User talk:Drmies/Archive 75

Minimello

Sweden's on a roll! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone translate the voting system. I'm unsure as to whether the rolls in the studio audience get a vote, and there's some kind of "joker" as well. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this looks fascinating but I can't check out the video right now. How is Bishonen's entry doing? Drmies (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McKinsey & Company

The current article states

"according to an article citing public tax records, the senior partner leading McKinsey's Norwegian office in 2011 earned 67 million NOK, or between $11 and $12 million USD."

The link provided as a source is here.

user:Crisco 1492 has removed it a couple times (or so) at my request and user:My2011 has restored it. user:Hahc21 also said they may have some time to help on this page at some point (generally speaking), but was busy with some other stuff at the moment. I figured you were responsive in most cases and might be a good source of a third opinion. CorporateM (Talk) 00:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly surprised that it keeps getting included. Yes, the person makes big money. So what? The Norwegian branch is of little relevance to the main article, and the salary of its senior partner even less so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Crisco 1492 and CorpM, in that context I can see a point to it, so I'm not inclined to remove it stante pede. However, that source, the link doesn't seem to go anywhere and for something like this the sourcing needs to be strong. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case the income of consultants is an issue raised by legitimate sources, so I see why it keeps getting added. But we've already covered the issue with much stronger sources and without violating the privacy of any individuals. The article still needs someone to spend more time with me handling potentially controversial edits before it will be GAN-ready, but that was the only thing that jumped out at me as something that should be handled promptly. CorporateM (Talk) 03:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that article doesn't show up--the link redirects to the main page, no? Drmies (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

archived version. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! First, I'd like to respectfully disagree with CorporateM: the Norwegian government publishes these lists publicly, and has done so for every Norwegian citizen, and it doesn't violate the privacy of anyone. Second, I think it's a very important point that senior consultants make in excess of $10 million salary --- especially in the context of motivations for the Galleon case, which is another section CorporateM and I have worked on together (i.e. money could not have been their motivation). I don't believe it is generally well known that salaries are this high for senior consultants. This is important information about the company and the career track of management consulting in general. My[2011] (talk) | 06:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Crisco 1492 @user:My2011 I'm looking through my early drafts, where I had "New McKinsey recruits are paid $70,000 to $80,000 a year, and some senior partners earn more than one million dollars a year." This was cited to a USA Today article (citation 65) that said "Even top McKinsey directors, who rake in a million-plus a year" and a Wall Street Journal article (citation 60), which says "Senior partners can earn $1 million a year or more." Both of these are in-depth profile stories. I think these are much stronger sources to use.

There are numerous problems with the current content and sources in this section. For example, the sentence saying "these numbers have likely substantially changed" appears to be original research/synth/speculation. It says managing directors were estimated to earn $5-$10 million, but the source is actually referring specifically to Gupta and would be better placed on his page or the galleon scandal page (or not at all, since the source says its an estimate from friends and family). CorporateM (Talk) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, CorporateM. The reality is that senior directors (including Gupta, since the managing partner is also a senior director) make at least 5-10 million plus, confirmed by the Norwegian salary data. This is a big difference from "1 million plus," and I worry that you're trying to hide that fact. As regards to the original research, I think that's coming out of McKinsey's own internal history, as quoted by a book on the topic. I hope this is helpful -- it's an interesting tidbit that came out of our earlier work together that changed my view of the Galleon case (e.g. Kumar was certainly not motivated by money for his crimes at these salary ranges), which is why I'm fighting so hard for it. My[2011] (talk) | 00:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howe, exactly, would CM be hiding this fact? The salary of a person in Norway, which has a different cost of living than the United States and is given in a different currency, is not necessarily reflective of general practice. We need a stronger source, citing that this in general terms, rather than just for one person. Kumar's 5-10 mil salary was mentioned in a Business Week report (now offline), but again: that's one person. Sources don't say whether its an exception or a rule. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive profiles on McKinsey in USA Today and The Wall Street Journal are just much stronger sources than a blurb citing an individual exec. Doing some Googling, another BusinessWeek source says $2 million and Financial Times says $1-$3 million. We can ask a couple more editors for input, but consensus may not go your way (it happens to the best of us) and in that case we need to respect what Wikipedians (as a group) decide, even if it's not what an individual editor would prefer. CorporateM (Talk) 15:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only dog I have in this fight is Envy, and I'll stay out of editing the article. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed this on to user:Bbb23 to get additional input with what I hope is a neutral notification. Figured it would be worthwhile to give him/her a ping here, so they can see the discussion thus far. I didn't notice this originally, but it looks like it has been a slow-rolling edit-war for the last year and a half, so it would be good to finally get it sorted out and find consensus one way or another. It's strange that editors often make speculations as to what the article-subject desires. I would think they would very much like to boast about their high salaries in order to attract recruits (isn't that why they do it?).

Regarding envy, you and me both Drmies. But then, what does anyone truly need with that much? CorporateM (Talk) 22:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can get me a 24-carat gold pool. Plus, it buys a lot of clothes for a lot of Ebola patients in Africa whose clothes were burned when they went into hospital... And then I can finally get that brake job for my motorcycle, and eat a steak. Yeah, let Bbb sort it out. They've been napping on the job anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick (Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gaaaaaaawd. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sphilbrick, please explain me something. The page as it is now comes from the preliminary hearings. I see that responses to my comments are in there, but my comments are not. Why? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that comments by contributor other than named parties are copied to the talk page. So you will see your comments here. Despite being a clerk for a number of months now, I have only opened a couple cases, and I was a bit surprised to see that the instructions indicate that location. I've asked a more experienced clerk to check my work.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the instructions:

When you have moved the statements by named parties from the case request to the case page, you will be left with the other statements by uninvolved editors. These statements will need to be preserved, but they are stored on the talk page of the new case page you are creating, and not with the "Preliminary statements" section you have just made.

--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed

My friend Mies,

looking at this message (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite#Assistance_needed) and all its sub-messages, can you please lend a hand and let the proper user (Mishae) know where I stand? I know I'm being hasty after having already contacted another admin/user, but I see Matty is not active as you for the time being, and I'm in kind of a hurry to prove a point.

They can call me what they want, a bad person, a nuisance that does not know when to shut up, a loonie/retard for saying 3,000 times I was going to retire and returning 3,001, the lot. But a troll or that I harass people?! Way too much to handle.

I will not make any more promises about retirement (must respect others and myself), will leave when I leave. What stops now is the communication with other users (ALL users), let's see the community pin anything on me now!

Kind regards as always --84.90.219.128 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I am being accused of sockpuppetry, of all IPs on earth I am being accused of being the last idiot that taunted me into leaving (this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.81.115.107). You'll see more details in User:Tide rolls' talk. This is way beyond serious. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Situation resolved. Apologies to all parties involved, happy work to all. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad. I tell you what, I'm NEVER going to edit Wikipedia again. This was my last time. Later VASCO! Drmies (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forced seduction

I added a citequote tag. If it's in the book mentioned in the next sentence, it didn't show up in the preview I was given. I tried Googling part of the quote, and the only result was your article. LadyofShalott 16:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) LadyofShalott "Author Roundtable Discussion" Appendix E (I think page 288) http://books.google.com/books?id=oWOqSxWgVvIC&pg=PT288#v=onepage&q=%22many%20of%20my%20female%22&f=false "Pornography is a dangerous word... on eperson's porn is another peron's pleasure. For example, wheter it's politically correct to admit to or not, I know for a fact that many of my female readers love coyeristic rape fantasies, key word being fantasies. They certainly wouldn't want it to happen in real life, but enjoy the escapism and total lack of control provided by forced eduction scenes in romance novels. What is pornography? I don't know. If there aren't children, dead people, animals, etc. involved, then it pretty much poils down to a matter of personal taste. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gaijin. I didn't see that in what initially showed for me. I removed the tag. LadyofShalott 16:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One citation for two references--this is the first time today, since this morning, that I had time to sit down behind my computer. Phew. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LadyofShalott, this is a fascinating topic, of course--I started on it almost a dozen years ago, prompted by Mrs. Drmies's reading habits. About time I put it on the calendar here. I have been reading Stevi Jackson, which may be too old-fashioned for our Gender Gap Task Force, and which runs the risk of essentialism (haven't read the whole book yet), but offers very valuable insight. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ARB submission.

In your 1st list item you say "... Carolmooredc, in her section "User:J3Mrs Her five edits at GGTF", attempts to prove J3Mrs is disruptive. The last diff in that section is ..." but you link to the section. Perhaps you might link to the last diff? Since many (myself included) don't insert comments in order, I was confused as to what you meant by the last diff? By time or position?

And on a lighter note, a personal question; If you could be married to a dish, what would it be? Despite my handle, it's gotta be Peking Duck. Though I might have Carolina BBQ as a mistress. And there had better be slaw in the sammich like God intended.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK. There's two "section"s in there. I tweaked it--see if you like it better now. I could not be married to a dish: I'm too much of a slut. Sitush, nice to see you here again. DYK I'm a strident feminist? Hope you and yours are doing well. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off again tomorrow, Drmies. This is but a flying visit to defend my name etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the second point, Flapjack (oat bar). Sweet goodness that clings to me. OK, it is laden with sugar but I blank that from my mind in favour of the grain. My mum makes the best ever. Honest, she does and I don't care what anyone else might think of their mother's version ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiener Schnitzel - sooory.. Hafspajen (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot just say 'Carolina BBQ'. Them is fighting words!! Which Carolina and what part of the state? Fylbecatulous talk 16:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those who can't tell one BBQ from another, ping Dennis Brown. I do like Wiener Schnitzles, though I have found the breading can also mask shoe leather pretty recently, as vacation in Czechoslovakia proved abundantly. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Carolina = mustard based, whole hog, (ie: "everything but the squeal"). Lexington style = vinegar, catsup, salt, pepper, etc. and uses only the shoulder. Both can be chopped or "pulled". Similar in many ways but still distinct in flavor, and the source of many a debate in North Carolina, even in the State House with law makers unable to declare an "official" style. I kid you not. I often do a blend of styles, including some country style pork ribs I have in the oven as we speak, with a dry rub (Texas style) that uses sugar, paprika, red and black pepper and salt. Will put them on the grill later to get a sear on them, then a little sweet sauce which I allow to sweat off in the grill, via Kansas City style. Mrs. Brown likes that kind of sauce, and Mrs. Brown always gets her way. Dennis 2¢ 18:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiener Schnitzels

Only heathens use the mustard base. I prefer pulled, but chopped is a nice for a change of pace.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An idea - Carsten Eggers

File:Gitarren-Stilleben-1.jpg

Carsten Eggers

. I already gave a lot of work to Yngvadottir and Xanty - so I say - I put this one on Drmies-facebook. This German guy is good. This is his article on German Wiki. But it is a long article, a lot of work. Anyone?

