Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 69

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

The Matadors (band) again

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I just took note that The Matadors article afd discussion was closed as "delete" earlier today, under in my opinion rather dubious circumstances. First of all, I'd suggest that claiming that any form of "consensus" was arrived at in this instance, even after being relisted twice in an attempt at gaining one, is stretching it a bit. I've always understood that it's both customary and somewhat encouraged by policy to default toward retaining an article in a context like this, when it's far from clear that a consensus has been arrived at in an afd discussion.

The admin who closed the afd discussion today mentions in their rationale that some of the article's existing sources seem rather 'light weight', which I'd have to agree with. However what wasn't addressed in their conclusion, and was even acknowledged by those who weren't all that fussy about retaining the article, was the fact that the article did contain what appeared to be potentially substantive references in support of its retention.


Hi there I have tidied up the Martineau references on Neville Chamberlain

In my opinion, the closing admin failed to look closely at exactly what references were being challenged in this instance. They mention that it "might meet the local clause in terms of notability guidelines for bands in (WP:BAND)", but then appear to imply that the references supporting that contention were themselves being challenged. I'd have to argue that that position is not clear at all in the afd discussion that was engaged in and that a minimum amount of research would strongly indicate that the band winning a locally significant [[1]] "Jack Richardson Music Award" three times in the past ten years is strongly indicative that the band easily meets the minimum criteria under the "local clause" in WP:BAND. What compounds the difficulty for me in this instance is that the article itself was locked for the duration of the discussion and thus IP editors such as myself were precluded from directly adding supportive references that would have potentially aided in the article's retention. Could you please have another look at this situation? Thanks again for your time. 99.249.137.197 (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matadors (band). I'll have a look when I can. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't see that the decision would have been incorrect. The closing admin looks at the evidence and distills a consensus opinion out of it--and really, the only evidence of notability is that award, which is local and therefore minor. You can challenge this, if you like, at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but you should first talk this over with the closing admin, Slakr. Arguing over the precise applicability of some phrases in the notability guidelines is typically not a fruitful venue: a brief case, precisely stated, with evidence from reliable sources will be necessary to recreate the article, but "new" evidence is not likely to cause the AfD to be overturned, since the AfD is decided on the evidence brought up during the discussion.

    One more thing: IPs may have been prevented from editing the article, but it's at the AfD discussion that evidence should have been presented. In the end, there may simply not be enough--sure, psychobilly is underground, which means less coverage in the mainstream press, which means it's more difficult to keep an article; that just can't be helped. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a fan of psychobilly (Even have a vintage Gretsch and a Telecaster with a Bigsby and Gretch pickups, but I digress....) and I went and listened to a few of their songs, Teenage Zombie Sluts, Burning Desire and 9 Shots Of Bourbon. Good stuff, clean chops, well produced and very likable but I think Drmies is right. There just isn't enough sources from mainstream publications to pass WP:GNG. The closing admin did the best with what they had and seemed to acting in a way that is perfectly consistent with similar AFDs. If you had an account, you could ask for it to be userfied, although as he points out, psychobilly is very underground by its nature and sources are always hard to come by. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why didi you remove it?

[edit]

Hi User:Drmies, I realy want to now Why did you remove the page Reyna Avila Ramírez-Arellano and redirect it to List of Camp Half-Blood characters???, it was a own page and I don´t know why did you do that?

Explain it to me please, Tonys99 (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page stalker) I see it was a rather large article, but I didn't see any citations from 3rd party reliable sources that would show the character was independently notable. This is pretty common, actually, and they get redirected to the best place. Unless the subject can be shown to pass the General notability guideline via reliable sources, this is pretty much the standard way to deal with those articles, no matter how long and lovely the article is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 08:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tonys99, Dennis is correct--that's why I did it. Individual characters etc. are notable only if they are discussed in reliable sources, in-depth. That they are some main character in a notable game or whatever doesn't mean they should have their own article, and a redirect is the best solution. Thank you, and thank you Dennis, Drmies (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Calvert

[edit]

Deleted a rant about you and the article, but the editor does have a point (which I left) about the pov tag without discussion on the talk page. Time to remove it? Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was here.[2]. See also[[3]. Not sure if I am too involved to block. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked after the responses to my post at User talk:Thumperward#Please take a look at the edit I reverted. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw--thanks Doug. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Street characters

[edit]

Hi, you reverted my edits on Rita Sullivan, Fiz Brown, Gail Platt and Carla Connor. They were the original pages to begin with as that is what the characters are most commonly known as. On List of Coronation Street characters, since the characters have been married one editor keeps changing the names on the list, and now have changed the name of the pages so that they match the list. Look at the edit history. This is wrong which is why I keep reverting them. Basically the original pages need to stay and the new ones - Rita Tanner (Rita Sullivan), Carla Barlow, Gail McIntyre (Gail Platt) and Fiona 'Fiz' Stape need to be deleted. Never has a character article name included their new name and their original name. It is only their common name which they need to have, or if that article is already taken then "Rita Sullivan (Coronation Street)" for example. The user also needs to banned from editing as he continues with disruptive editing and a number of different editors have warned him against this. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been discussion on List of Coronation Street characters, and look at the hidden messages on the page. The link MUST match the article name. But that user keeps changing it to his needs, and because people keep reverting him he has now changed the article name as well which as I've explained is wrong, and when I've changed it back my edits are being reverted. All I'm doing is trying to fix things. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't take it up with me: the discussion is at ANI. All this moving and reverting is highly disruptive, and no matter what side you're on it only makes things worse. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000

[edit]

Hi, Drmies. I have a slight problem. I have repeatedly asked User:Demiurge1000 to stop modifying my comments as I object to his interrupting of my comments on ANI. He recently did this against my objection, after I had previously asked him to stop many times. I have given him another warning here.[4] Could you ask him to stop as well? Per our Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." I have objected, many times now. The last time I objected on his talk page, he deleted it with the edit summary, "remove dishonest filth", which is a bit over the top and out of the ballpark.[5] The talk page guidelines also say he needs my permission, which he does not have. He is welcome to add his comments below my comments at any time, and previously I moved his reply out of my comments into a section below mine, but he removed it. His edit summary above also seems to be a bit trollish as it reads "no justification for removing my comments per WP:TPO", which is ridiculous, as he is the one who keeps modifying my comment by interjecting his own comments in between my own. I would like this behavior to stop. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh...I'm trying to figure out what's going on in that edit on ANI--the revert of Johnuniq's revert. Maybe John can explain? Is this a case of me getting a headache because editors intersperse their responses inside another's comment? Phew. As for the "dishonest filth"--sure, that's over the top, but you came out rather strong as well. But it is said on occasion that Demiurge1000 has been known to be notable for being a reasonable editor and a net positive, and one might say that some have said the same about you (all this needs to be proven, of course, in the court of public opinion), so maybe can you two please work this out over Hawaiian beers, or anything else of your fancy? I'd blabber more, but I also have to make the dough for pita, or there will be no dinner. Sorry if this is not much help to you. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going off on one of my customary tangents.... It's been years since I made my own pita bread, but I remember the excitement of watching them magically puff up, and then cutting into them and seeing the pocket! I hope yours turned out well. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the patience to sort out the diffs, but it looks like what Viriditas wrote is back at ANI. Demiurge1000 has a legitimate complaint about harassment from WO, and there is a mounting tendency for regulars from there to overwhelm a discussion here while they push some minority view, so they are a problem for the health of this community. Nevertheless, messing around with comments from other editors because they are listing evidence from WO is not helpful. I suppose that if Demiurge1000 pushes the disruption button on a few more occasions some kind of topic/interaction ban could be devised. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize this sounds totally crazy, but let's look at the facts:
  1. Demiurge1000's complaint about WO has nothing to do with the discussion and is completely off-topic.
  2. I do not participate at WO nor have I ever contributed anything to that site.
  3. There is no "minority" view being pushed. In fact, the view is mainstream and supported by solid evidence.
I hope that clears up any outstanding issues. Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like my above comment is open to misunderstanding, so let me clarify. I was saying that Demiurge is correct that certain WO actions are bad, and some discussions at WP are overwhelmed with WO advocates. I do not think either of those applied to the ANI discussion we are reviewing—the fact that some WO things are bad is not a reason to reject anything connected with WO, and my remarks about "minority view" were about the general WO problem, and nothing to do with the ANI discussion or you. Sorry about the confusion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OT with a vengeance, but what is a WO advocate? And what is the WO problem? I just stopped participating there myself, but both of these concepts are new to me. Then again, I haven't been around WP or WO for that long, so it's probably obvious to everyone else. ,Wil (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is pretty obvious that multiple editors will read a thread over there and come and comment/vote/edit in a way based on what/how they've participated in. In general canvassing is frowned upon (see WP:CANVASS) yet it is debatable whether it could be called canvassing as it's not as if editors have been actively canvassed (just some threads that folks read...). Certain editors also have a poor relationship with the core group over there and vice versa. There are also lots of individual stories behind much of this, many of which are less sanguine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, a lot of people tried to tell me about those poor relationships from both sides, although I'm not sure what would be considered the core group over here with so many people bumping about. I wrote a blog post about why I retired my username there. There are still a lot of good people over there. In fact, they are all good people. But some good people sometimes act like dbags. Seems to happen on-wiki, too. Definitely happens on wikimedia-l; at least Wikipediocrats gave me a laugh or two when they put me down. ;) ,Wil (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Beatrijs (Dutch magazine)

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Beatrijs (Dutch magazine) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! C679 05:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hwæt!

[edit]

As one of our resident Beowulf experts I thought you might want to take a look at this new product of mine. De728631 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow--that's impressive. I'll have a closer look later; I still haven't ordered my copy, haha. Listen, make sure you nominate this for DYK--you'll get a million hits. Great work, and thanks for letting me know. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, that New Yorker review has been laughed at among the professionals (I suppose I'm one of them but I'm only now reading it). For instance, I just saw that Wiglaf is called a "knight", which is of course an impossible anachronism. And the poem doesn't tell us that the dragon is fifty feet long, unless I missed it--did I? Anyway, I need to check what that review says about Heaney, and the comparison, since the problem with Heaney's is not the alliteration, which isn't the foremost characteristic quality of his translation. (It's the scullionspeak, as he called it.) BBL, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your input will be most welcome. Oh, and I've taken a shot at DYK. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You did an excellent job; I couldn't have done that at such short notice, giving so much context.

