give us a reason why someone might consider it important (hence the speedy deletion). Just existing doesn't mean the company is significant or "notable". You've got to show that it is. LadyofShalott 02:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of fairness, balance and natural justice (and also per WP:NOT), I've tagged Bosphorus Cymbals for speedy deletion under WP:A7. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the combination of its being around since 2006, having multiple editors, and Drmies's having just made a major cut to it, I don't think a speedy deletion is the way to go on that one. Sorry Demiurge, I've reverted that. I would not oppose a prod or an afd. LadyofShalott 14:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De Scheepsjongens van Bontekoe

[edit]

Hi Doc. I left a few comments at the DYK nom page. No big deal. Happy New Year! Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTF on Yohio?

[edit]

User:BabbaQ does a blanket revert of a month of edits made by several users to the article without even having participated on the Talk page since May and gives no further rationale than "changing back to neutral version." He removed several changes that had nothing to do with the contentious issue, including info on Yohio's appearances music videos. How the hell can you side with his reverts..? This has nothing to do with BRD, it's about a rash editor who hasn't even from the outset ever explained his actions or properly participated in the discussion.Kiruning (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiruning your language here on Wikipedia leaves a lot to be desired. I dont understand your point really, you claim that you think that Yohio has no career in Japan what so ever, still you are the one who wants to mention his career all over his article. Instead of the current version that just simply states one or two lines about his short Japan career and mostly about his Swedish career. And frankly Kiruning you insult me and Bishonen any time you get the opportunity while me and Bishonen keeps on point and are the only two users who want to discuss this while you "want your way at any cost", enough is enough. And it wasnt "several users edits" that I reverted as the other edits from other users were edits to repair damaged links that your edits created. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to from now on ignore the user as I see it only leads to more drama. But Drmies, please take some kind of action as the users behavior is unacceptable. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kiruning has now asked for a third opinion about the Yohio article. So the POV pushing continues, and it is quite laughable that Kiruning now is censoring his earlier rude comments at the Yohio talk page to look better ahead of the third opinion. Anyhow, take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BabbaQ, I don't mind some strong language, though especially non-native English speakers (including myself) should probably exercise more care. Kiruning, I see you insert a bunch of material which is contested and reverted, and then you simply stick it in again. That has everything to do with BRD and with talk page consensus and all that. I see that Bishonen has the night off from laying in nipponsuppa supplies and got busy; I trust I see some action on the talk page. I will not hesitate to block you for edit warring if this continues. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmermanh1997 is back...yet again

[edit]

Same general posts on the WICL page (see the IP after my latest revert). The IP used is the same network and same location used by Zimmermanh1997 (and his merry band of annoying sockpuppets). You previously semi-protected the WICL for 6 months, looks like it's time for a year. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sir. Much appreciated. If I run into anymore Zimmerman sockpuppets, I will let you know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

copy pasting

[edit]

I copy paste out of my sandbox to hide the idiot errors I made to get to a final product. Since the whole "preserve the history" thing is about authorship/copyright, it doesn't matter if I copy my drivel from my sandbox to where ever, right? It's only if I'm translocating someone else's fine prose that moving the history is important. NE Ent 02:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, that makes perfect sense, when you're the only editor. As a bureaucrat (in the non-WP sense, of course) I am merely making a general and in most cases redundant point. Ent, when you copy that sandbox, can I nominate it for DYK? Drmies (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_61&oldid=1089956090"