Carsten Eggers
Hey, only joking, that's Melendez's ham and eggs

Hafspajen (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to do a first-cut translation from the German article, if that helps. Since German Wikipedia have different ideas on copyright, I would request importation of the German article (with history) into my user space (or elsewhere if preferred) and translate it there.--Boson (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any userbox you want to use or would User:Boson/Carsten Eggers draft do, Boson ? I don't think the German history is needed, only a remark that it was translated from the German Wiki - on the article talk page, when ready. like this, {{Translated page|de|Carsten Eggers }} Hafspajen (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Eggers images have had his name added in photo editing software, presumably either by Ilona Eggers or they've been taken from Eggers' website, i.e. the signatures are not part of the original artworks. I don't know if this is of any significance re copyright. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rater uggly they are, too. Don't know - but guess that the paintings are OK, as for the copyright... Blätterkomposition.jpg looks like it has the original signature. Hafspajen (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the draft. Page importation is the preferred method when going the other way. I have a vague recollection that German Wikipedia have a different interpretation of copyright requirements and have sometimes objected to translations from German Wikipedia that do not merge the history, so I usually go through Wikipedia:Requests for page importation when translating from German. I presume any admin can do the history merge if necessary, but I presume it is easier if it is done before too many edits are made. --Boson (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Drmies is an admin, for example ... Hafspajen (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've converted the template here to plaintext, so Drmies' talk page is not classed as a translation :-) Wikipedia:Translation has the rules and guidelines: attribution is required, but here on en. we traditionally do it in two ways: by naming the source foreign-language article in the first edit summary (or the earliest one possible) and also by placing the attribution template on the article talkpage. In practice many people don't do the edit summary, but it's best to do both: both provide a link to the history of the original article, so importing it is not necessary. There is also a template that can be placed at the foot of the article, as seen for example at Fichte-Bunker, which I translated, but it's deprecated because it was felt readers would see it as using Wikipedia as a source. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Haf et alia, I've been a little bit busy here and in other places, but I appreciate that my talk page is a village pump too. These conversations frequently remind me that we are indeed here to write an encyclopedia, one article at a time. [Apologies for any typos: I'm sitting outside with the low but bright Alabama sun shining on my screen, while the kids are turning each other into fall princesses. At some point one of them is going to put Liam in a dress and call him Lianna. For those of you who want a chicken note: those chicks seem to double in size every other day.] Drmies (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What chicken? Do you keep chicken? Hafspajen (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafs says you're going to do the Minimello DYK Did you know rap artist Gold Guy was reduced to miming on a children's TV program when his career went down the toilet?- or is that a BLP violation? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suedes need to be kicked in the as sometime. Worst ideas. Hafspajen (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have now moved the translation to mainspace. It could probably do with some more work.--Boson (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Maup Caransa

Hello! Your submission of Maup Caransa 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you hiding?

Your archiving of a quarter of a million characters from your talk page is an obvious attempt to hide something! As, for that matter, is your removal of your own question from my talk page earlier. I mean ... the sheer cheek of it all! Admin can get away with anything these days! ;) But seriously, was there something you wanted, my friend? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd ask you and then remove the question so that no one could ever see what I asked. But my question was answered; see edit summary. All this following the Panda's block of Lecen, of course, which I was slowly reading up on. Now it appears there's an RfC/U, which I'll have to check out; it's clear the Panda needs manners. One doesn't go around shooting people to prove a point in the dictionary. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. One of those scenarios that left none of the involved parties smelling of roses. I thought the RfC was a bit of an over-reaction to a side issue by somebody who spends far too much time stirring the shit on meta aspects of the project and far too little in the mainspace. But indeed he dos lack tact sometimes. Anyway, the ArbCom decree is at WP:AEBLOCK (though the wording at template:uw-aeblock is stronger, and there are other slight variations all over the place). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Grundy

This is why I love Wikipedia. I always thought this was a Heinlein invention. Little did I know it predated him by a century. Great writers do steal after all. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago Emanuel Ferreira

I think you know what reference needs to be translated. If you please...

Kind regards, as always, from Portugal --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that guy has your hairdo. And didn't I tell you I wasn't going to come back to editing Wikipedia? :) Drmies (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish he did, I'm not bald like you but I'm "balding" :) And indeed, you told me once or twice or thrice that you were retiring, don't know if I can trust you after this one! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo again

About a week ago I requested advice how to get rid of Trackinfo and his harassing behaviour and following me around. He never stopped with following me around but did stop with the personal attacks for one week. Now he is back with his personal attacks and lies. That guy is soooo pitiful but mighty annoying. The Banner talk 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banner, I'm sorry I didn't get this earlier or I would have blocked. I left them a final warning: next time, please let me know again, or any other friendly admin, and I promise you I will not hesitate. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No prob. I hope he understands now. The Banner talk 23:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this, he did not understand it. The Banner talk 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Minhyuk you are clearly not an uninvolved administrator, you have been clearly documented taking The Banner's side here. Whichever way that debate went, you should not have been the administrator to close it. Let me make this very clear to you: I am keeping all of my discussion to the facts. These are not personal attacks. Aside from this note, I have avoided even using his "handle." In regards to the discussion at User_talk:Dusti#Your_closure, yes its petty. That is HIS style. Look at his history of edits, as I have. He is the classic bully. You cannot reward a bully's bad behavior by letting them get away with it. "Bullying is noticeably reduced when the (the community) disapproves of bullying." "Intervention is needed." I tried. If you wish to call that word an attack, I will be happy to document numerous instances to support that analysis. Facts. Unlike his previous victims over the years, I'm also an experienced editor. I am not going to roll over and let him get away with more of it. I am trying to stand up for the little guys he is used to trampling. To the closure; Banner started it by doing something improper. I reverted it and he reverted back. I didn't want to get into an edit war, instead I went directly to person whose decision he offended. I presented the facts with full disclosure that there is an issue between the two of us. Had I not disclosed the situation, I would be in the wrong, correct? Of course. That's not attacking. I am behaving precisely, as properly as I can. And ultimately he got the appropriate slap on the wrist. He shouldn't have done it, he's enough of an experienced editor to know better. He got caught and feigns confusion. You know he did wrong too. I don't know how he managed to get you, an administrator, in his back pocket, or why. But the more you support him, the more you avail wikipedia to suffer from more damage at his fingers. And you are involved in it. If you think I've behaved badly then lets get a truly neutral administrator to look at the BIG picture. Look at everything I've written, everything he's done and said to motivate it. All of his argumentativeness at every turn. That's a lot of content. I can guide them. I don't really want to inflict that on some person who has better things to do with their time. I may have been a little joking in my approach initially, but overall I've been very logical and reasonable, with all the best interests of protecting wikipedia in mind. Trackinfo (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, can you write one paragraph without personal attacks? Banner has me in his back pocket? That accusation is prima facie ridiculous, besides showing a huge lack of good faith. If you think that your behavior is proper, you got a lot to learn. And if you think I'm in his back pocket, I suggest you take this elsewhere, so this lie can have some daylight shed on it. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of topic ban

Hi,

Will you please be so kind to explain to me if this edit (diff) of mine is breach of my topic ban "on topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)" as per this comment?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Peacemaker67 is correct. See, it really doesn't matter what the edit is, only where it is. So be careful next time, Antidiskriminator. Thanks for asking, and take care, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Will you please be so kind to clarify if the same goes for the Ottoman Empire which also included "parts of what is now (and had been) Serbia" in post 1900 period?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hold on. I'll ask. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Antidiskriminator, there is some advice for you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Your_broadly_construed_opinion_please. Next time, please get topic-blocked on a simple topic, like yogurt or Nuclear Weapons of the 1950s. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There is such long list of countries that controlled "parts of what is now (and had been) Serbia" in post 1900 period (i.e. Hungary, Croatia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Soviet Union, NATO countries, ...). Not to mention possibile connection to Serbs. I think it is only a matter of time when I will unintentionally breach the ban, or more likely, when will somebody involved in dispute with me interpret my edits as breach of topic ban. I don't think there is anything positive for wikipedia in keeping this topic ban anymore. Would you consider lifting it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need community consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Crisco says. Your detractors might say there's no point in your ban so I should just indef-block you. I'm not ready for either one. Crisco 1492, what was the usual recipe--wait three months? six months? and then propose on AN. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "try again in 6 months" is common. Not sure about this case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case most probably the only consensus my detractors may reach (other than to indef ban me from post 1900 Serb/Serbia related topics) is to indef block me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then now is certainly not the time to ask for the ban to be lifted. Good behavior elsewhere is typically a requirement for the community to consider lifting a ban. Believe me, Antidiskriminator, I like nothing better than unblocking and banlifting; it gives me hope and pleasure. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My detractors will never make a consensus to lift my ban. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of my detractors who supported complaint about my behavior underlined that I was not behaving this way during my first topic ban which lasted for more than a year.("This has been literally going on for several years. The only time I have experienced Antidiskriminator not behaving in this way is during his ARBMAC topic ban on Pavle Đurišić, imposed (and later lifted) by User:EdJohnston." - diff). This comment probably points to solution of the problem with this (apparently and probably unintentionally too broad) ban. Would you consider replacing it with previous one?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind reminder.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator, I like banlifting, but can only do so on the basis of community consensus. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pueblo Levee Mural Project

Can you restore this for me. I requested csd as I authored it but I have founde more sources to back up what I wrote

Sure thing. Talk page visitors, feel free to help HIAB improve this stub. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, I finally found more relevant coverage which you already added lol but when I confirmed the history in a better manner thought it could be a stub. Thanks all. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mies

We were working hard to fix this file for you! User talk:Crisco 1492 #Europe. AND I was trying to add a section with mytology, there is a lot of great stuff more to be added, and who removed that? Hafspajen (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I appreciate it, but not every divine rape is a forced seduction. It's really a trope/theme in modern literature, and the mythological stuff is a bit different, if only because there are gods involved and because the modern conception of "love" is just not there. So I moved that bit to make it a kind of "origin" section, because that's more than likely what it is, but it is not "forced seduction" in the modern sense--which, it seems to me, really comes after Richardson. For starters, one can hardly find any hits for "forced seduction" and Zeus... Drmies (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your question...