        I tweaked, and noted that the reviewer mentioned "rhythm" as well, so that's a fair observation, though she overplays the "gobbet" bit. She was being laughed at for calling Pearl and SGGK Old English poems--it's a mistake, sure, but not one to be ridiculed for. In the profession, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't: someone writes a decent review in a national publication of an Old English poem, and all the folks that will never make it into such a publication have to find ways to criticize and yes, ridicule, perhaps for some kind of validation. It's a bit sad, and the same happened when Heaney's came out. We should be happy with any kind of publicity, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        • Thank you for the compliment and also for tweaking the article. I guess this review business is much the same as in other professions there are always those who prefer who count beans over seeing the whole effect. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright De728631, I ticked the DYK nom off--it was completely unproblematic. I think I made one or two more tweaks. Oh, yes, to your line about Kevin Kiernan: he isn't so much a reviewer for a magazine as he is the most outstanding scholar on the manuscript, and I made that link blue as well. Help from you or any of the onlookers will be appreciate: he deserves an article as well as a DYK slot. You may know that I hate writing biographies (says the fool who just wrote up Ben Essing, two days late). Drmies (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • And I just thought my Wiki-fu was weak! When I wrote the Beowulf page we didn't have an article about Kiernan... Hats off to you and your mad biographical skillz. Thanks again for waving my DYK through. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the weird thing. All of Kiernan's pages are at uky.edu/~kiernan, which is dead as a doornail, and there's nothing on the UK website. Did I miss a scandal? Did he get disappeared? Writing an academic's bio, one looks first at the academic page... Drmies (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, there must be an NYT article in which Kiernan is interviewed. I hope he'll forgive me for including the negative info on the Electronic Beowulf but, well, ahem, mine doesn't work well either, and the ANSAX mailing list is full of complaints. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remains of his webpage at Google say that he's emerited so apparently UK has now decided he doesn't need his own pages any more. De728631 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • De728631, I'll see your "lecturer at Birmingham", and trade you a professor at the other Birmingham--not a BLP, unfortunately. Thanks for the addition. Hey, I dropped a line to the ANSAX mailing list, announcing the Tolkien and Kiernan creations. Some of those tenured cats may be vandalizing our articles soon! Or, create new articles on A-S scholars; I left them a sort of challenge. Thanks again De, Drmies (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fairy Tail episodes (season 5)

[edit]

Hey could you add a protection template to this page. Thanks! —KirtZMessage 17:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change visibility?

[edit]

This edit summary seems to fit RD2. If so, would you please change its visibility? Thanks again! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the Canadian Wikipedia one would be blocked for something as harsh as:

You sir, are a rather unpleasant individual, and quite frankly I don't care for that sweater vest.

--kelapstick(bainuu) 12:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us UK editors are proud to have attended Scumbag College, I'll have you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. They rejected my application--I was too bourgeois, they said. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?

[edit]

Since you had a look at some of Historian's edits today, I thought you might want to see a summary of all of them. I really don't know what to do or where to take this. Should he just accumulate templates and continue patterns of about 9 months? One of his first edits was to call another editor (the CEO of the subject article) a criminal. Would you like the link? Am I wrong to ask you and give you this info? Am I myself attacking or canvassing? I'd appreciate not being called a banned user without evidence. Okteriel (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from Wil

[edit]

I heard this is the place where all the scum of Wikipedia eventually settles. Had to see it to believe it. Anyways, greets from ,Wil (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

settles?! ...floats, surely. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Sorry. Let me try again. Ahem. So, I hear this is where all the floaters hang out. . . ,Wil (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

[edit]

Not only is the SPA user making edits to this article that require careful scrutiny under WP:BLP, he is citing to his own work in support of those edits. At this point I would block him myself, but I'm WP:INVOLVED. If you or one of your talk page stalkers (preferably an admin) could take a look at it, I'd appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a closer look, the work cited is by other people, but he's citing it in the article as if he is the author. In addition, he's getting chapters of the book from his own website. Probably a copyright violation of the original authors or publisher.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the onslaught. Apparently, Bryant wrote part of the book, and the "authors" of the book are the three editors. I'm assuming, therefore, that he is citing his own work after all.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb, Liz reverted, which is a good thing. I applied full protection for a week, time enough for you or Liz to post on BLPN, maybe, and figure out what needs to be done. I don't have much of an opinion on the editor right now; citing oneself is maybe not so great, but I don't know that it's illegal; if he is indeed the author of that article it is possible that he owns the copyright and can link to it--but I'm not expert, as you know. Perhaps Moonriddengirl has an opinion. Sorry, I'm not of much help here. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your and Liz's actions are much appreciated. Citing oneself is akin to writing about yourself. It may not be prohibited by policy, but the policy encourages you not to do it, particularly if other editors object, without at least having a discussion on the talk page. In other words, the presumption is that it's non-neutral. As for copyright, generally the copyright of an author's published material is owned by the publisher. Therefore, citing an online version of it on the author's website is probably a WP:LINKVIO. That, of course, doesn't prevent the author from using an offline citation of the book. The BLP issues have been hashed to death on the article talk page and at BLPN in the past. There are the usual camps, but the outcome thus far has been not to include Bryant's material nor to cite to Bryant's article. None of that, of course, even addresses the material itself and whether it should be included, even if it is reliably sourced, but without reliable sources, it doesn't get off the ground. I don't believe I personally participated in either the talk page or the BLPN discussions, but I may have at some point (there's been more than one). I'll start another one at BLPN now and let people knock themselves out, but we should always err on heeding WP:BLPREMOVE in these circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As for copyright, generally the copyright of an author's published material is owned by the publisher." That ain't true. While there are certainly cases where the copyright may be originally held by the publisher (material written by a employee rather than a freelancer, collective works created under a work-made-for-hire contract), and some cases where the copyright might be sold to the publisher, in most cases of prose books the copyright is held by the author, from whom the publisher licenses publication rights. (I'm saying that as author of dozens of books and the publisher of dozens more.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no way of knowing what arrangement there may be between the author and the publisher. All I know is the publisher has a copyright notice on the book that says the copyright belongs to it. My anecdotal experience is that's standard. And in response to Drmies's comment below, I don't think journals work the same as books, but that's speculation on my part.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the one I have none, of the other a few; in academia often the writer of an essay keeps the copyright after journal publication. I cited an article by Howell Chickering (a red link for you, Bbb23) yesterday in a bio of Roy Liuzza--Chickering has the offprint of the article on his own website, and since he published a dual-language edition of Beowulf he has to be legit. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Butts, Jr.

[edit]

Hi Drmies, since you have some context about this page, I was wondering if you could take a look at my Request Edit here? CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, I've also been poking around for a couple weeks looking for someone to review this request edit. I'm afraid North8000's ban has left me bugging quite a few editors looking for those with a willingness to collaborate. CorporateM (Talk) 17:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may or may not know that I was not in favor of North8000's ban. Funny to think that I have to pick up the slack for him: we couldn't disagree more on important issues. I hope he's doing well off-wiki. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CorpM, I started reviewing and am making comments one at a time. I'll tell you when I'm done. So these Ivy League minions make more in their first year out of college than I'm doing as a tenured professor, with almost twenty years of experience teaching. I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to my check--which probably pales in comparison to Marvin Bower's monthly dry-cleaning bill. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine how I feel about Wiki-PR making millions, while I do 10x better work for, you know, less ;-)
Actually though, there seems to be some wildly different estimates on how much they make. McKinsey doesn't publish any accurate information because it's private, so a lot of it is guesswork. I'm sick, so take your time. I'll look over your comments when I'm feeling better. CorporateM (Talk) 22:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that "imagine" as a kind of hypothetically impossible imperative. Sorry to hear you're not feeling well. Hey, I'm not doing so well with your draft, I'm sorry to say. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the sources you don't have access to, would it be better if I added a quote parameter to the citation template? Or is there some other way to do it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that would be a start. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've corrected and/or responded to each comment. There's a mix of stuff in there - some of it is just minor differences in style. There are a couple errors I accidentally carried over from the prior version and a couple areas where I put the wrong citation. There's a few places where you didn't see the material in the source, which was in-fact there - I provided some quotes, etc. to make it easier to see the source material supporting the article-text. The source material on this company is both extremely vast and extremely polarizing, making writing the article and making it representative of the sources feel like an impossible task, but we're getting there inch by inch. CorporateM (Talk) 00:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies thrown out from Saudi Arabia

[edit]

Drmies, I'm sorry to see that you were thrown out of Saudi Arabia. My wife would like to know your friend, Omar Borkan Al Gala. She refuses to allow me to delete the article. She says she has much research to do. I wonder why she is booking a flight to Alabama with a dreamy look in her eyes? Bgwhite (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

Hey, Doc, I didn't mean to diss you by ignoring your ping. I was out of town and offline and am just now really catching up while continuing to deal with RW issues. The controversy was here and, frankly, dispute resolution wouldn't have provided them with any help because neither of them have even attempted to discuss their dispute. Or use edit comments. Or sources... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that source (Strange Weather...) quite directly

[edit]

The coverage was not significant. I do believe I did not call it unreliable. However, it cannot make a proper article. Regardless, thank you for your time and assistance. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I disagree: the coverage was significant, and you cut it with an edit summary saying "Removed all unreliably sourced material and all material without sources"--I'll suppose that it simply got thrown out with the rest of the trash (because the rest was trash). But please be more careful next time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Thank you! --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dick

[edit]

Re Dick Dastardly, I was quite surprised and amused to learn that his full name was "Richard Milhous Dastardly." What are the odds of that? 28bytes (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trotz in reality (remember "Trotz dem alten Drachen", you archive so fast) happened on 11 June, see my talk: I started OTD (on this day) of my fading memories, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ps: growing here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lamberti? One of "my churches", did you see the one where Leibniz was buried? (top of my talk, and of my memories) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ps: don't miss the moonlight collection by the returned bracket bot! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Americanisms?

[edit]

Does the word "unaccept" really exist in the US? I've just rejected a pending change at Prithviraj Chauhan and the button says "Unaccept revision". I recoil at "disinvite" but, sheesh ... - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't unaccept something that hasn't been accepted, so it doesn't really matter if the word 'really exists'. Of course it exists, you've just used it and I've seen it discussed. It doesn't seem to be in any dictionary though if the discussions are correct. Why doesn't the button say 'reject' I ask? Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Where's the unthank?" - it's in Norwich. - [6] Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
I suppose it was considered the short form of "do not accept" or perhaps "unacceptable", which it really isn't. Maybe reject was just too harsh language.--kelapstick(bainuu) 11:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that "niceness" was added to the dictionary only after being spoken by a former US president as a then-made-up word. I think if the president has the right to make up words, then so do I. The dictionary is just a fluid reflection of a large number of words that are all made-up anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has cites for unaccepted from the 1612s through 1899 [7], so I think its provenance is as an "Americanism" is perhaps weak. Rejected is a better choice - but harshness may be the reason. On the other hand, the "default" mode of wikipedia is to accept all edits, so from that perspective, this edit was indeed "unaccepted". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM, whoever you heard that from made it up. "Niceness" is an old, old word, and appeared in the preface to the original King James Bible long before such things as presidents had ever been dreamed of. 80.43.231.147 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the pending edit is still "pending" there are two buttons: "Accept" and "Revert changes", there is no "Unaccept" button at this stage. Once a reviewer presses the "accept" button the pending edit gets accepted. Another reviewer may find fault with such acceptance and can go back to the diff of the same edit. Since the edit was previously accepted, the "unaccept" button appears at this stage to enable the undoing of the acceptance of the previous reviewer. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks everyone for the input and for the explanation of why this seemed suddenly to appear. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of One

[edit]

You hack away with a machete, killing the good plants along with the weeds. Destroying the work of others is so very easy and makes you feel like such a big man. You deleted the article I spent hundreds of hours on, after one person vandalized it to remove the sources before nominating for deletion. You didn't even read the previous AfD, did you? The one where it was decided that the article met notability requirement--notability requirements that your fellow deletionist does not even have a grasp on. You equate reliable source with scientific source or prestigious source--this conflicts with wikipedia's very explicit definition of "reliable source." You delete pages by citing policies you don't even understand.

That article was terrible, but not due to a lack of notability or a lack of cited reliable sources. It was terrible due to vandalization. The correct move would be to protect it, not to destroy it. But your kind would rather destroy heaps on the basis of a 2 person vote. Shameful and disgusting. Petty minded destroyers like you are why I will never write another wiki article. Yossarianpedia (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yossarianpedia, thank you for your comment. Next time, please place them at the bottom. Yes, I did the previous AfD. I do not equate "reliable" with "academic", and there was no "vandalization" of the article. You claim I don't know policy, but at least I know my ass from my elbow. One more thing: if you can't exercise self control, the internet may not be the right place for you. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You deleted the page, you are responsible. The man who nominated the article for deletion also vandalized it by removing 32,000 characters. He basically deleted the entire article with a sweeping determination that all 30+ reliable sources and the 32,000 characters of prose were somehow bad. This man is new to wikipedia and doesn't even know the definition of reliable source, as shown clearly in his pathetic comments. By deleting the article based on the word of a vandal, you have demonstrated your gross incompetence. You should be ashamed of yourself and stripped of all admin privileges. I have no interest in attempting to quote the obvious facts of this case when the admins are so incompetent. You could have viewed the article history or read the previous AfD consensus to ***keep***. You chose not to, and so you are at fault. You are an irresponsible hackjob deletionist who has failed in his duty to perform due diligence. I am being completely civil in pointing out the deficiency of you as an admin. All admins are subject to scrutiny. Only responsible behaviour of an admin can justify their increased powers. You have shown yourself to be an ally of a vandal and irresponsible. The fact that when you discovered your error you chose not to correct it confirms your wilful irresponsibility and your guilt. If you can't conduct yourself properly--with the responsibility that comes from the power of your office--then you should recuse yourself from your duties and get off the internet. Yossarianpedia (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you are not civil. You're crying foul but you are in error. That an article was kept once doesn't mean it should be kept again--and that seems to be the heart of your argument. I will tell you again (and it really irritates me that I have to do so, but in the land of the blind...) that I read the history: if I hadn't, I couldn't have made that note now, could I? (I mean, duh.) I will gladly accept scrutiny from my peers and other competent Wikipedia editors, but not from you: you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. For your own education, you can always read WP:VANDAL, and then you'll see that you also unjustly accused the nominator. I mean, if you can "write" 32,000 characters worth of summary of esoteric channeling of alien intelligences, maybe you can be bothered to read some policy. And don't come back on this talk page no more, or Ra will be very upset. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I was moving it but too slow! Ignoring the nonsense from Yossarianpedia, I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (2nd nomination) which deleted an article with that name - and we also have a currently running AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (Ra material) which seems to be the same article. The existing one looked like [8] before Thoughtmaker removed most of it, very similar to the deleted one before Thoughtmaker removed most of it.[9]. This is because Bilbo moved the material to the deleted article. Then Nyttend reversed this perhaps not realising that it created a duplicate article? Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page stalker) @Yossarianpedia: I looked at an earlier version of the article and then ransacked the house looking for a second source, since Drmies has added a statement at the AfD noting that there was one good one. To get the deletion decision reversed would require at least a second, preferably a third. I see several books cited without page numbers. Some of those might do it. Could you possibly find us page numbers and if possible be ready to quote specific sentences that support the statements made in the article about the books' influence? Unfortunately, although this household has an extremely good library in related fields, we're weak in New Age. The situation with the second article complicates things, but at least it means non-admins can see what sources have been cited. Can you help us out here with anything that will demonstrate the issue should be revisited? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi (talk). The reason there are two articles is because of vandalism. There are a lot of morons who don't understand wikipedia policy that keep fudging up the article. Then there are other people trying to fix it who may not follow the regulations perfectly. And then you have admins who are so thick they don't even know how to read the notability guidelines. They don't understand that wikipedia has a different definition of "reliable source" than a chemisty classroom. It's a tremendous failure of education; but what do you expect for an amateur encyclopedia? Thoughtmaker's removal of 30+ reliable sources and the content based on them can only be described as vandalism. It's an absolutely joke that anyone would see that as legitimate; at the very least you would remove bad prose but leave the sources in the reference section. Anyway, the article is about a series of notable books, and the series of books is factually called "The Law of One". If you or your fellow lawyers would bother to actually read the history of this case, you would see that that argument has prevailed in the past, because it is absolutely correct and strictly conforms to wikipedia guidelines. It conforms to the letter. Let this case stand as an example of vandalism, hacksaw deletionism, and laziness--with people sticking their noses into a conversation without even reading the history of the conversation and familiarizing themselves with the facts of the case. I'm looking forward to this article being removed so I can cut all my emotional ties with this ridiculous joke of a website where the authorities don't even know their own rules, and where judges pass down judgements without even reading the established facts of the case. Where the workers who do all the work are given no respect and expected to spoon feed previously established consensus down the throats of lazy and entitled admins who feel their snap judgements should invalidate and erase hundreds of hours of other people's work. Welcome to Wikipedia. Can't wait to say goodbye forever. Yossarianpedia (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Yossarianpedia: - so you are simply going to continue to emote without being willing to do the donkey work of suggesting a specific source? Emoting is so much easier of course. No one is stopping you from reverting Thoughtmaker - why do you expect someone else to do that? Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I get for trying to help save it :-( I said I looked at the version before the cutting; I don't have access to those books. I now see the complex history (thanks for the alert, Dougweller) and we have what turns out to have been the original article still at AfD - I hope someone else can come up with at least one other extended treatment. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) He's added me to the list of evil-doers - evidently I'm a right-winger. Basically he seems to be saying he's an expert and that's all that matters. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I am proud to be a member of the (select all that apply) [right/left]-wing, [gay/straight]-agenda pushing, [pro/anti]-gun control, [pro/anti]-environmentalism movement.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My impression is that David Wilcock read the Law of One series, was profoundly influenced by them, started channeling Edgar Cayce, who was the re-incarnation of Ra, also known as Ra Ta, so Wilcock is now regarded as the re-incarnation of Ra by Uri Geller. Kind of arse-backwards. If Wilcock is important in New Age thought, then this book shows the influence of the Law of One on Wilcock, and hence on New Age thought. Ta Ra Ra Boom De Ay. After reading that stuff, I'll have to spend tomorrow regrowing my brain cells. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wot a dilemma! The book could be used as a source for Law of One, and to expand the Wilcock article. On the other hand, it's ludicrous garbage and however it's integrated into an article it's going to look pretty silly. Wilcock was partly responsible for the construction of the Great Pyramid, by levitating the rocks, which he did by communicating with the rocks and requesting that they move themselves. In 2004 he revealed a scientific explanation for the geometry of the design. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was about what I thought, although I didn't get so deep into specifics. Many thanks for doing so :-) Life is throwing obstacles in my way, but as soon as I have time to marshal a good case, I'll give it the old college try. @Yossarianpedia:, I'm truly sorry if you can't see your way to helping, but you owe Drmies credit for identifying one good source, and besides he is a good host here. So I've switched out the section title for something more informative and neutral. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that New Age people were supposed to be mellow. Clearly, I was wrong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor sees himself as having built a neutrally worded article and defended it from POV "vandalism": see this from January that I found in trying to figure out the history here. I now see he's blocked, btw, so I can't talk him into amassing some karma points helping to save it. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Beatrijs (Dutch magazine)

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hup Holland hup!

[edit]

Looking pretty good so far. Should have been 1-6 already.