I made a response to your question here, but I self reverted due to Jack's correct assessment that the subject matter of the discussion isn't really what the Reference desk is for. Still, I hope that information helps inform your needs. --Jayron32 03:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your comment is appreciated. What's correct about their assessment, I have no clue--or why it had to be spewed in that vitriolic way. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was rude and vitriolic, but it doesn't make it wrong. He was entirely correct, if unpleasant in his presentation. The purpose of the reference desk is to ask questions which have factual answers we can direct the question asker to by means of references, either articles at Wikipedia, or sources outside of Wikipedia. Responses consisting solely of opinion, speculation, or commentary are frowned upon (every response should be linked to references, indeed the ideal response would consist solely of references for the OP of each question to read on their own). Even more so, questions that invite nothing but opinion, speculation, or commentary should not be asked (the header itself expressly says this). Your question, as terse as it was, seemed to ask for "What book should I read?" There's no reference to provide for that, so we shouldn't be answering it. --Jayron32 03:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rude and vitriolic is wrong, Jayron, isn't it? I mean, where the fuck did that come from, comrade admin and all? Drmies (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rude and vitriolic is wrong. Right things said in a rude and vitriolic manner don't become not right, however. I can say the sky is fucking blue, and you can fuck yourself if you don't also think so. The sky doesn't become red just because I was rude and vitriolic in stating a truth. Likewise, though Jack was rude in his presentation, what he says about the purpose and scope of the Ref Desks is spot on. --Jayron32 03:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A different Ref Desk volunteer could have come up with [19], which provides Eva Brann's answer to the question (and my apologies to everyone who wants to answer only one particular question, asked in one particular way). People who aren't in the humanities often don't realize that in between opinion (apparently excluded) and fact (uninteresting since already available on Wikipedia) is a broad field of well-argued material--the material of the humanities, in fact. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
realism, idealism, pain, suffering, etc, language, formulae, technical quality, "The Odyssey is a much weaker epic than the Iliad" (Chester Starr), two very different societies, subjects

As near as I can tell, you're a teacher who wants to know which book to have your students read, given time to only read one. If that's as clear as you can ask a question, then I feel sorry for those students.

Of the two, I'd go with the Iliad, since it includes many widely used terms, such as the Trojan horse, and Helen: "The face that launched a thousand ships". Achilles heel isn't actually from the Iliad, but did involve the Trojan War, so that would be a good time to mention it. It would be nice for your students to know the source of those mythic phrases. However, the Iliad is also quite violent. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those situations actually don't come up in the Iliad. The kidnapping of Helen and the Trojan horse are only mentioned obliquely in the text of the Iliad, and Achilles doesn't die either, so the three major events you allude to aren't part of the main action of the Iliad. The Iliad only covers a short period of the 10-year Trojan war, IIRC towards the end but before the Horse is built. The story is a series of epic battles and single combats that climaxes with the death of Patroclus, leading to the final duel between Achilles and Hector. The major battles are interspersed with the main characters fighting over a girl (not Helen, tho, Briseis) and with occasional interference by the Gods because, well, Gods get bored and like to stir shit up once in a while. If the story has a central focus it's "The Greeks should have won this thing by now, why haven't they?" and the answer is pretty much "Because the leaders are fighting over a girl instead of trying to win the war, and also because the Gods are dicks." Once Hector is killed, the story moves into an epilogue, but we never get to the Trojan Horse. --Jayron32 12:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my students will appreciate that you feel sorry for them. Thanks for the advice, and the Marlowe quote. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)b[reply]

I live in the Napa Valley, where the sky is usually blue, though black at night, and sometimes red at dawn and dusk, especially when the smoke of wildfires fills the air. Here in the Napa Valley, we have little patience with people who argue about the color of the sky. And I have never yet encountered a teacher, or a professor, who recommends reading "just one" book on any topic. There is a very big difference between recommending the best book on a topic, and "just one" book on a topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Odyssey

Saw you at Bugs. I am actually surprised you are asking this. A fantasy voyage with monsters is much better than a war story that even Shakespeare didn't bother to remake. Of course I didn't major in literature, and I only read the Anabasis, in excerpts, in Greek. Suetonius is still better if you are just teaching the classics in general, and not only rosy-fingered Homer. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, since you felt the need to revert, will you just go ahead and hat the fucking question, and that incredibly rude response? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, I'm kind of bored with the fantasy voyage, and I never understood what the slaughter of the suitors is for, why it gets so much attention and detail. And one answer to the question "Iliad or Odyssey" is, "The Iliad [or the Odyssey, of course] is much more important for a study of medieval literature/a reading of Shakespeare/a proper understanding of Paradise Lost". That's the sort of thoughtful response I was hoping to get, but your comment is pretty helpful, so thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of a joke. Q: Whom does Polyphemus hate more than Odysseus? A: No one! MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad,MastCell! Thanks for that bit of levity. BTW, I'm having a blast rereading the Illiad. Don't know why I remembered it as tedious. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar experience; I remember The Iliad as sort of a chore when I was compelled to read it in high school, but I enjoyed it immensely when I re-read it on my own terms. To me, one of the most interesting aspects is the question of where the reader's sympathies are supposed to lie. I would imagine that an ancient Greek audience would be rooting for the Greeks (of course) and view Achilles' behavior as heroic. But to a modern sensibility, Achilles comes off as petulant, entitled, and immensely unlikeable—basically the ancient world's equivalent of Barry Bonds or A-Rod. To a modern reader, Hektor is the most sympathetic—and the most three-dimensional—character in the story by far. He's afraid, and acknowledges his fear, but he does his duty anyway (in contrast to the non-stop boastfulness of the Achaian heroes). There are some surprisingly affecting passages, for instance when Hektor's son sees his father in his armor and bursts into tears. Or when Hektor proudly imagines that his son's deeds and heroism will eclipse his own. Anyhow... happy reading. MastCell ^Talk 02:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that is the section I just read--and yes, very touching. But I can't dislike Achilles: he was promised a short but brilliant life, and they owe him that. Also, he's Brad Pitt, and Brad Pitt is my other man crush, so I totally dig him. Damn he's handsome. Who would make a good Odysseus? Who's a smooth talker? (No, not Stephen Colbert.) Philip Seymour Hoffman, maybe. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man-crushes aside, Achilles chose the short, glorious life over a long, peaceful existence in Phthia. And he got what he was promised. His sense of entitlement is so overweaning, though, that he'd rather see his own comrades lose the war and be slaughtered than put up with a relatively minor loss of face. Insofar as we're allowed to traffic in symbolism, Achilles represents humanity's capacity for irrational, self-destructive rage and vanity. But I guess with a mom like Thetis... As far as central casting, for Odysseus... the easy call would be Johnny Depp. More daring, maybe Denzel Washington or Peter Dinklage. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help

The conduct of Viriditas you witnessed on my talk page continues. As you know, he was politely and firmly told not to comment there -- after accusing me of being an evolution denier, a climate change denier, racist, racially insensitive, and serving someone's "White masters" on my talk page. After I requested a warning at ANI for his continued unwelcome posts on my talk page, he has attempted to draw others into this one-sided mess, repeatedly accusing me of attacking him. Frankly, I just want him to leave me alone and stop making unfounded accusations against me to anyone who will listen. He needs to stop. If he stops, I will gladly stop defending myself [20]. Until he stops, I believe my own on-wiki reputation is at stake. Help, please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, you may know that I'm an equal-opportunity offender, and apparently all sides in those debates take offense at me. I'm staying well away from Viriditas since I have had my fair share of vitriol from them, and from some of their opponents in that debate--people on both sides seem to think that my POV lies with the other side. So I have no advice to give you, and prefer to stay away from those individuals (not the issues, but the individuals). I have various opinions on the net value of various editors, and I'm going to keep them to myself. I trust, though, that there are admins who have not gotten their credentials questioned by the admin abuse crowd (members are found on both sides), and perhaps some of them read this page. I'm sorry, but my involvement there will not do you any good; I will tell you that I understand how it feels, realizing full well that my sympathy is of no practical help to you. ANI is not always equipped to handle such problems either: for many editors civility seems to mean nothing more than "not using a bad word" and everything else is OK. Sorry. BTW, I greatly appreciated your comments and analysis in the NDGT matter. I may not always agree with you, but you have certainly shown plenty of common sense and good faith. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those comments in the section above your response, that's pretty typical I'd say. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc. I understand. I'm really ready for the aftermath of the NDGT great debate to be over. Frankly, I don't believe that I did anything wrong in those discussions, but when you have someone still following you around and badgering you a week after the fact, it certainly makes one wonder. I'm not used to being an ongoing on-wiki target, and from that standpoint alone I question my participation in the discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you. The best scenario is that others have noticed it too and will pick up the baton for you--an admin, for instance, who leaves a note or whatever. A useful thing to do, but this is by no means right or satisfying, is to just let your detractors talk--but sometimes they'll find a way to bring these matters up in really unrelated forums and piss on you there. See this, for instance, which has fuck-all to do with the Landmark case in which arbitration is requested. Eric Corbett knows what this feels like, being brought up all the damn time in the ArbCom Gender Gap case, where his edits from all over the project are brought in to a totally unrelated matter. I wish I could do something for you here, but I can only do more harm than good. Maybe ANI is a place to go, but that has the potential of turning into a shoutfest. Then again, you can see what's happening with Andyvphil, who made a claim on ANI and may end up being topic-banned (correctly, as far as I'm concerned)--so maybe sometimes ANI can accomplish something. If their disruption has a chilling effect then you can certainly make a claim of harassment. But those things are never easy. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seth Gaaikema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kiss Me Kate. 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) 09:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done it by putting Kiss Me, Kate. The DAB page is Kiss Me Kate. Now you've got Kiss Me, Kate, Oliver (three musicals) instead of Kiss Me Kate, Oliver. Consider yourself at home. Consider yourself part of the furniture. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ffff that didn't work. Now had to put Kiss Me, Kate (musical). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Coat alert- new editor with interests in Bali sex tourism and Featured Pictures. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong whiff of Coat, with a problematic user name. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I emailed Euryalus about this but haven't heard back. Maybe the best thing to do is simply start an SPI, and request CU. As far as I'm concerned a block on behavioral evidence can be made, but for reasons that should be obvious I am not going to make it--the whining about abusive and involved admins is so omnipresent that someone else should do it. These days, if you warned someone once or twice, and they called you an abusive cocksucker a few times (well...), you're already disqualified in the eyes of some since you're invoooolved. In other words, one can become unblockable by insulting admins, though without using one of the seven words of course. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- shame the editor isn't the person they're impersonating. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure that person is who that person claims to be. Unless you're talking about the other, older person, who most likely is who she is and she is not our editor. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get your meaning… I was talking about the younger one- would actually have some knowledge about topics- I can't believe the inane stupidity of it all. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You got it perfectly. It does remind me that Rookworst can do with some improvement. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command- I'm too tired to do the degrees Celsius bit properly though. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Haven't checked the email in a while due to spam. Will have a look later today, sorry for delay. -- Euryalus (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Euryalus. It's not a matter of life and death, but sooner is better than later. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your email. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted Xanty - and things started already all over again at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates - typically on my nomination (as usual) - This is not good enought to be nominated - stuff. What? And on a nomination with already four supports already. Isn't Paul Nash worth featuring? Com on. Paul Nash? Nash was among the most important landscape artists of the first half of the twentieth century. What not good enoug ? Who say that? Also opposing an other gorgious nom, Cypresses at Cagnes, also with already four supports - just because I was helping the editor to nominate it, CorinneSD. And Jim Carter's nom, because he asked my oppinion. Even if it is not the same computer - it is the same editor. NOBODY is behaving like this, but that one. It was so nice and quiet for two weeks, just gorgious, but now, here we go again. It is just I don't like Hafspajen . Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, apropos biting the newbies, Jim Cartar is indeed one, it is his third, and Corinne's second, and it is not fair that it goes out all over them. CorinneSD knows a bit more about this, I would guess, but Jim and Corinne should not be hurt because I am the taget. Hafspajen (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD‎ is a typical newbie on the project, she doesn't deserve this. Hafspajen (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also snatching others ideas, same thing. It is not considered le bon ton taking the idea of someone else. That nom is from Crisco's nom-pool from his own talk page. Hafspajen (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say, the evidence looks increasingly damning. Though if it is that one editor, I don't know if a checkuser will help. He/she seems to have no problem bouncing the signal off different nodes (or whatever techno-wizardry is used) to hide his/her true IP address. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, remember editing from Warrington? (My username before) and suddenly from Indonesia... You need to search for some technology that goes trough that bouncing IP - techie -thing. Than you will find him. Hafspajen (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voilá- Marinka van Dam is blocked indefinetly as Coat of Many Colours sock. See here. Disregard any comment per FP voting rules: Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. - Hafspajen (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And he did it AGAIN; just how many more of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Coat_of_Many_Colours... shall we have? Hafspajen (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hendrik Koot