Fabulous, congratulations. It was an annihilation. I too know what euphoria is, [10], but Holland is still great, while we are invisible. Great match yesterday! --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was amazing. Might be the best public spectacle I've seen since the conga lines and halleluja chorus in the square when Berlusconi resigned.[11] Bishonen | talk 11:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
William the Silent? I don't think so!! Yay, ga je gek sinaasappels! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
♪♫Wilhelmus van Nassouwe, Ben ick van Duytschen bloet♫♪♫ Or is this a bit too soon? --Shirt58 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
…and for tonight Inger-land Inger-land Inger-land! (not to be confused with Ingermanland, who aren't playing). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...hey, Inga Lund? wasn't she younger sister of Ilsa Lund? "Play it again Steve", "Here's lookin' at you Wayne" etc., etc.Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, alright--it's just one game. But so far I've seen some exciting football--I caught the second half of the Costa Rica game, and I just fell into two goals in Italy-England. Exciting stuff. But yeah, it's hard not to be euphoric. As it happens I'm f*ing teaching during the next two games...what do I do? Drmies (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is America: we don't do pubs, and we don't do humor either. I teach business writing and advanced grammar: neither lend themselves easily to football metaphorics. Martin, please abide by the MOS (WP:OVERLINK!) on this here talk page or I'll have you severely spanked by one of our senior administrators. Ah, soccer's on. "Let's talk about Honduras"...nah, let's take a nap. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strewth!! Not that easy in the outback, Bruce. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... and now Spain get well and truly Hendixed!!?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
.The celestial irony now largely dissipated, I feel. The Shrew Tamed. A classic. Hafspajen (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Woo-hoo!! You can't beat those canaries! what a very fair goal. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ... and now you Oranjes are really Walking in Memphis![reply]

Neville Chamberlain

[edit]

Hi there I have tidied up the refs. re Sir Thomas Martineau on the Neville Chamberlain page. I think the refs to his personal papers and his connection to fellow liberal unionist has been widely reported on and need to be reinstated. There will be a Chamberlain conference in Birmingham on July 3rd and 4th 2014 and this information in most certainly part of the "whole package" and needs to be included on wiki. All the best Mike

Hi There Thanks for your edits - done in good faith. I think you'll agree that there should be a reference to the personal papers of Chamberlain in this article. given by the Martineau family in 1974, they are now archived at Birmingham University. This reference has long been in this article.

All the best

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.213.149 (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, this isn't a matter where I have an opinion on the inclusion. I'm just looking at this from the perspective of quality control. Plus, if you are reverted, you should think twice about undoing that. But that's just me. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.

[edit]
Good home-made food, stewed sauerkraut.
  • Sooo, indeed. Well. Just leave for a second for the Baltic states and what do I find on my return? Mass moving around dog titles. Bolonese...dog, Armant dog... Hm, same editor, no consensus. And one more, Akbash dog Akita dog, Barbet dog, Billy dog???? this sounds plain silly - and no consensus just somebody acting. The breed is called Akita, not Akita dog, Bolonese, not Bolonese dog, Akbash and not Akbash dog... This is just silly. Billy dog, right... I certainly didn't see any discussion about re-naming. It is about 15 articles ... Hafspajen (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you didn't tell me you were leaving, and I have yet to receive a postcard. As for the billy dog--My man MCA's got a beard like a billy goat. Oooh-ooh! Drmies (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the Barbet, and I don't have an opinion. You should discuss this with the mover, [User:SMcCandlish]], who's been here longer than many, and sounds like a dog lover. It's not what you call the dog, I suppose, but what you call the article. And you know what I call the dog--I call her Sadie! Drmies (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a mess, but tastes excellent; known in Dutchland as huzarensalade.

OH, don't ping him, it is not his love of dogs that is the problem here. It made Montanabw and Gerda reacting already, here Talk:American Paint Horse#Requested move. But WHY on eart can't you write Billy (dog)? What is wrong + and why. I mean if you put an article title like this Billy dog, what is that? Is a dog called Billy? Or is it Clinton behaving badly again? Hafspajen (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I didn't even noticed that comment. Well, too bad. Thanks for removing it anyway. And what Hapfsjen? It is called Hafspajen or Haffy, at your service. Hafspajen (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing Hafspajix. I can't wait to read your blog posts on your Baltic trip. Yes, one can never go back, can one. I hope the rest of your summer back home is entertaining, Senor Haf. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blogg

[edit]
  • Plenty of ruins, each city or village is full of them.
    Plenty of ruins, each city or village is full of them.
  • Plenty of storks, all ower the place, standing beside the road, on rooftops, poles, around in parks and lakes, lovely.
    Plenty of storks, all ower the place, standing beside the road, on rooftops, poles, around in parks and lakes, lovely.

It looked like this, more or less. Good food, really good, pretty bad hotels at times - some good though, roads terrifying, bumpy, and hopeless. Very cheep alcohol - note only the local stuff - I can recommend Tartu, Kuldiga, Sigulda,and Kaunas. Seen also Gulbene, Bigaunciems, Kabli... well not to recommend it as much. Hafspajen (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • And nice people? Any adventures? I heard about the storks in Eastern Europe: that a Dutchman would have to go to Slovakia to see his first stork is an outrage, which we owe to DDT, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice waitresses and receptionists at the hotel... And the not so nice Russian turists in a buss, drinking vodka all night at a terrible socialist youth hostel, dirty, old and neglected. (only place to sleep in the town...) That was in Zarasai ... and our article describes it, ironically : The increasing number of providers of tourism services confirms that Zarasai is a newly found place for relaxation. PPPpfffftt. No place to stay, except this terrible thing, 2 restaurants - 1 of them a pizzeria. Telling lies, like Munchausen, are we.
Victor Klemperer

By the way, no curtains in the windows, for some reason... not one place had proper dark curtains. A huzarensalade? Hussars sallad? Hafspajen (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big lie, isn't this reminding you of SOMETHING? Well, talking about the wolf, "Lupus in fabula" . Hafspajen (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember to order soup in the Baltic countries, wonderful soups. And do try the appetizers. Those appetizers are not what you think they are: appetizers in those countries are an enormous big plate of different cold cuts, vegetables, this and thats and you eat one of those and you will not need any main course - well maybe the soup. (And it is considerably cheeper). Hafspajen (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henri van Abbe

[edit]

Good morning Doctor. Can you add to this from Dutch wiki and elsewhere?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ernst, good morning to you too. Sure, I'll be glad to, though it may not be today. Oh, the guy from the Van Abbemuseum! A quick look at Google Books tells me that much of the info is directly related to the museum so we may not get DYK-length out of it, but I'll see what I can do. Take care Ernst, and thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ian Gow

[edit]

Hi, Drmies. I just thought I'd give you a heads-up. The RfC on Talk:Ian Gow has been running for nearly four weeks. If it goes for thirty days and the tag is taken off it without anybody closing it, you're going to start coming under pressure to unprotect the article and allow the edit-warring to resume. If I were you, I would go to whatever noticeboard it is and try to get somebody to formally close it. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

[edit]

Thanks for nominating me; it was an interesting experience. I hope I live up to your faith in me (after I figure out how to block all my enemies and delete all the articles I dislike without attracting unwelcome attention). Deor (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure thing Deor. You'll discover that abusing one's admin position isn't as easy as it's made out to be, and that you might be as much under the microscope as during your RfA, which you handled very well. Good luck, thanks for your service, and if there's anything you need, just ask Dennis. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, dump the n00bs on me ;) Be glad to help any way I can, just ask. Oh, and Drmies, sorry about Talk:Ian Gow. I intentionally didn't read anything you had written before I jumped and slammed a vote in there, as I didn't want there to be any claim of influence or canvassing. Looks like we have slightly different takes on it. Mine was mainly due to frustration that so many people were using "policy" reasons, yet appear to have never read those policy pages. I'm a little more grumpy than usual lately. Been going to the gym every day and my back feels like there is an icepick stuck between my shoulder blades....and I'm out of happy pills. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, you disagreed with me? Holy snikey! Pity you quit drinking beer. I was just going to suggest the Abita Abbey, or possibly the Ommegang Saison: two great American beers at a great price. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't quit, I'm just being a good boy and abstaining from imbibing for a short while. I've never been one to drink more than two (with some rare exceptions). This is why I only drink good beer, like Shiner Bock. Life is too short to drink PBR. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think Shiner Bock (which isn't at all terrible) is a good beer, then we clearly have some work to do. Now run out and get some Ommegangs, different flavors, and "imbibe" them. Then tell me Shiner Bock is good. Sheesh Dennis, I'm disappointed. You know that some of the best beer in the world comes from "your" area (well, SC)? But it's $7 for a small bottle. Surely Favonian agrees, even though he would downplay his country's own performance, that Evil Twin is indescribably good, and some of their beers come out of SC. (Psst...break the budget and get a Hipster Ale...) Drmies (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago I went to the Beer Fest, saw about 100 brewers there. I remember parts of it. I think I drank more than two that day. And yes, imbibe. That is the only reason I come to your talk page, I get to use all the $2 words I can think of. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have rubbed the bottle and summoned Favonian. Sad to say, I'm not much of a connoisseur – and as you surmise, less of a patriot. I shall try the Evil Twin though. Always a sucker for a good brand name, witness the fact that BrewDog's products have found their way to my gizzard. What's there not to like about Trashy Blondes? Favonian (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know... that APA and IPA are the latest rage on the German [sic] beer market? People here may just have become fed up with interchangeable, boring TV-sports-and-chips lager and Oktoberfest style. De728631 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So there's still hope for Western Civilization? I'll drink to that! Favonian (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this incredibly interesting concoction, too. Belgian Tripel, begone! De728631 (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Did you notice the shape of the glass on the page you linked to? I just have to get myself one or more of those glasses to add to my collection of beer glasses, which among other things includes glasses from all the different Trappist breweries in Belgium/Holland, including breweries with hard to get products... Thomas.W talk 21:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, there's more to German beer than Beck's, Fischkopf. Play nice, and do NOT insult the tripel on this talk page. For instance, Einbecker Brewery makes really good and slightly not-so-like-the-other-beers beer. (And that's a wonderful article, even though it suffers from poor English--wonder who wrote it.) Thomas W., for glasses, look no further than Brouwerij Bosteels and get yourself a Kwak, glass and all. Favonian, I'm telling you--those Danish gipsy brewers are on to something, and the beers I've had from them simply blew me away. If only they were a bit more affordable. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
De728631 sending a gift of stroopwafels to Drmies in remorse.
  • Umm, perhaps I forgot to mention that I actually like the occasional tripel?! And I agree with you on the assessment of Einbecker (beer and article). 17:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, Dr, a glass of Kwak, a glass that is less than a foot long, might be all that Dutch beer drinkers can handle, but real men drink a yard of beer. Thomas.W talk 17:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have one but I'm familiar with them, and have even managed to drink from one without getting beer all over me... Thomas.W talk 18:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional Aussie yard of ale. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they've had a family barbie. I was once told that Australian English has more terms for "throwing up while drunk" than any other variety of English (including terms like "technicolor yawn" and "round-trip meal-ticket"). Wonder why. Thomas.W talk 18:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin, that's hilarious. De, a boot is nice--though I once got a bottle of grappa, blown in the shape of an elephant. At Alabama that bottle (empty) turned out to be worth $50. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That must've been a fashionable bottle indeed. Did the grappa pour out of the trunk? De728631 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zarasai