On 23 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hendrik Koot, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the death of a Dutch fascist in Amsterdam in February 1941 was an excuse for the German authorities to start raids in the Jewish Quarter and install a Judenrat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hendrik Koot. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going?

I haven't remotely missed the drama whilst I was out in the cold, but now, I feel up to doing some low-level cleanup/vandalism removal, and I thought I'd drop in and say hello. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm just having a blast here... Nice to see you back, Luke: it's more rewarding to write content, though, than to do this cleanup/vandalism shit--it only leads to conflict. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep. Content is far more rewarding even if no one actually rewards you for it. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, yes... but not when content edits were what the trolls went after me for in the first place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oud-Strijders Legioen

On 24 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oud-Strijders Legioen, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Dutch right-wing military veterans organization Oud-Strijders Legioen was compared to a "Boy Scout organization for the elderly"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oud-Strijders Legioen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of interaction ban...

...between myself and Pete/Skyring. Here. I had already posted twice in that thread, most recently five posts and five and a half hours before the one in that diff - not that far away. This is not a first offence. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I'm going to call on the cavalry. John, do you have any fatherly advice for me or for these two here? I do believe that this was an infraction on Pete's part; you may recall some earlier discussion on this topic. It's at User_talk:Drmies/Archive_68#Can_we_drop_the_ban.3F, and there are two other sections, just before, on the matter. I really don't wish to block anyone, it's not even 9 in the AM, but an infraction it is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on it. Sorry for the slow response. --John (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries John, the ship is not sinking. I appreciate your help, esp. since I really don't know what to do. I wish I could just put my clogs on my head and walk out of the temple. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am having one of those days as well. My real-life responsibilities are weighing heavy on me; the baby is crying as she is teething and the teenager just kicked the 6-year-old. While exalted beyond belief, my Wikipedia duties can at least be switched on and off at will. Are there any articles needing work, do you think? I might have a two hour window later on, with luck. Hang in there Doctor. Totsiens! --John (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - AFD is backed up a bit if you're bored. I spent all morning closing them, after doing a bunch last night. Those are kind of fun. Dennis - 2¢ 17:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I did a couple yesterday. Let's see how long before I'm at Deletion Review again. Right now I'm reading Bloom on Milton on Shakespeare, so indeed, tot ziens. (!) Drmies (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        My Dutch is extremely poor, so apologies if that is the wrong word to use. Is it like adieu then? On the bright side, I do know how to say "Ik kan nie Afrikaans prat nie, mijnheer." which may still stand me in good stead again. Dennis, thanks for the steer. With all the articles I have deleted, and all the crap and cruft I've removed from articles over the years, I wonder if my net contribution to the project mainspace measured in bytes is perhaps even negative? On the plus I wrote Robert M. Bond which I'm very proud of. --John (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the original question, Pete has pointed out that he has been editing this talk page since 2004 and User:HiLo48 only since 2010, so if I understand how an interaction ban works, it is you who have to yield. Sorry about that if it isn't what you were hoping, but in this case as Americans say, it's "no harm, no foul". --John (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn fine article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --John (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, I looked at the thread, not at the talk page as a whole. IBAN does not help us here; if anything, it would allow participation without mention, but I think we typically treat participation in a specific thread as a violation of the iBan. So what's next? Ignore it? I don't mind: I'd rather do nothing, but as you can see in that archived discussion, Pete, rather than stating he'll do his best to get along, took the opportunity to present extensive "analysis" of HiLo's edits and behavior. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, I was invited to comment there. If this is going to be more disruption and inconvenience, then it might be best to accept HiLo's suggestion of dropping the IBan. Whatever works best for peaceful editing. I'd rather get along with happy, productive editors and let any conflict be over substantive content, rather than personality and pettiness. --Pete (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thank you for posting for clarification about how interaction bans work. Pete, what needs to happen for the ban to be undone? --John (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual agreement as a start, I imagine. I hereby drop my objection to HiLo48's proposal. You admins can handle the paperwork - it's what your're paid for, isn't it? --Pete (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We used to get paid by the block (that is how Drmies paid for his pool), but now we make more money taking bribes to not block. We don't care where the money comes from, as long as it comes. Dennis - 2¢ 18:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had a deal to keep that quiet Dennis? That's the last cheque you'll be getting from me, that's for sure. Eric Corbett 18:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and please Dennis, can you not make an effort to avoid splitting your infinitives? "... taking bribes to not block" made my eyes bleed. Eric Corbett 18:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have used that bribe money for a better education instead of fast cars and fast women. As for prose, my job is to research the facts, your job is to make it worth reading. ;) Dennis - 2¢ 18:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're making a joke a joke Dennis, but here's my take on that. I'm maybe the most abused editor and yet productive editor in the history of Wikipedia, perhaps along with Giano, and being considered some kind of beast of burden copyeditor who is unable to create anything of value by himself has long been a bone of contention for me. Eric Corbett 19:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone else but Drmies and me have got The Man in the Moone to FA? Perhaps, but they didn't fucking do it, we did. I need to sign off now, I'm getting angry. Eric Corbett 20:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you kneuw, I could have done it by myself. Easily. Tell you what, Eric, I feel a bit like my old friend Mandarax: tired. There are quite a few more articles that I'd love to bring up, and god knows I can use your help with that--it's just that, sheeit, it's so much work, and then you do all that work, and someone somewhere calls you this or that awful term, and they have done fuck-all for this project. One of those fools said I should be stripped of my bit cause they think I asked the wrong question at a ref desk--I have over 40 times more article edits than that joker. And then I see all the work that Ealdgyth does, and someone who doesn't know how to write an article brings her into that unholy civility/gender/bullshit case. Like they're trying to taint everything. Pfff, it's nice to vent. Eric, I'm reading Harold Bloom, Western Canon; I think you'd like him. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you and I work together, I tend to do more of the research simply because I know my prose pales next to yours and that is my contribution towards our shared success. After working on Sunbeam Tiger with you, I know for a fact that anyone that says you are just a copyeditor is a fool. It isn't a huge thing, but it took an amazing amount of research because of the lack of available material, and the fact is, the Wikipedia article represents the most complete and sourced documentation on the car. I only played a small role, but enough to see how you really work. I would also note that you are the only one that say things like "Dennis, your organisation is shit" when it needs saying (1950s American automobile culture). Maybe that is the difference, I want to learn, to get better at all things in life, so I welcome valid criticism, and I don't mind it being blunt because I know it is good natured. In the end, it ended up being a damn good article because of it. So I'm not that impressed with what others say about you as it comes from ignorance and hearsay rather than first hand experience. Dennis - 2¢ 20:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... you are the only one that say things like 'Dennis, your organisation is shit'". Did I really say that? I probably did, sounds like the sort of thing I might say; no wonder the newbies don't like me. But let's face it Dennis, what we ended up with is a damn fine article. Eric Corbett 21:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You already knew me well enough to know I would take it in the proper way, which I did. It was done because the article needed to be carved in half. I had the facts and sources, but too many of them, and I had created an article that was too broad and had no focus. Had you NOT been so direct, I would have ended up with one huge, mediocre article. Instead, we ended up with two GA articles. Yes, I wouldn't want to see you say that to a newb, but I've never seen you do that. And I'm still working on the 60s article, slowly. It will be completely different. Hard to source the production numbers, I'm finding. Dennis - 2¢ 22:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per IBan "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way" so is this actually a violation? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would still be completely happy with the dropping of the iBan. Pete agrees. How do we do it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was placed by the community, I think a thread at WP:AN might be the best place. If it was voluntary between the two of you, maybe you don't have to do anything. If it was placed by a particular admin or arbcom then you would start by asking them. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:ARCA. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked there. It seems a typically ugly, clumsy and overly bureaucratic Wikipedia process that puts me off trying. There has to be an easier way. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember where you got the ban, but basically you go to the same place. If it was an WP:AN or ANI ban, go to WP:AN. If it was Arb, you need to go there. If you both agree and have had 6 months without issue, I would hope there wouldn't be any problem is just getting it dropped. Dennis - 2¢ 23:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's up at AN right now. Pete, HiLo, I suggest you go there, read what I proposed, and briefly chime in. Then, go off to Canberra or Melbourne or whatever those places are called and smoke a peace pipe. I suggest you don't discuss football/soccer until after your second peace pipe. Cheers to all, Drmies (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting that out gents. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Maup Caransa

On 24 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maup Caransa, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Amsterdam businessman Maup Caransa (pictured) lent his name to the ugliest building in the country and to the sons of the gods? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maup Caransa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, too bad you can't claim the other links for DYK stats. The ugliest building in the country got over 11,000 hits, and Sons of the gods over 5,700! Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<Cue the eerie theremin music> This is freaky! Maupoleum got 11,803 hits as an auxiliary link on October 24, and that is exactly the same number it got when it was the bold DYK link on September 28. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I setting records yet? Mandarax, cue that bad boy again, because as it happens I was reading today about the Theremini--I want one! Drmies (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's like recursive freakiness, playing eerie theremin music to denote theremin freakiness. The Theremini's a real sleek beauty, and at a mere $319, you can't afford not to get one! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness. Hafspajen (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I for dinner (can't believe CoM hasn't written that article yet), and we had cucumber and soup and egg. Strawberries would have made a nice dessert. DYK that I've never eaten Devon cream? Is it really that good? Drmies (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clotted cream is the cream of the cream! thick, soft and ... creamy!! Oh, you can write that one, Mies, filled with enthusiasm or desire... Hafspajen (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Hafspajen (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clotted cream is heaven on the tongue and hell on the arteries. I've not really read the article, which is unlikely to do justice until scratch 'n' smell 'n' taste Wikipedia develops (which might be a while yet, given the Visual Editor/MediaViewer etc problems) but my taste buds are wobbling just at the thought ... and bugger the arteries. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish ice cream, with clotted cream on top, and poured on top of that, single cream. Clotted cream can be sent by post- I don't know the postal regulations for the US, but I suppose it can be put on the Customs form as "grease for handguns" and get through without any trouble Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not leave this hanging

So, I took the trouble to explain in detail why I acted as I did, and I reiterated my previous apology for any unintended offence. Your response is to continue to take me to task for the manner in which I raised my objection - even after I've apologised for that - while continuing to totally avoid addressing the substance of my objection. Where did you learn that that's a decent way to behave? Lecture me on civility all you like, but beware of showing your own feet of clay while so doing. You say your two-year-old has already learned to say "please", and that's fine. But I sure hope you don't teach him to be as ungracious and evasive as you've shown yourself to be during this exchange. I assume that's not your normal way of operating, but that you're reacting to what you regard as a significant offence.

Look, it's obvious I've got your nose royally out of joint, and I take responsibility for that. I'm known as a peacemaker rather than anything else, and I would like that view of me to be the one, ultimately, that proceeds from our exchange. I'm more than fully aware that the only outcomes worth a pinch of shit are win-win outcomes. It's just as unacceptable for me to win at someone else's expense as vice-versa. But there are always two sides to a story, and it takes two to tango.

What I want: I'd really like to see you take some responsibility for your part in this matter. For without that part, there would be no matter. Or at least some commentary/justification/call it what you like.

Peace. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should be more evasive: this is the third place, fourth tread where you're haranguing me. What do you hope to achieve? Drmies (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My last three sentences, which I've now placed into a separate paragraph. I live in hope that you will, one day, eventually, actually address the points I've raised. If you intend never to do that, probably best to state that right now and I'll know to leave you alone. Of course, that would leave me with an indelible impression of you as someone who refuses to accept feedback from others about his own transgressions, while maintaining the capacity to impose sanctions on others about theirs. Not a good look, but that would be your choice. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, as a random talk page lurker, I think they've already made clear they consider the conversation over. I appreciate this isn't what you were after but I reckon it's already time to leave it alone. --Euryalus (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ball's in Drmies' court. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. Continued pursuit of a particular editor is not encouraged. We're not there yet. But it seems clear from this talkpage that they consider the conversation over. And again, I reckon you should respect that, take from it whatever you will, and leave it there. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I've again mentioned the issue of administrators appearing to be given special licence to flout the rules, when such licence is denied to non-admins (see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Questions seeking opinions, my post of 21:47, 25 October 2014). While that perception persists - and Drmies has said nothing to allay it - you're asking me to respect his wishes, while he appears to disrespect other rules with impunity. Does that seem right to you? Is that the sort of impression of administrator behaviour we want to foster? Anyway, as I said, the ball's in his court, and I only came back to respond to your amazing suggestion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Euryalus. Jack, I don't know where you get "transgression" from. A wrong question does not call for an embarrassing diatribe in article space. That your rudeness, and your bad mouthing my adminship was unintentional, I can't believe that, nor that you live for something I should do. It's Saturday, which means I'm playing with the kids, and Alabama is about to play. I have not opened my net book today, and the last few days I have not cared about Wikipedia anyways, not since your public rant and your friend's ridiculous call for my bit. So if you want any more groveling from me, you're barking up the wrong tree. I fucking get it: you thought I asked the wrong question. I don't get why you couldn't tell me that on my fucking talk page, in normal fucking English, with a little fucking AGF built in. And now I'm going to get a beer, and not think about you and your Ref Desk for a while. Stick your pleasantries wherever you like, but not on my talk page.

Finally, an acknowledgment that the question was wrong. Until now you've continued to berate me for my rudeness, even after my multiple apologies. And you're still doing it. Apparently, some sins are completely unforgivable. Even after your mention of "wrong question", which is the first time you've done what I asked, viz. address the substance of the grievance, you've still brought out the big stick about my rudeness. When would this ever end? How many times must one be punished for the same crime? Anyway, enough said. I'm leaving, and I promise I won't be back. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, pretty impressed by the forbearance you have shown. I was tempted to interject earlier, but was afraid that would only invite further abusive and passive-aggressive ("self-flagellate or I'll think less of you forever") posts on your talk page. I hope Jack gets some perspective and the point now, and stops beating a dead horse. Enjoy your beer and the rest o the weekend.

Jack: if you wish to respond to me, you are free to do so on my talk page, but note that I don't plan to engage either. As a refdesk semi-regular myself, I have been pretty under-impressed by your conduct in this instance. Abecedare (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

semi?

Could you semi-protect Death Cab for Cutie? We have an IP who keeps adding a contested genre without waiting for consensus. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 16:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in principle I don't mind, but this edit appears well-sourced and you didn't indicate in your revert what was wrong with it. The Pitchfork thing says they're "emo vets", and the Vulture source (I have no idea what Vulture is) points the same way. This isn't a BLP; I wouldn't go edit-warring over it pending talk page consensus. I also don't see a link to the previous discussion you mentioned, which would be helpful, and it is true of course that consensus can change if strong sourcing is provided. So sorry, can't do it now. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Featured Picture Award

	The Featured Picture Award
	This is a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images. Hafspajen (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Featured Picture Award II
	This is a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images. Hafspajen (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Featured Picture Award III
	This is NOT a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia (Featured pictures) and is NOT considered one of the finest images (though it should be). Indeed, it's one of the scariest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A Dinner Jacket for Five. 03:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your good contributing to Wikipedia, I'm rewarding you the Defender of the Wiki award for defending the encyclopedia against vandalism. Keep up the good work, -- Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good things come in pairs or more!

Hafspajen (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brohoof! Drmies (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Drmies:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Hafspajen (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Haf, I went to a children's Halloween party dressed as a rockstar and no one realized I was in costume. Embarrassing... Drmies (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well until you don't dress up into this .. all is fine. There are worse things in this life than to be confused with a rock star. Hafspajen (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, love, let us be true

To one another! for the world, which seems

To lie before us like a land of dreams,

So various, so beautiful, so new,

Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;

And we are here as on a darkling plain

Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,

Where ignorant armies clash by night.

_{Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach (1867), St. 4.}

Are you inviting me to love or to war? Drmies (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on circumstances. Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be a little more precise: is anybody here experienced about the situation of having an article with a history of 1 1/2 years moved to draft? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir is the one, my guess. Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one. Anybody else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. I looked at that talk page discussion but I don't think I understand what is going on. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also looked at it, but cannot work on it myself for a number of reasons. My understanding is that one editor argues that it is a POV fork because the section on it in the survey article, Bach's church music in Latin, is actually longer and crucially, includes more scholarly opinions on a question regarding its composition. That is fairly easily remedied by covering the other opinions and any other missing amplification in the article on the mass, and I agree that there is no reason per se why this does not merit its own article: the editor in question does not contest that. But it should be fixed. Personally, I prefer editing of the article itself to talk-page workshops, for greater transparency and less complexity. There is no reason why that requires the article be moved to draft space, as implied in the latest move edit summary. However, since that editor has called the question, once it's moved back to main space the expansion needs to happen fast. Gerda, are you willing and able to do that pretty much now? Perhaps you can line up help from others and then give the word when you're all ready? If so, I'll restore the article to main space. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not now, that's what I said on the editor's talk page. You saw in the history that it was imported to the other article, in which it had never been, and then changed/tagged. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Version of 19:32, 14 October is the last one prior to the moving around and poking and prodding, right? Ping me when you and/or others are ready to expand that version to include the divergent scholarly views and anything else that is in the overall article(s) and was not in that version, and I'm prepared to move it back and revert to that version then. But the challenge now requires a response to fix it. Of course, if anyone expands it while it's in the Draft space, that would work too, but would require more fiddling around after it's moved back, which is why I prefer to just do the editing in article space. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. Looking for sources, I always came across Wikipedia first. I think I found enough, drop my other plans and can start as soon as you move.

Done, redirect to section of longer article deleted. Go for it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! We have now a new article with a new name, - I addressed most of the points, right? (ce welcome) Not yet covered: sourcing for performance and the lament/celebration thing which I don't remember to have added. Tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OBS _ RED LINK ARTIST: Georg Reimer ...Hafspajen (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Drmies:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boo! Ah, just kidding. Happy halloween! =) Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Epicgenius; I appreciate your good cheer. Same to you. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, and thank you. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet investigation for user INic

Please check here. Caramella1 (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bonus Featured Picture

	The Bonus Featured Picture
	This is a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images. Hafspajen (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Bonus Featured Picture II
	This is a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images. Hafspajen (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Bonus Join the Drmies Party NOT Featured Picture II -
	This is NOT a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia (Featured pictures). Hafspajen (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that is what today we would call a sausage party. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.

butN page deleted

Hi I created page in the sandbox and I am not able to move it to main page. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adsyvb/sandbox Please guide how to move it to main and how to change the title of page to 'butN'. Also, I have 3 images which I want to put on this page. How can I do that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsyvb (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on BLP concerns

Hi, I see you lurk in the BLP noticeboard .... I'd appreciate your thoughts on the reversion today of material at Nova Peris and Ato Boldon on the grounds of RD2: "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value ... slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material". At both articles I added one concise paragraph on an issue that is front-page news in all Australian media today concerning a senator (Peris) and a former Olympic sprinter (Boldon). I believe the widespread coverage this has received in mainstream Australian media would certainly elevate it to the level of encyclopedic notability. Peris has made a speech in the Senate in response to the media coverage, going about as public as one could ever do. I think the reversion by User:Bilby is overkill, particularly given the statement in WP:RVDL: "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed." I would like to see the material reinstated, but I seek your thoughts as a second opinion. BlackCab (TALK) 11:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another lurker here. Unfortunately, this issue involves more than just BLP concerns. It's horribly political. The "revelations", and stolen emails, have been published in the Murdoch press here in Australia. Rupert is an overt supporter of the current government. Nova Peris is a member of the opposition. We must not become part of Murdoch's political games. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's a personal judgment that doesn't impact on BLP policy. Though the NT News broke the story, everyone else is now covering it. BlackCab (TALK) 11:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal judgement in my post. It's very relevant fact. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is tricky. HiLo's argument, in my view, adds to the BLP concerns (and the NOTNEWS concerns) that warrant removal--this certainly warrants removal. Whether it warrants suppression is a different matter, where I might not have made the same decision as Bilby did, but I am not going to fault Bilby over this. I believe that Bilby is also from that place that HiLo is from, that strange world full of marsupials, and can judge better than I can whether it's material that is so slanderous that suppression is warranted. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here's a Bilby.