[edit]
Hussar without a salad

Is this the same dam' place? Roskiskis. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's Novo-Alexandrovsk-Exerenay-Zarasay; Reminiscences of the Old Home by Nisn Sacks, Moyshe Sharp-Saltuper, and Pinye Albert, translated by Harry Abramowitz. Site worked just now, and now it doesn't- odd. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one looks like he would like to toss himself on the lady - sooner or later, if you excuse my French. He looks like a Terrier waiting for the bone. A present for Rosie, if she didn't saw this one before, nice Jack and the Beanstalk (1974 film) animated film. Hafspajen (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he already has the bone. Writegeist (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does he keep his hands on his sword then? Is he affraid of something? Hafspajen (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's, um, symbolic. Writegeist (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HonorTheIsland

[edit]

I am getting a bit worried about the quality and reliability of the edits of user:HonorTheIsland. He or she is often placing long list of island into articles. What bothers me most is the fact that HTI names capitals and cities on islands with just or few or completely zero inhabitants. And that many of HTI's settlements are beaches. For example here: Wallis and Fotuna, Whitsunday Islands, Administrative divisions of French Polynesia and List of islands of the Maldives. I usually find them because they top de page "Articles With Multiple Dablinks".

It is in fact the pattern that worries me, combined with a page full of warnings and maintenance messages. The uncooperative response on Talk:List of islands of the Maldives adds to my worries. This grows over my head and I need help. The Banner talk 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked at this a bit yesterday but had a hard time with the (content) point about beaches etc. (I'm just not knowledgeable enough.) I will grant you that the plethora of warnings is troubling. I guess there's no active Wiki project for whatever he is focusing on, where you could go for some backup? Drmies (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chiding Drmies

[edit]
Thsscch, thscchh. Gardian angel dissapointed.

What is this I hear? that you have never ever gave any cookies-cakes-kitten-puppy-barnstar or stuff to our good friend K-stick? Indeed. Very bad behaviour. You who said: "an editor and admin extraordinaire ... an all-around good guy, writing articles and blocking the right people, and helping editors new and old," .... HM. Thsscch, thscchh. Hafspajen (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true. Drmies did nominate me for editor of the week. Although being ineligible, I did receive the Editor Retention Barnstar via proxy. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every time I grill I send K-stick a message thanking him for his sound advice. St. Vincent is right: "If I can't show it if you can't see me / What's the point of doing anything?" But you have a point: K-stick is maybe my oldest pal here, along with the Lady, and I probably take him for granted, in the way one doesn't properly thank one's brother often enough. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Girl Scout cookies are cookies that the Girl Scouts of the USA sell. They come in many different flavors. Buying Girl Scout Cookies helps the Girl Scouts out because it gives them money as well as helps teach them important lessons in life. Bless you Brother. Hafspajen (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Managed to buy some Girl Scout cookies on the net - the UK Girl Guides don't do cookies, which I guess isn't surprising. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajix, I call bullshit. It's the parents that sell the cookies, of course, and there are two important life lessons. For the kids, yeah, just sign up, those old idiots will do the work. For the parents, why did I let her sign up again this year? Drmies (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: kids learn valuable shake-down skills. The last time I bought cookies, the 11-year-old took my 20 for $16 worth of Thin Mints and sweetly asked "Do you want change?" Her mother was horrified, but the kid got points for either having nerve, or for gracefully covering a lack of change-making ability. I declined her offer to keep the change, though. Acroterion (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You too, huh?

[edit]

I'm delighted to know we have that in common! Writegeist (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Your quick help here is highly appreciated :) thanks Rectilinium'♥' 04:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Dulmers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dunnit. Interesting article- DYK Dutch journalist Robert Dulmers slept with the pickles? DYK Robert Dulmers imported Pierre Marcolini chocolates into Syria, in violation of UN sanctions? (supply of goods to a person on a specified list of people held responsible for the violent repression against civilians) DYK Robert Dulmers spent some time clowning on a main road between two opposing armies in 1992? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Yes, an interesting person. And look at how I could have said "he was fired for plagiarism"--but there is context. This was an interesting exercise. Clowning? I'll have to see about that, haha. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, good hook. In other DYK news in case you hadn't noticed, Ben Essing initially got the picture slot, but then it was bumped for a Special Occasion hook. And what a Special Occasion! The 89th anniversary of Audie Murphy's birth!! It's just as well that your hook was bumped, because, really, nobody's gonna be looking at Wikipedia that day; everybody will be out celebrating Audie Murphy's birthday!!! (Although you lost the coveted lead spot, at least you got the second most coveted: the quirky slot.) I remember a day when Special Occasion hooks could only be saved for real Special Occasions; nowadays, it can be a birthday or the release of a product or the premiere of a movie or TV show, or pretty much anything. Of course that's a very minor issue compared to the problem with bad reviews resulting in a few inaccurate hooks and/or unworthy articles passing through, and the much, much, much larger problem of the never-ending, constant, nonstop, relentless attacks on every aspect of DYK. I don't understand why individual issues can't be handled without every one being accompanied by general condemnation of all of DYK. I should stop reading the DYK talk page. Or maybe just stay away from DYK altogether. Of course, that's what compounds the problem. The relentless attacks create a contentious and antagonistic atmosphere which drives away users, even those who are not directly being attacked. The loss of users who do good reviews and find problems before they make it to the Main Page will result in more problems getting through, resulting in more attacks. DYK has already been diluted, and it's on the way to simply being killed entirely. Oh, sorry, didn't mean to get all worked up here. Especially so close to what should be the joyous occasion of Audie Murphy's birthday!   No offense intended to Audie Murphy or his fans or anyone associated with his articles. This was just my quaint way of commiserating with Drmies on the loss of his picture slot.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS transgressions ...

[edit]

... can be amusing, like this A7/G11/G12 spelling error: Rememer to smile photograthy‎. :-) Best, Sam Sailor Sing 11:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By your leave

[edit]

She has already, and that is not her fault. Krenakarore TK 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SpinRite

[edit]

I understand that perhaps you have an interest in the software that prevents you from tagging as citation-needed, rather than instant removal of content. I presume that is the way you operate on all articles that you edit, and appreciate your consistency. I will wait until SpinRite voluntarily posts a public list of easily observed issues that are also readily acknowledged by Greg non-publicly. Alternatively, I will post a blog article about it then cite my own blog, which is always good enough for Wikipedia. --JCipriani (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ben Essing

[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! How do you like my pic in the set? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but...your pic? My mother took that photo! Drmies (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the same set on the Main page, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty amazing, Frau Arendt. Pity that the Monet, in comparison, is such a poor-quality image. What a collection. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Archived. Pity also, that the article on Weimar reads in parts as if it was written by a translating machine, - help wanted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weimar- the full-value city where the citizens have their own P for ming seal. Mrs X first became aware her cat could talk when it jumped on her bed and said "Mummy, I'm hungry". The cat developed a repertoire of phrases, somewhat lacking in grammar; "Why no-one love me anymore?", "Me borrow car tonight?". Mrs X contacted scientists, who arranged to study the voluble feline. Unfortunately the cat developed laryngitis just before their visit, having spent a night on the tiles. It was eventually killed in a two-car collision; finding it impossible to tread on the accelerator and look through the windshield at the same time, the cat had elected to choose progress over safety. Next of skin have been informed. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for help given to the article, you are working miracles, - copyedit my articles all the time! - I raised the question what a full-value city is on the talk, some time ago. (I changed the link to city then, not a city but a city, an article that says that it is not a city.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work through a bit more later, but I'm aware that I might unintentionally change the meaning of some phrases- for example Since the Treaty of Leipzig (1485) Weimar was part of the electorate Ernestine branch of Wettins changed to After the Treaty of Leipzig (1485) Weimar became part of the electorate of the Ernestine branch of Wettins, moving "electorate" from an adjective to a noun.Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope those dealing with nobility will sort that out, - I came from music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
…and now on Radio 3 the "Bum of the Flightle Bee" by Korsky Rimsakoff. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
full-value music, reminds me that I wanted to write about a chorus singing that a cappella. Serious question: what is "mehrchörig" in English? One source said "polychoral" but that may be another Germanism, such as the ginormous (germorphous) city castle, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) AFAIK mehrchörig = polychoral. Wiktionary is a good place to look when in doubt. Thomas.W talk 15:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had no doubts, they were introduced in the review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. "Polychoral" is the only term I've heard for it in English, and "poly-" for "many" is common in English words, so the doubts expressed in the review seem a bit odd... Thomas.W talk 16:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you hear today's music, lonely hearts club? When I started the article on Neill Sanders I had no idea that he played the famous horn calls ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edit or revert?

[edit]

If an editor removes content, lets say...a month ago and another editor decides that the content is clearly good enough to remain in the article and a month later returns it with modifications to address the concerns of the editor that removed the content, is that considered a bold edit or a revert?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not that I matter, but I say neither, assuming there is material difference in the edit, such as adding a source. That is an "edit". Something was broke, someone removed it. You fixed it and put it back. That just seems like normal editing to me. This assumes we aren't in 1rr, disc. sanctions, etc. territory. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. That's tough. It depends also, of course, on who did it--if it was me, or a friend, then it's alright. Ha! I think in general a "revert" suggests no changes are made. So if changes are made, with concerns addressed (or at least with an effort made to address concerns), then I maybe wouldn't call it a revert. As for bold, I don't know. I've always found that an odd term; it really only suggests "I'm not taking this up on the talk page because I might not live long enough for it to be hashed out". Drmies (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, if it's a Dennis Brown edit, log out and revert it as an IP. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't matter, I always block anyone that reverts me once. I just tag them as a sock and take away talk page and email access. Now I never get in edit wars. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that so? Well, I'm drinking a Hoegaarden, so suck on that. Hey, if Mark ever loses weight he can be Miller Lite. Also, I started walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator. My current weight loss scheme wasn't working so well for me. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have lost ten pounds so.....(not as if I haven't heard that one before!)--Mark Miller (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, didn't realize it was a bit obvious. In my defense, I missed my nap today. To make up for the lame joke I'll tell you one you've never heard before 'cause it's a Rosie original: How can a cat drive a car? Drmies (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had a piece of apple pie for dinner and a cup of Earl Grey. And a couple of Norcos. I should go drink some of that apple pie moonshine I have left and go patrol ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm having a glass of wine and debating whether or not I want dinner. I had a good lunch. OK Dr. Mies.....how can a cat drive a car?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, sorry. That's the joke. She says "how can a cat drive a car?" in her cute Rosie-way, and then we all laugh. Sometimes her sister will say "cats don't have fingers" or I'll say "they can't get to the pedals", but basically that was the joke. And yes, you want dinner. Dinner is good. We're having carnitas. Yeah! Drmies (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Guess you have to be there. But I will take your word for it, that it is funny. Ha.....ha. I'm more of a dog person but cats seem to like me. I would certainly be having dinner if we were serving carnitas. Well...as long as it isn't from that taco truck my sister bought me last week. The meat was good, but I didn't care for the long strand of hair I found in the first bite.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm trying to determine how generous your sister is, Mark. It looks like you're saying she bought you a taco truck, but I suspect it may have just been carnitas. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No grammatical jabs below the belt of this talk page, Mandarax. There's a well-placed "from" in there, so play nice please. The big question is, whose hair? The sister's hair, that can be overcome, I suppose. A related question, do you think the hair was properly cooked, with all the germs killed and stuff. A question we don't have to ask, given the longness of the strand, is whence it originated--I assume it's not a springer and that's a good thing. Mandarax, the carnitas last night were delish. I also "tricked" Mrs. Drmies into eating the skin/fat, cooked to almost a crisp. (I'm not sure if it was really skin, since it didn't feel like rind.) Sippi, of course, ate twenty helpings. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It wasn't intended as a jab. It seemed plausible that what it said could be what actually happened (and the "from" doesn't do the job you claim it does). I may have been influenced by two different TV shows I've seen recently; in each of these, someone did buy a food truck as a gift for someone else (and, I'm not sure, but one or both may have even been taco trucks). It seemed odd that he wouldn't eat carnitas from his own truck, but then I know that if someone gave me a taco truck, I wouldn't eat the carnitas either. (I don't even know what carnitas are, other than it's some kind of meat.) I'm glad your carnitas came out so well, but I never heard how your pita bread turned out, or what you used it for (filling with falafel? dipping into hummus?).

                      Oh, and most importantly, I wanted to wish you a very happy Audie Murphy's Birthday! Now, I know how wild Audie Murphy's Birthday celebrations sometimes get, but please remember to drink responsibly. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Help!

[edit]

Hey Drmies!

Thanks for the help on the First Presbyterian article! It's the first article I've ever written on here, so it was kind of hard for me to figure how they're supposed to work. But thanks for editing it! If you have any other tips, I'm all ears! :)

Sg424 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Sg424[reply]

Ian Gow again

[edit]

Hi again. The RfC at Talk:Ian Gow is now closed. Hopefully, you'll be safe to unprotect the page, but if the IP continues to be disruptive, you might need to semi-protect it. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57 has unprotected it. Scolaire (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship/Deor

[edit]

We crossed swords here, and I was impressed. When we had our spat I didnt know you, and have watched in admiration since. I take back and for sure have no hard feelings. You seem to be one of the fabeled good good guys. Ceoil (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Ceoil. You sent me an email once, and then a few more; it was some time ago. Don't know about "good" guy (I'm listening to Spirit of Eden right now so I can't be all bad). I will tell you that the less time I spend on ANI and AN the better my wiki life is. Keep on contributing all that great content, please, to those art articles. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disgraced myself in that exchange. I can be a tool at times. Anybody who listens to Talk Talk is ok in my book. Mark Hollis solo. [12] Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hello, Ceoil. Hafspajen (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"What counts in making a happy marriage is not so much how compatible you are, but how you deal with incompatibility." Leo Tolstoy.... "The Bit's What You Make It". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Re:

[edit]

Thank you. I had quickly reverted my edits on the article and was about to erase my warnings when you notified. STiki provides a very limited number of edit summaries and I am too lazy to write my own. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different IP same edits

[edit]

[13], [14], [15]. And all changing weight. Giving us a lot of trouble. Somebody or several IP are targeting dog weight, sometimes just messing around, sometimes changing them to something else. So many times that it is irritating by now. One has to check those changes all the time... We are not many working with dog articles, if we are both missig, the article suddenly say that Rottweilers are 100 kg. Hafspajen (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and our dogs getting bigger and bigger every second. Some time, when your match will end - (I suppose it will not last forever) will you check somehow if it is the same person or area or something? Hafspajen (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If worked on the same stock for any length of time, the Rottweiler tends to develop a bond with the stock and will become quite affectionate with them as long as they do as it directs. I'm glad I'm not "stock"- I'd hate to have a 100 kilo dog being "quite affectionate" with my leg. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xanthomelanoussprog One of the IPv4 Ips is from Missouri, the other from Maryland. Can't figure out how to geolocate an IPv6 address. For the ordinary IPs, just go to their talk page, whether or not it exists, and look for 'Geolocate' and click on that. Of course it could be several people communicating together and messing around. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. Old age creeping in. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they can always call each other or mail of phone or travel... My geolocate became traceroute or somethig. And it is not working any more. Hafspajen (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) On Simple English Wikipedia there is a block on an named user and sockpuppet IPs who also made the same type of annoying changes in weight to dogs and also IP hopping. (and may still be for all I know). [16]. Hopefully it is possible to make a transwiki link. Do not wish to make connection since I am not a sockpuppet hunter...But, just whispering... Someone has made a category, I believe of the associated IPs. Fylbecatulous talk 11:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia where anyone can edit. Vandalism in the form of unsourced and unexplained changes of height, weight, age, dates, number of aircraft/tanks/guns some country has, etc, is going on 24/7 on thousands of articles, and is the most damaging form of vandalism, since it will eventually make people believe that Wikipedia can't be trusted for anything, while at the same time being the vandalism that is hardest to detect. The only way to make it a bit harder for the vandals is to put an end to IP editing, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be enough support for that, for the time being atleast... Thomas.W talk 12:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, it will come up 0 on the screen. If you change something like 23 to 89 the changes are marked 0. Hafspajen (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same Simple English Wikipedia user caused the same problems here at the beginning of May - don't you remember that carry-on, Hafs? These are indeed the worst types of changes and they frequently go back and forth changing the weights/heights leaving everyone else to then have to rake about to check exactly what is supposed to be correct (a truly frustrating time sink). SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC) PS - wow, when did Moosezilla come back?[reply]

Exactly. I remember very well hunting them, yes. This is the biggest problem we have right now, changes where they frequently go back and forth changing the weights/heights. This is why I wanted to know if it can be prevented somehow. They just make fun of us, all. Hafspajen (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for page protection at Rottweilers , [18], one of the most targeted articles, and that was like yesterday. No answer yet. Hafspajen (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. No time to file paperwork right now. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Many bows. Waving much.Hafspajen (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, terrible. But what has that to do with the rest? Hafspajen (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel

[edit]

Now this article has been changed back and forwards. Can anyone check when he died and lived? Different dates. Also it said just 20 minures ago that he was still in office (2010-present) . And what kind of sentence is this: In 1891, Crowther died at Lagos on 31 December 1892. Grr. Hafspajen (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mies, did you wrote on Bishop Crowther's infobox - Primate of all Nigeria? Or where did that come from. No, it was there before [19] Now is that his title or it is telling us that he is an ape? This article is making me nervous. Hafspajen (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help? Drmies (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a Primus!! Hafspajen (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for the welcome page. Achinoam (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. As for the librarian, I do know a little bit about writing, and about writing on Wikipedia. Sometimes such attributions are important, sometimes they are not. I don't see why it matters that this person is a librarian. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about your and your stalkers opinion on something

[edit]