Given that rabbits are such a pest in Australia, there has been a drive for Australia to replace the Easter Bunny with the Easter Bilby. Much more politically correct. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bilihildis

On 30 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bilihildis, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that sources relate that while her pagan husband was away, Bilihildis sailed to Mainz and started an abbey? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bilihildis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Someone (semi-)protected the noticeboard? Damn, I hadn't noticed. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that a couple of days ago in passing but paid it no mind--now I realize (because the link tells me) why I should have. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: now TPA is revoked? Drmies (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid that but I'm not sure they're looking there any more to see my message. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Vacations Seems like a meat puppet creation

Hi, I was wondering if you checked the talk page before removing the deletion request. I wrote there that it seems like the entire article was created by an editor whose only contribution to Wikipedia was to create that page and make 1 character spelling corrections to other articles during May and June of this year. He did a good job of creating an article considering that he likely did it for payment but it seems reasonable to me to remove it based on the way in which the article was originally created.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't make them a meatpuppet but an WP:SPA with a conflict of interest. Even if your suspicion could be proven (it's not unlikely, but it's not proven) that doesn't mean we have sufficient reason to delete the article. If you look at the history you'll see that DGG already made two passes at it, and if he didn't think deletion was warranted then I'm not going to allow for speedy deletion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~actually, I have no objections to deletion--I don;t think I fixed it enough, It's been Prodded, and I am not going to deprod it.~~ I looked again, and there's an available merge, so I'm going to merge a sentence or two into the article for Apple Leisure Group.. Monopoly31121993, I imagine that's OK with you also. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloub bloub bloub - Drowning in artist giant article, SOS

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at [[User talk:Hafspajen (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)|User talk:Hafspajen (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)]].[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mja. Other themes relate to the real or imagined world of both Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea-the underwater world, the ships and seaports, the coastal towns and the faces of beautiful women from these far off lands. Still other imagery was inspired by the classical mythology. Veranian’s works on paper (what paper?? really) are a documented part of his creative output. These unique drawings represent artistic aspect and frequently depict events from the present and past .... sigh

, best known as a painter and installation artist, is also known as a printmaker in his prolific and innovative career.

Hafspajen (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Self-inflating artists. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He considers his drawings to be a very intimate means of expression. His favorite subjects are the female form, and the nude figure. - Hey, mine too!!! Pity that Drmies doesn't like naked women as much as I do. (on his talk)Hafspajen (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Emin is the Professor of Drawing at the Royal College of Art. She has an exhibition at the moment at the White Cube Gallery. Coincidentally there's a major Egon Schiele exhibition at the Courtauld Gallery at the same time. There's a conspiracy theory that this "coincidence" is deliberate… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emin's article is nearly 4 times longer than Schiele's. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mary ◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎◼︎ I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we shouls arange instead a date between Ermin and Venarian. They would love each other. Hafspajen (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's Halloween, but do you have to be so scary?

Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of My Bed! A deathless work of exquisite presumption. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A puerile work of an enfant terrible. Now if you want to make anyone upset you have to use this kind of things - because people doesn't get upset any more. The let's get people upset-thingy the offensive, rebellious avant-guard - was easy in the Victorian time, but it gets harder and harder. Hafspajen (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what she said. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection needed

American Bully (dog) needs permanent protection to preserve the redirect, similar to the situation at American Bully.

I also believe we're dealing with socks:

Pit bullpb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Created American Bully. After you protected the redirect there, they created the following new account:

Trigueiro martins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

who created American Bully (dog). How convenient!

Article links:

American Bully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Bully (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pit bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Warnings and blocks for sockpuppetry are in order. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, I believe you are correct. Sock blocked, master blocked for a week. Can you leave them a note explaining that this is how it's going to go unless the produce reliable sources for their doggy breed? thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, those two are a special problem, it would be a tremendous help if they could be protected indef. Also a lot of weird activity is happening lately on dog articles - like some guys are trying to make lots useless edits - something very new and unusual, that never happened before. Hafspajen (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the subject of Pit bulls always draws lots of deletionist activity from Pit bull lovers. Owners hate to see any negative coverage, even from very RS. The breed is consistently overrepresented in attack, injury, and death statistics, way beyond their actual numbers in the dog populace. There are long-standing problems with deletionism and whitewashing. One editor is trying to rewrite the whole article, making it a positive sales brochure. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Even if we have to try to give a balanced view - many times it is not the dogs fault but the owners. By nature these dogs are quite an agressive breed - towards other dogs, yes, very much so. But it is surprisingly sweet and even tempered towars people. That it its natural behaviour. Dogs attacking people is very rare if non-existing among family dogs that had a good home. Those dogs that that do such things - are generally hold on chain, are beaten, starved, hit and abused by their owners, and that is serious animal abuse. Hafspajen (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics say otherwise. Many of the dogs involved in attacks on humans, including their own family members and children, were normal pets with no history of abuse or improper socialization. Of course poor socialization and bad/criminal owners doesn't help the situation, but there is something inbred in them which makes them like a loaded gun with a hair trigger. Until something sets them off, they are just as loving and gentle as any other dog, but when something gets them frustrated, they'll attack anything or anyone nearby. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woof. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, HOW many of the total dog population? Hafspajen (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you: thou shalt not have dog discussions on my talk page--that's what User talk:Montanabw is for. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it involves hot dogs (or brats) or BBQ in general... :) --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

A user is complaining about you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait. Is it exciting? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About as exciting as watching grass grow. Eric Corbett 16:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

block

why you block me ? what the mistake?--Muhib mansour (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to tell you that your putting spaces around the question mark makes me think you're gay (or maybe bisexual), and you get offended over that, would that help explain it? Or, check my explanation on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veal calves

Hi Drmies,

As I have not split articles before I was not aware of the way to split an article by giving credit to the article from which it was split in the edit summary. Thank you for pointing this out. However, the need for this article splitting is real. In general smaller articles are preferred where possible. The issue of veal calves is a unique aspect of our society and deserves a page separate from meat or calves in general. In addition a technical issue arose in that the dutch wikipedia has a separate entry for veal and veal calves (Vleeskalf and Kalfsvlees). In order to ensure full international linkage between articles there was the option of merging the Dutch article or splitting the English article. The English article linked to the very short Kalfsvlees article rather than the longer Vleeskalf article. While at first proposing a merger of the articles I saw that after some thought the Dutch approach was the right one. By separating the articles Wikipedia gives again more room to add further details to either article without becoming too broad. Much more can be added to the veal calves article. I simply established a new focus or base for that to happen. I will thus recreate the page while giving due credit to the page veal. I have not deleted or changed anything from that page as yet to avoid issues such as you had with my entry. Het is in Nederland nu 4 uur in de morgen. Hoe kunt U zo snel reageren. Ik neem aan dat U niet in Nederland woont.Whatever2009 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can split content as long as you indicate (I gave you the link) where it came from. Now, nl:Vleeskalf does have a lot of content--but none of it is verified: like a typical Dutch wiki article there isn't a single reliable source. In addition, it's got some neutrality issues. At any rate, the existence of an article on the Dutch wiki does not mandate one on the English wiki, and our veal article (which is only 18000 bytes) is certainly not overly long.
You are welcome to re-create the article (if you do it properly), but I can guarantee you that there will be some editors opposed to it, claiming that its content is or should be covered in Veal. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aguri (caste) - Requesting action against vandalism

We all have great regards for Drmies, and many admins are active on this talk page. I would like to request any passing admin to check the edits on Aguri (caste) by User:Jecob8888, which clearly shows his intentions, and are gross violations of our policies, especially when it comes to sensitive caste articles. I have tried to warn him and explain on his talk page, but probably he is not even aware of what reliable sources are, and instead copied the same notice on my talk page. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a nice way to start a message. Thank you. I'll ping Sitush, in case he still has interest in such articles. I did what I could and indeed reverted that user, whose edit struck me as not so great. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention. Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are an awful lot of caste-related articles that have reverted to type over the last few weeks. Many will probably continue that regression for some time yet but I'll get back to them big time when I think it is ok to do so. Meanwhile, there are some people - Ekdalian, NeilN etc - who have been sticking their fingers in the dykes, which is rather pleasing to me: the more people with nouse, the better. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We really need you Sitush. We 'll be happy to see you back in your original form. Ekdalian (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jecob8888 hasn't edited since my warning (except to remove stuff from their page). I'll try to keep an eye on them. Giving them the DS alert was a good idea, Ekdalian. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen. Ekdalian (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that the real credit goes to you, Bishonen. It was your 'Final Warning' that actually worked. And after reverting the user, the 'cleanup' by Drmies seemed like one by those few who are experts on caste-related articles. Hats off to you; and I sincerely thank you both once again. Ekdalian (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I fooled someone! Drmies (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good one indeed! Ekdalian (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC

No objection to your reluctance to change on the Fawkes article. Out of curiosity, why are you not a fan of PC? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First and last time I applied it I got rapped on the fingers; that was some time ago, before it was voted back in to fashion. My knuckles still hurt a bit. But I don't like the way the history screen looks, with that blue shading, and that one can have a rapid succession of edits which cannot be easily undone one at a time; if there is (possible) vandalism among a series of edits that makes it a bit harder to control. But as you know, others feel differently. I can see the point for BLPs, for instance, but BLP vandalism is quite different from rapid topical (time-bound) vandalism. Thanks, and thanks for helping Fireworks bob out, Drmies (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could make all BLPs semi-protected by default, but the Foundation won't go for it. That would be the responsible thing to do. Dennis - 2¢ 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well. We wouldn't want to inconvenience them, of course--none of them would be able to edit, since they're more than likely not auto-confirmed. Hey, Dennis, Gaijin, you'll be pleased to know that like a good American I'm making mac and cheese, and Lightbreather will appreciate that like a good housewife I'm making it from scratch. 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, since you're both likely to be full-blooded Americans, reeking of gasoline and gun powder, and both probably older than 29, you both listened to Rush, no doubt--as I'm doing right now, prompted by having looked at Le Studio. So here's your mission: please improve that article... Drmies (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42, Dennis, excellent job on Le Studio. Really. I can't thank you enough. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo someone had an extra bowl of snark flakes this morning :) Sorry for not coming to your aid, I had baby duties this evening. Although I am 29+ and do often reek of gun powder and gasoline, I'm not a fan of Rush (which is not to say I dislike them, I just didn't develop an affinity) However, The Police I do take a liking to. Ill take a look at what I can do tomorrow instead of doing my real job :) Gaijin42 (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, snark flakes--that's a new one for me. Well, if you don't like Rush, what the hell kind of libertarian are you? The Police is for wimps, Gaijin. "Message in a bottle..." Pff. Real men write their messages on their dicks. But yeah, maybe you can find something exciting that I couldn't. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I almost went with time 1:00 from this video, but didn't know how you would take it :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ePx6rQxmY Gaijin42 (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooooh Gaijin I think you should expect a notice from the Gender Gap Task Force. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Drmies. Ask anytime, I would be happy to put the same effort into any project you have. ;) Dennis - 2¢ 13:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Licensed professional counselor

User:CEDstudents is spamming the page again. I don't think it's severe enough for a block, but something does need to be done. ⁓ Hello 71 15:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Federalist

Your threatening post on my talk page regarding the The Federalist was completely devoid of any specific criticisms of my contributions to the discussion. , Indeed, it failed to identify any of the of the contributions you found objectionable, and further failed to set forth the necessary detailed explanations of why you found them so. Please do not post on my talk page again unless you are prepared to supply factually-supported argument, as opposed to a cobbled-together list of general Wikipedia rules. Thank you. GaiaHugger (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you act like a big shot, but... That AfD was still closed when you re-added commentary that was added after it was closed. Duh. I will grant you this: you were not the only one disrupting that AfD. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Clair McAlister

I just noticed that you deleted this as an expired prod. No arguments over that. However, I only noticed due to an editor removing the link to it from another article as the page wasn't on my watchlist. In this case I'd have contested the prod as he was an elected member of a regional body and almost all Members_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Forum have articles. Is it possible to either restore the article or to send me a copy of the deleted article, complete with the prod rationale and the page creator? Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Valenciano. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank K-stick. Valenciano, I was not aware of that fact. The way I read such notability, though, is that membership of this or that group (of "inherently" notable people) means there are reliable sources to make it pass the GNG--so the article still needs those kinds of sources. Thanks, 18:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

Thanks k-stick and drmies. Yes that's my reading too, but in this case I'd like to hunt around for sources myself. If I can't find any I'll send it to AFD. Valenciano (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Toronto Cat Rescue?

Why? Could you please respond to the comments I made on the talk page?

I said: This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the subject is a notable animal welfare organization, that provides services of note to people interested in helping animals. A number of independent references have been provided. The approach used by the organization can be exemplary to others interested in helping animals. I don't understand the request for speedy deletion. I am not involved with this organization and have reported on it objectively.

I said to the user who marked the page (Qxukhgiels): I don't see why this organization isn't considered notable as any of the many other animal welfare organizations on Wikipedia, for example listed in the list of animal welfare groups. The step to suggest it be marked for immediate deletion seems drastic. Please reconsider.

No one responded to my query. I had sources including coverage in national news reports. The organization has a high volume of animals it assists. What's the problem? That it is mainly Toronto? There was a mention of a rescue from Kuwait. Toronto is Canada's largest city. Notable organizations aren't only those that serve entire nations.

Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "The approach used by the organization can be exemplary to others interested in helping animals", that's not much of an argument for keeping an encyclopedic article. Eleven of the references were from the organization's own website, and the rest is not that impressive either: this mentions the place in a story about a cat cafe, this mentions it once in a story about pet insurance, and maybe this is the strongest of them--but it's all local, and it's a cat shelter. Despite all the happy cat news you put in the article, there is no legitimate claim of importance of encyclopedicness. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for responding, Drmies. I'm not sure what you mean by "it's a cat shelter" - that domestic cats and their welfare is not significant? In any event, as the article explains, the organization is not a cat shelter. It uses hundreds of foster homes instead.

Sounds to me like you are arguing notability, which is something quite different than the criteria for speedy deletion. The criteria for speedy deletion used in this case was that the organization had no credible claim of significance or importance. The article as written included the significance of the organization in its work of saving thousands of animals. From [21], "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Yet the speedy deletion criteria was applied to this article and it was deleted within hours of being published, with no discussion.

I could argue the notability issue as well. The organization is mentioned in multiple reliable secondary sources. The article about pet insurance was not a trivial mention of the organization, as it was an example of a notable rescue, the cat found with BB gun pellets lodged in its body. It was important enough to write about in a national newspaper. The development of cat cafés in North America is interesting to people all over, and the collaboration with rescues is noteworthy. The effort of involving children in literacy training is helpful for development of children as well as what it does for animal welfare.

It sounds like you personally don't value this information, and that is your prerogative, but that doesn't mean that it isn't notable, or have prima facie significance.

Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see a credible statement of importance. I saw verifiable statements about what it is and what it does, but that doesn't make it important yet. The article about the pellets was about a cat that was shot, not about the shelter. Sorry. You're welcome to submit a version through WP:AFC, of course. If you like, I can restore the deleted version to your user space. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to anchor changed section headings

Hi Drmies. When you change the heading of a talk page section (as you did here on AN/I) don't forget to use the {{anchor}} template with the section's original heading (e.g. {{anchor|''OriginalHeading''}}) so that links to the section which used the original title – from user's contribution lists, from watchlists, from talk page notices, etc. – will still work properly. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. I find it works best when used like this—putting the anchor immediately below the header tends to cause the least weirdness. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing Sulka. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I never voluntarily disagree with you, as you know, but I found this interesting and, as it turns out, there is some sourcing though at present it's a bit thin. Her importance, I am sure, is to be found in the literature on gender and sexuality: this would be a nice task for the Gender Gap Task Force to fix. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'reference' on middle east eye cannot be edited

Hi Drmies,

The reference section on Middle East Eye cannot be changed or edited. I want to add more links to that please, can you help?

ThanksGeorge john6868989 (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you should have a look at WP:CITEFOOT for the syntax. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for specific critique

Hi, an editor with whom I have had a long-running COI dispute apparently wishes to rely on your statement at [22] that there are "plenty of valid concerns about EllenCT's behavior and temperament, as is demonstrated in this very thread by Ellen's reactions," to supress the source I brought at [23]. I stand by my behavior and believe that I have not made any transgressions which would rise any further to the level of "valid concerns" than the use of strong language and a very human exasperation with at least a dozen POV-pushing hounders over the years I've been editing (many if not most of whom decided to pile on that thread.) Therefore, in the hopes that I might make some corrections towards improvement, would you please tell me which concerns you think are the most valid, as demonstrated in that thread? Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about I say something about that particular discussion? I don't think that discussing on a talk page and then bringing it up at RSN is forum shopping. That's what RSN is for. Also, I'm no expert on MEDRS and it's not my field, but in that discussion you both seem to be right somewhat--it's an advocacy group, but there are reviewers; then again, since it's not published in a journal I suppose they can pick the reviewers they like. Without knowing the process or the reviewers I would be inclined to reject it, personally. I find the whole thing, of industry-produced (or advocacy group-produced) publications, a really strange way of doing business, but that's how it is I suppose. In that ANI thread, off the top of my head, there were comments regarding what one can call the zeal with which you engage your opponents, and that was amply demonstrated in the thread. Which doesn't, of course, mean that you're therefore wrong. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is easy for me to pinpoint the first time I felt like other editors were opponents instead of collaborators, in June of last year. To be honest that feeling never really left, and you are right, it makes me seem like a zealot even though my goal is not to personally prevail over opponents, but just to make sure accuracy prevails above spam and ideology. I will reflect on that and try to do better. Just in the past few days the RFC bot pointed me to Electronic cigarette which I had independently researched months before, but had no idea of the controversy in which they have been embroiled. So I feel almost like I've made a fool of myself at [24], [25], and [26] because of my zeal to try to achieve neutral summarization. All around me I see successful editors who don't ever seem to have the issues I do, but then again there are plenty of other editors who can't seem to stay out of trouble because of their quick temper and perhaps an even greater zeal. The problem is, from what I can tell, the zealots on either side of any substantial dispute get to decide what the readership sees. If only there were something as effective at achieving accuracy and neutrality that wasn't as frustrating to others and myself as zealotry. EllenCT (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ellen. Look, I am happy that I could close the ANI thread the way I did, that it didn't have to become more serious. I also didn't realize that e-cigs were such a controversial thing; I've seen it in passing. I will have a look at those diffs you provided, but as I mentioned (or suggested) I'm no expert--but maybe it will be interesting to check the temperature there. Funny: I'm watching Colbert, and he just did a piece on the old Republican "I'm no scientist", a lead-in to the denial of what science says. Also, I'm no scientist. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuations?

Just so you know. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have the ability to argue with a brick wall. However it's unusual for the wall to win.--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Day in court. LOL

thanks for the laugh. I see a judge "what heinous crime have you committed that brings you to my courtroom?" "Um, your honor, I made the mistake of getting entangled in a possibly notable subject with a COI editor further complicating matters" Hope all is well StarM 02:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks, and thanks for dropping by. Mississippi...thank God for it. The comment was prompted by your edit summary earlier, which I thought was very ethical. BTW, around that time I ran into something odd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio DeVity. I think it's beyond saving; Johnbod doesn't see hope for it either. Maybe you can have a look? Drmies (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah I'm definitely a little rusty on policies especially re: deleting PROD/speedies. I thought there was also a fairly decent chance that someone would see the claim to notability and decline the speedy, as you did. Off to check out the referenced AfD. Thanks for the heads up. StarM 03:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- in case you're not watching the AFD, I weighed in over there. It's iffy, but there might be something. I'll work on it in userspace if deleted. StarM 03:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively think that DeVity might be a brand name for a large-scale commercial art operation. If so, it's probably notable- I see these Parisian scenes all over the place but I've never checked them out- but where you'd get an RS from I've no idea. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought. I only looked for the full name, still thinking "artist" rather than "franchise". Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Interesting thoughts. It's amazing how someone/a company that existed relatively recently is so hard to research. It's not as if we're researching a Nepali company from 993. Ooph. But love a good mystery. StarM 04:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

....