I wondered just recently what others thought about my having tools as an admin. Its OK to outright laugh but don't throw things. That is still your computer screen. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh! we were just watching AFV, a 1999 episode, but this is much better! Drmies (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I don't know. Have you been blocked recently? Have you written content? Have you pissed off important people like me and Haffy and Bbb23? Are you generally a nice person? I think we have a project somewhere, don't we, where they vet prospective admins? Anyway, I got nothing against you, but I don't know exactly what your chances might be without looking closer. Drmies (talk)
    • Well, you know, I think you got a lot of good things going for you, like your work at dispute resolution. That seems like a pretty ungrateful task (like you're always going to make someone unhappy?), so kudos to you for doing that. I'm sorry but it's not a venue I visit regularly, so I can't judge on what might come out of that. I'm sure you made some enemies along the way, like most of us (except Yngvadottir, of course), and I think you need to figure out for yourself what your chances might be. You got a few blocks, pretty long ago, which you'll probably need to talk about (and NLT is of course something that might come up at an RfA), but in all, I certainly think you have broad and fairly extensive experience, with a much greater variety of types of pages edited than I do, for instance. (One thing, though--you got a ton of edits on Jimbo's talk page. I don't frequent that, so I don't know what your interest is there. You can expect that to be an issue for some editors, one way or another.) Drmies (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for that. That was what I was looking for. I am prepared to talk about my blocks and I am a frequent stalker on Jimbo's talk page. Started as more like the character on M*A*S*H that wrote to Sigmund Frued then he started responding and has been very helpful. The number jumped from me participating in a number of different controversial topics on his talk page that were very long. I also just noticed that the other day myself.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not good at this sort of thing and doing it "publicly" seems a bit off. That said, I'll focus on the obstacles because that's my forte. :-) I think Mark's block log alone is enough to put off a lot of voters. I agree with Drmies about the Jimbo posts. Not a place I frequent, and whenever I look over there (rarely), it's an amazing zoo. Another thing that might put off editors is the disproporionate number of edits to main space over other spaces, although Mark has certainly racked up a lot of edits. If Mark is really serious, I would say a more comprehensive review would be warranted by a single admin Mark trusts and who is willing to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've worked near and around Mark for a couple of years now (about the time his block log stopped), and I personally would have no problem trusting him with the tools, but Bbb23 is right that the Jimbo posts, edit distribution[20] and block log are real obstacles. I wouldn't do it today, but think it could be something to work towards. Switching to mainly article edits is kind of a must, as is ditching Jimbo's page. Again, it isn't about MY opinion, it is about the opinion of the community as a whole. From two years ago, I see a very different person, calmer and more focused, so I definitely think you've moving in the right direction. All that said, would you really WANT the tools? They are handy, but being an admin is overrated, to be honest. There is a lot of burden that comes with the job. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to think about what folks will oppose on and preempt that if possible - for instance, having one good article under your belt is good as it (for mine) partly makes up for low percentage of article-space editing...but it might not for some. I'd aim for another two GAs if you want to cement up that avenue if possible. I mainly use the tools for protecting articles, which is a better option than blocking IPs some of the time I suspect. There are not infrequently backlogs at WP:RFPP. Anyway, just some thoughts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber's hierarchy of administrators
  • Before you even think about an RFA, I would make sure you know exactly what you want to say about the legal threat block. The edit warring blocks may not worry folks after such a long time but WP:NLT is not something the community takes at all lightly and you can most certainly expect to get the third degree about what happened there. The other standard piece of advice for all admin hopefuls (or "suckers" as they are also known) is to contribute in admin areas, especially speedy deletion, although there are plenty of other areas where non-admins can help out such as WP:RFPP or non-admin closes of AFDs. And I agree that ditching Jimbo's talk page is a good idea, even if you never decide to run. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the important part to me. What the objections would be and why etc.. The Jimbo talk page was something I had not thought of as being an issue...but then this is the first time I have ever found myself seriously considering this. I think I would never even considered it....but saw User:Go Phightins! recently achieve a set of tools and it made me think about what I want to achieve on Wikipedia and how to do it. I have always been able to help without being an admin, but it also limits me to places I can help at.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the tool is great, sometimes it's not. If you run into a bunch of vandalism, or some 4chan shit, it's nice to be able to take action. But a lot of things aren't that much fun: there is responsibility involved, and some sense of duty as well (for me RFPP is my hairshirt). It feels very different. Every now and then I slum as an IP, for fun, or edit under my alternate name, Beeblebrixton. Beeblebrox's question (what do you want to do?) is fair--I'm not sure that I had really thought up a good answer when I ran, but I was able to mention a couple of things. And look at what it did to Bbb23. One day you're a kick-ass article writer, the next you're presiding over ANEW pretending all the while that you're fair and balanced, when you know he just flips a coin (one with three sides--most frequently it lands on "article protected"). Drmies (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's one thing I wasn't, it was a kick-ass article writer. More's the pity.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've often compared adminship to a golden turd. It looks so shiny, but when you actually have it it can be pretty shitty. (I always thought if I needed an alt account for some reason I would just call it "Beeblesox") Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being an "admin" is something I would have to be comfortable with. The tools and being able to work in certain areas like closing discussions needing admin closings, moving articles and history and other technical mop ups is the main reason I feel having tools I think might be useful, but the polished turd description is certainly that brings up that this isn't a "grass is greener' on the other side. I don't expect having the tools to be like being granted any special knighthood.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I don't think of it being a turd...but then again I am overwhelmingly a content editor most of the time and don't use the tools that much - most of the time is straightforward but can be tricky if you full-protect an article and everyone starts harping on at you. Actually I don't think about it much of the time at all and generally have respect/time for editors based on their edits and insight rather than any extra rank they might have, be it admin, 'crat or arb. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "doesn't function", do you mean because you've disabled your e-mail in your prefs? Anyway, you want me to go ahead and elucidate here? I wouldn't feel comfortable explaining my concerns here on Drmies' page, or indeed elsewhere in public, though if it came to an RFA I might summarize them. To get an inkling, you can review the history of User talk:MaxxFordham between 13 and 16 March this year — yes, the history, because just looking at any one version of the page is kind of pointless as the user kept messing with it. I know that makes it time-consuming, sorry; you clearly didn't have time to do much research the first time round, nor before apologizing to Babba. See what you make of it, because I won't say in this space.
Another, separate, issue a few days later was this, where I had a lot of trouble understanding where you were coming from — not just in the original error, where you pinged me, but in the explanation. I don't follow your editing, and I hope my only two experiences of it are outliers. (That you always post with the intention of being helpful, I don't doubt for a moment.) I hope this response will suffice, but if you want to discuss any of it, please use e-mail (unless you literally don't have any e-mail), because I'm not going to get into any back-and-forth with you here. Dennis or Drmies will be happy to to give you my address privately, I'm sure. Bishonen | talk 15:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
When I say I don't have a functioning e-mail, I mean that my e-mail account does not function. My provider, Surewest has been purchased by Consolidated Communications and when they switched the interface on my account and I went to click the first button, a swirling icon came up and it no longer connects to my inbox. I cannot make outgoing emails through it and I cannot accept, see or read any incoming e-mails. At the moment I have disabled e-mail function because I cant accept e-mails.
Also, I hope you understand. I expected this sort of response, but that is what this is for. Clearly you don't know where I am coming from, but there is nothing wrong with that. The issue you have with the Max Fordam talk page I may be unclear about as you are not speaking plainly, but I do remember the situation. You have already mentioned it and another editor, and I am always happy to discuss any of my editing so you can communicate your concern if you wish. The only time I feel something can't be discussed if it contains personal information. These two situations were unrelated. One was were I attempted to mediate with an editor that was clearly not getting it and had a lot of text that bolded their style of writing and communicating made reading a bit difficult. I was uninvolved. I believe the situation came up from DRN. The other situation with the Viriditas ANI. I was also uninvolved but joined the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, I am not familiar with these cases (though I surmise that Bish is not speaking plainly out of courtesy). Nor do I have much of an opinion about the posts on Jimbo's talk page, though I think there is some general distrust (deserved or not, I have no opinion on it) of editors who frequent his talk page: of some of the frequent visitors (I've not heard this of you--again, I don't know your edits there) you hear the "crying to mommy" complaints. Something similar with ANI (again, I'm speaking generally): when non-admins frequent ANI they are sometimes referred to as over-eager. Again, you don't have to explain or elaborate here and now--I'm just saying that these are the kinds of things one hears in RfAs and other dramatic venues. If you decide to run, you'll hear about it (Jimbo's certainly, don't know about ANI and how active you are there); if you decide to postpone running, it's a good idea to keep this in mind, considering how to some editors those kinds of contributions look. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking less about a run and more about what others thought, what would be looked at and how that might be overcome by either time and or edits. I have no plans to run at the moment. But a serious consideration of what it would entail with the RFA was enlightening of course. The Jimbo talk page thing I was not aware of at all. Bishonen's concerns may be of the mistakes made and not getting the reasoning as explained or written, but I am not sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you really did ask for input from all talkpage stalkers here ... but take this with a big load of salt, I have recently been accused of both conduct not befitting an admin and incompetence to edit ... I read through that whole sad 3-day talkpage history and Bishonen has indeed put her finger on something you'd better be prepared to have an answer for at RfA; there are a couple of things that could be quoted against you. So be ready. I'd say your motives do you credit - and that kind of attempt to explain and to salvage an editor, for me at least, counts more than speedy delete tagging or AN/I participation in showing you have the heart, and the willingness to try to fix problems, that I want to see in an admin. And you've done GA stuff - that's more than I have or ever will. However, as one comment you made in that March exchange shows you are aware, adminship here not a great job. I wouldn't describe it as a turd, but admins certainly get to see more shit on Wikipedia than anyone would want, including the shit that gets thrown at them. And we aren't supposed to use the flamethrower when the poop is aimed at us. Also, while you can and probably should talk things through with a nominator first, and a good nominator will help you think about how to react at RfA, RfAs are unpredictable; some candidates experience a real Hell Week, while some, like me, are too dense to do anything but just roll with it as seems best (which in my case meant wisecracking). A preponderance of editors believe we need more admins, but we certainly don't need good editors to be so scarred by RfA that they are never the same again, whether or not they get voted in. Also: the ISP thing sounds like a nightmare, but you must have e-mail to be an admin, the community expects it, and you really need it for pre-RfA consults. Drmies, for one, doesn't do IRC. (I do, but don't ask me - see above, big load of salt.) ...And the foregoing plus $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The email issue is relatively new and I just need to deal with all the new changes and upgrades the company now has in place in the very near future on my end. Nothing long lasting. I usually keep the e-mail option checked. I am very curious now what two editors hesitate to mention in the open. I'll look deeper. But I still have no real issue just hearing editor concerns about it. This isn't to extend any discussion from the past, just what concerns editors have over the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my deeper look at all of what I said before the blanking and reverting of the other editor, I specifically accused another editor, Babba, of baiting Maxx Fordam, No matter when Maxx may have been specific about staying off his talk page Baba wasn't baiting. I tried to make it clear that I was trying to stand between Max and other users he was already pissing off and knew they were upset with his behavior on their talk pages and told one that I was at least a witness to it and pinged him so Baba would know I was talking about them. I had not read the entire exchange between the two but did read as much on the talk page and did look through the history when I had posted. I went too far in the wording by making it an accusation not just a parallel of the situation to the other person now complaining on the talk page about behavior and in so doing was demonstrating bad behavior. I made judgment mistakes and compounded them with my own bad behavior with accusations that required apologies. There are a lot of experience issues going on there and compounding them not just with behavior but in not understanding immediately "what violation" from my own comments just made me look clueless and in reality I was more rushed not so much clueless. But it didn't help that my exchange with Bishonen was sidetracked by that.
Now this I can discuss if this is any of what others are seeing. But then I also see why everyone is so shy about this exchange and my current question posed here. It is OK, I will post it. I said to Maxx Fordam: "I will never be an admin. I don't want to be one because there is a great deal of obligation to the job...and it really is a "job". That...and my block log would never pass through an {{WP:RFA]]. But then...I don't want to be one so I am safe there. It was Dennis Brown that, at the same time as pissing me off to the point of nearly screwing myself really badly (very similar to the way you are reacting to other admin) but was also the one who opened my eyes to the fact that any editor can have a major impact on this project." That is an honest expression of self doubt for sure and a declaration of my desire not to be an administrator at that time. I didn't want anything to do with what I thought was the level of obligation required, but see that participation is at very differing levels with different administrators. Part of it still holds very true, Dennis Brown is the one who got me viewing things differently and when I started haunting ANI more and that experienced editors can help and not be an admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make things clear: I believe that many of the non-admins who contribute to ANI do so in good faith, and often are quite helpful. There are of course those who aren't helpful and unfortunately they don't know that they aren't, but if they aren't, it's likely to show up in an RfA because someone will start digging (and that's a good thing--RfA shouldn't be taken lightly, though it's not as bad as some make it out to be). I don't think I've seen you being unhelpful at ANI, and I tend to notice unhelpful more than helpful contributions; it's a Dutch thing, I suppose. So, it's up to you. Anytime an editor has screwed up (or feels that they have, or has been said to have screwed up) and they can argue "learning situation", they're doing a good thing. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for allowing me to pose the question and to all of the editor responses.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will respond, since you're defending yourself in the Maxx Fordham matter, without any specific accusations hav ing been posted and without any diffs, which must make it incomprehensible to anybody who wasn't there. You didn't do any research before jumping in (in a well-meaning way, no doubt) and threatening BabbaQ for "baiting" the abusive MaxxFordham (now indeffed).[21] I'm bound to believe you when you say (above) that you did look at the history, but you could have fooled me, because you totally missed the chronology of what had happened. I can't emphasize enough that it's essential to be sure of your facts before upbraiding, let alone, threatening, anyone. Taking a look at their record doesn't do any harm, either. And altogether taking on the notion that words can hurt, they need to be weighed and considered. If you're that rushed, it's far, far better not to post at all, something that I'm still not sure you realise. To defend an editor unjustly accused, I then felt bound to spend my own time exploring the page history (Max's messing about, changing other people's posts etc, made it a bit of a nightmare) and explaining the facts to you.[22] The "thanks" I got certainly did make you look clueless, also aggressive and self-righteous.[23] There are so many things wrong with that post… I see Dennis saying above that you've been so much more calm and focused for the past two years, and I'm glad to hear it — he knows you much better than I do — but still, this business was just three months ago. Your apology to Babba was pathetic, btw, with a strong subtext of "I still can't be bothered to find out the facts".

I don't understand what you're saying about the unrelated ANI incident either. Above, I mentioned that it was about the way you pinged me, so I thought I'd made it clear, but apparently not. I linked to the relevant ANI subsection above, but perhaps diffs are required. This is your edit I was talking about above as incomprehensible, where you thought the thread (which I had never edited) had been opened by a sock of mine. (Well, more than "thought" it, you seemed to know it.) This is my surprised response, and this some nasty hints from you in response (shrug). I'd never seen those before my ANI diffgrubbing just now, as you quickly deleted them. That was wise. This is your following explanation of the misunderstanding, also for me hard to understand. I've never before had anybody think my self-requested blocks subpage was about me blocking myself. I'm very anxious to be clear and precise on that page, so I'd appreciate your advice about how I can be more so. Finally, are you aware that it takes 20 seconds to get an account with G-mail or other webmail? "My e-mail account does not function. My provider, Surewest… etc etc… I have disabled e-mail function because I cant accept e-mails" sounds like a blast from the 1980s. Mind you, I don't need for you to have e-mail, myself, because I have now at your insistence told you in public what I think. In a nutshell, Mark: both my experience of you (which I hope wasn't typical) and your contributions history suggest that you post much too fast. Try posting half as much and twice as thoughtfully for six months or so, if you want to be considered for adminship. Bishonen | talk 15:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Before I read all of the post Bishonen, I don't believe I was attempting to defend myself. This isn't for me to defend. I have no issue with discussing my activity in an attempt to step back and see myself through other's eyes but I mentioned only what I believed was the issue you had.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even though your heated words and thick sarcasm I can see a few things. If this were an RFA I would have e-mail access. I am aware that one can create throw away accounts, but this isn't the CIA and I am not trying to hide my mistakes and I was not going to go to through the trouble of creating an e-mail account to discuss this when I was and still am willing to be open about it. You have added a great deal of opinion. Opinion can't be debated against. It is what you think, and I wont bother trying to tell someone what to think. I made mistakes as I have stated and I can even go through and point by point address each on of your diffs and will, but I suppose I should take my time on it. --Mark Miller (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a threat, but a badly worded warning that accused BabbaQ of purposeful disruptive behavior. It was based on his last post on the 13th which, while it appeared Maxx had been baiting BabbaQ, this seemed to be saying "You keep making me respond to you". I did read the talk page and I did see a few attempts that did seem to be asking BabbaQ to stop posting on the Maxx's Usertalk page but then there were also clear baiting issues going on with Max. I do know that an admin made this comment that Maxx deleted for some reason just after BabbaQ made their last edit. The accusation of baiting was made on the 15Th two days later after any such issue would already be stale. It was a very bad attempt to placate the editor and make them feel that someone was trying to defend them. A mistake was the ping. I thought I was being transparent but the perception of less than good intentions is understandable.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This exchange is simply attempting to clarify that I did not say there was a violation. In the discussion, I acknowledge being wrong about the accusation against BabbaQ. I was far snarkier than I needed to be for sure. I have no other reply to your framing of it above.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in this situation is one of tone, technicality, timing and improper notification. My tone with Bishonen was unnecessarily adversarial and I made a technical mistake of saying one over another was behaving badly and did so days later when bringing it up alone could reignite a dispute, let alone pinging the editor to the exchange. Pinging is more than a notification to let someone know you have mentioned them. When using the ping or {{u|}} it is like an invitation to the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems pretty clear. But understandable why you would find it incomprehensible since you were not the secondary account of the OP. When you responded in confusion I was adversarial in response. I don't know if there was just too little in my explanation and it is just confusing you or you just don't actually believe the explanation. As I said, you responded to the OP's self requested block and from the way I was reading it with the added second use of your name it looked like you had both made the request and were responding to it. This is actually what happened. This isn't excuse making or defense. I accused you of having a secondary account over a misunderstanding of a unique situation (a self requested block) and the addition of the essay link repeating your name in the block request. This is not looking before leaping and is an issue. I have a one last thing to comment on in just a bit but wanted to say this.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery

[edit]

Wikipedia is a most mystical place. How come that this editor who made like 26 edits since 2010 december just happens to be online and active right now..? Well, I am just wondering because my other editor friends, like Emir Ali Enk are never there when I need them... you know. The major expert in kebab. Hafspajen (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fast forward to the end to see the devil dancing (embarrassing). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One minute in and I love that song already. Wait, is that a flute she's holding? I'm against flutes. Oops, at 1:58 someone lost the beat. Oh! A dancer! Oh. The devil. A Golem walked through the shot? And someone bought the CD and then got the hell out of there. No, don't play the flute! Nice of her to have her parents involved with the show, though. Xanty, how do you find this stuff? And did you watch the whole thing? Why? Drmies (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Drmies (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<- ? +?[24] [25]Precision walk http://www.dailyonigiri.com/2014/02/incredible-japanese-synchronized-precision-walking/ Precision walking... Oh,NO ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! synchronized precision walking http://sploid.gizmodo.com/japanese-synchronized-walking-is-a-thing-and-its-compl-1503584229 http://www.lostateminor.com/2014/02/04/japanese-precision-walking-competition/ synchronized walkingHafspajen (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha
No, it is NOT Chain walking. Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the bassist. No, didn't watch the whole thing! Seen them twice in a pub, and each time the band's outnumbered the audience (I think there were 6 in the audience last time). Now known as Multimorph. She does poetry as well :( Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I watched the entire video. The mood I am in, I needed some atonal hell of a song. It sounds exactly like I feel. Misguided flute and all. Thanks for the stalk post. This talk page is better than the Algonquin Round Table. May I just be one of the participants who wanders in and out? Fylbecatulous talk 22:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy
You are more than welcome. This is a happy place--or at least I hope people will be happier after having visited. I want this to function like an echo chamber, where everyone hears what they want to hear, whether good or bad. There is, however, an article-writing requirement, and those with one or more GAs get top billing on my Twitter feed (Drmies on Twitter). Those with GAs on muscle cars and the like, yes Dennis Brown, should know that two car GAs count as one DYK. An FA on witchcraft counts double, and GA/FAs on math (sorry Kiefer) are discredited. Users who contributed to Turkey bacon have to start from scratch (which is Bbb23's talk page). All articles on beer and Czech poets count double as well. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google tells me the Japanese term for precision walking is Shuudan Koudou, 集団行動, but ja:集団行動 is linked to Group action (sociology). Hmm. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--is this about pooping in a bookstore again? Drmies (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Hafspajen (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 08:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Vanjagenije (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We had a crazy happy fun time at the Glore Psychiatric Museum :D

[edit]

Just started an article that you and the stalkers might like to help with. I love these obscure tourist type articles. This would actually be a fun interesting place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, that chair looks like the manufacturer had a second product line for the penal system. De728631 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the travel trailer line as well. Calm down, take a poop, and get electrocuted all in one chair. I'm not sure if they did electrotherapy in that or not, to be honest, but the pooper scoop makes you think that might have been there for that purpose. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely modern farming and alternative medicine techniques have better ways to make people calmer, eh Farmer Brown?
Back to the point, paging User:Arildnordby, perhaps this will tempt you out of retirement or something? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_69&oldid=1148908222"