I will not rephrase my talk message if people online wont be ignorant enough or angry enough to leave unwanted posts then I wouldn't be posting such things no offense but I would like it if people stop thinking the stuff I am doing is wrong everyone on this site is open to a opinion but this is my profile and I mean as in unwanted is like insults and things that don't concern me. Namely someone telling me to stop editing a page and etc or someone telling me that I edit wrong and such I know when I break a policy I know a staff can correct me and I wont argue. Beyonder (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

(talk page stalker)The reason people notify you if one of your edits is "wrong" is so that you won't waste everyone else's time by making them clean up after you. Such messages are made under the assumption that you're smart enough to improve. The desire to improve is required, as is an interest in working collaboratively. Correcting your mistakes is not an insult, but assuming that someone who is trying to help you improve is insulting you shows a failure to assume good faith on your part. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I agree. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article blanking

I'm not sure exactly what your intention was, but I've reverted you on Christian McAlhaney for now. Please nominate it for deletion or speedy delete it if you think it meets any of the criterion. KJ^Discuss? 04:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I forgot to insert the redirect to the band, as I did with the other band members--thanks and my apologies. In a nutshell, Kkj11210, my argument is that the person is not notable in its own right. The article has been tagged for years, and the few sources aren't specifically about him, nor has he been so active outside of it that he warrants his own article; see the last section of WP:BAND. For such subjects, a redirect to the band article is the common solution. If you agree with that, I'll do the redirect properly; if you don't, I'll take it to AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's common procedure. I just reverted the page following WP:BLANKING. KJ^Discuss? 04:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I'll do it right this time. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, redirecting is still a form of deletion, just a sneaky way to avoid discussion about it. In the future, why don't you show the resident editors on the page some respect and give them their day in court. Earflaps (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. If we had to discuss "resident editors" every single time we'd never make our deadline. As for respect, well...you come into my house, my happy place, and should probably show me some respect too. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translation help

Hi Drmies, hope all is well.

Would it be possible to translate something from English into Dutch for a member of Project Eurovision? A project invite was issued and has been accepted by Ezeltje1598. However their English is not very good, and I have discovered they are from the Flanders region of Belgium. The piece to be translated can be found at User talk:Ezeltje1598#WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!. Thank you in advance. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

OK, my post that began that thread may have been a little provocative, but I am genuinely concerned about that article. A handful of editors strongly in support of what some call the western view of that incident have effectively taken ownership of the article. (One of them is a Putin hating, POV pushing administrator who hates me because I embarrassed him when he unsuccessfully took me to AN/I for getting in the way of his POV pushing.) No rational discussion is possible about removing much of the anti-Ukrainian separatist and anti-Russian propaganda in the article. I stopped editing there because of the pointlessness of it all in fighting against the owners, and the dangers of being again similarly hassled by the POV pushers. I still watch discussions. Sadly, almost every discussion suggesting that all is not perfect with the article is shut down. That's not a good look for Wikipedia. My post provoking Volunteer Marek's smartarse response was in response to one of those closures. I can stay away longer. I am still concerned about the state of that article, and in seeing so many discussions silenced. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am concerned as well. It's when crowdsourcing is beaten by its own success: too many fools at work. BTW, I'm not saying Marek is one: I am blissfully unaware of the actual issues. But that particular thread wasn't going anywhere and you know it, so I'm protecting you from yourself. Unfortunately, while I feel your pain, it'll have to be alleviated through the normal channels, so to speak. I do wonder about the lack of a tag, but I don't know the issues well enough to have an overall opinion. Take care HiLo, and thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I can keep quiet for longer. I'm primarily concerned right now about the repeated shutting down of conversations, and how an article like that can eventually become truly objective. It's very unhealthy there right now. (Not worried about your closure. And it was the first post I had made there for many weeks.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dance dance revolution

So, since you are Alabama's "Lord of Dance" (seriously, he could be your brother...) what do you think about tossing part of your costume whenever you dance? Or should this also be an allegory? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psst

Morien. Also this book. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot. I was sitting in a room with David Johnson from FSU (who needs an article) and he didn't give me this spelling. I'll have to merge them, and I'm going to rename it. David's editing the text; it'll be out in a year or two. Thanks Yngvadottir. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Football, football, football, football, football...

Hi Drmies!
Yeppers, I love Football, football, football, football, and {{Template|as of|recently}} football... I thought I should start off with a suitably medievalist pic, though I guess it references Jederman. Oh crumbs, "Everyman" is Early Modern English...
We get football on free-to-air TV here, but not football. It's broadcast during work hours, so I don't get to see much of it. Today I did manage to see a little bit the Seahawks against the Giants, where Eli got sacked in the fourth quarter, on the... some number down and some other number of yards. I only understand about 50% of the rules, but that just makes it even more interesting to me. I now grok some of the reasons flags get thrown, but others are an intriguing mystery.
Somewhere around in his books or papers I remember reading that Jameson said that structuralism was still the best way to analyze culture.^{[citation needed]} I guess that means I'm a native speaker of Football, and football, football being analogous to *Protoworld. I learned to speak football as a child and football as a teenager, but only recently learned to speak football.

As a ~~football~~ Rugby league fan, a number of the set plays in American football look just like Rugby league set plays. The RL field goal play is rant, rant, rant... There's an interesting article in the The Grauniad about Football, football, football, and football in Australia here. Apologies for rant. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of a Holy nature

I can't help you with your request, not quite over the line. I did notice something unusual enough that someone more powerful that you or I might be interested, so I dropped them a note. Dennis - 2¢ 18:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Dennis Brown: regarding your edits to write this, we even have cited commentary about it at Muphry's law. DMacks (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eye've decidid to stop bohtering with corecting my speling and grammer. Ewe guise will just half too lern how two reed my coments ass I right thems. Dennis - 2¢ 18:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Read my comments, ass" is something my inner voice says a lot actually. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, what a misleading title. I see nothing here that is related to Alabama football or bacon, the two things Drmies deems Holy. Bgwhite (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up on bacon. Dennis--what was my request? Does it involve the state of Mississippi, and specifically the city/town/whatever of Starkville, sinking in the muck before Saturday? Drmies (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction with education projects

Could you (or anyone) advise unofficially on the accepted "etiquette" when dealing with articles being edited by education projects? I have recently encountered Education Program:University of British Columbia/Linguistics (Fall 2014). On the one hand, the students are supposed to learn how to interact with other Wikipedians. On the other hand, the students are collaborating in creating or improving articles and they will be graded, so external assistance/interference might not always be appreciated.

An example is the article Adjectival noun. This is tagged as uncategorized (has been since 3 Nov.). Normally I would simply add categories, but I assume in this case one should wait a while for the students to notice the tag and react. On the other hand, they probably don't understand how categories work. Informing one of the involved students and asking them to fix the problem would be a bit uncooperative by normal Wikipedia norms, but they are here to learn.
Another article that illustrates some issues is Bound variable pronoun. I have made a few comments and there are some obvious errors that need correcting, but I am unsure how to proceed. Someone is wrong on the Internet, so I don't like to leave the errors. From the learning perspective it would probably be best to get the students to fix the mistakes, but reminding them would seem like nagging and would not teach them normal Wikipedia procedure. Another point is their use, on talk pages, of an "esteem-promoting" style that is probably more appropriate to a school situation, rather than the more direct Wikipedia style.

There is an education noticeboard but it doesn't look as if it is intended for such questions. --Boson (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I can tell you right off the bat is that this is indeed difficult, for the reasons you have indicated. I have few good experiences dealing with projects and ran into one recently; I'll have to dig it up. In the meantime, though, I wonder if our own Mr. Manners, Cullen328, doesn't have any advice for us. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as manners advice, I recommend that you don't drop the "f" bomb, and avoid use of words like "moron" and "idiot". And so on. But that's the sort of interaction advice that I would recommend when dealing with any editor, student or not. We are here to build and improve an encyclopedia, which can be a learning experience for anyone, even highly edumacated perfessors like Drmies. I do not believe that productive, experienced editors should treat student editors or the articles they work on any differently than we treat other newbies or their article work. If I am in a mood to categorize an article I run across, I will do so without a thought about the tender sensibilities of any other contributor. If I see what I know is an error in an article about anything at all other than medicine, theoretical physics, association football or grammar, I will edit and correct the darned article. I stay away from those topic areas, since they bewilder me. If any new editor, whether a college student or a grandma working on a quilting article, has a problem and asks for help, I will try my best to offer a friendly, helpful answer. If college students wants good grades, then they will whip themselves into productive editors well before the end of the semester. Whether or not youngsters get "A"s is not my concern. Improving the encyclopedia is all I care about here. I am very singleminded about that goal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief, no; I wasn't thinking of anything that direct, though as linguists, they shouldn't flinch at any particular words (a linguist who objects to the mention of taboo words is like a country vet who objects to putting his hand up the back end of a cow). I was thinking more of my Wikipedia style, like

"it is unclear what this diagram is supposed to illustrate"

compared with

"Hello there. This is a great article ... I like how you have lots of examples ... I really like how you've ... "

which I wouldn't really use in mixed company in Britain.

I shall try to treat them like normal editors, but perhaps explain a bit more. The main difference is that normal editors can gradually get used to the way Wikipedia does things, before starting on complete articles. --Boson (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boson: If students are doing anything actually wrong - like copyvio or labelling an article as only to be edited by particular people - I've in the past gone to the professor (hopefully they are identified). It hasn't always gone well, but they presumably can address the entire class about such things, and they are in large measure responsible for keeping their students from making a big mess. For things like "Nobody in this class seems to know about categories" I'd recommend contacting the prof too, to save time, but if it's one article, I would always tend to fix it. That's part of the Wikipedia experience, it's the main way a lot of us learnt, and it serves the reader better. FWIW. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ambassador for that class is The Interior, so you could always chat with him about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boson, can't believe I forgot to name LadyofShalott, who is not only a terrific human being but also a categorizing wizard. She's not so busy on Wikipedia anymore, I guess, but she's always been willing to lend a hand, and she's a better teacher than I'll ever be. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I go up and down. I've actually been starting a stubby stub today: Gospel Pilgrim Cemetery. I'll take a look here. LadyofShalott 15:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody, for the tips and contacts. The course page has "to be announced" under "campus ambassadors, so that's useful to know. I didn't want to give the impression that there were any real problems with the project, apart from the usual problems of becoming familiar with the way things normally work, but I thought it better to check if there were any unwritten rules. I am glad to see that someone is trying to improve the linguistics articles, some of which were in a pretty sorry state. I'll just carry on fixing things that get a bit messed up and sometimes politely tell them how to do it properly, hopefully without ruffling any feathers. The problem for the students is probably that they have "two masters", and they may need to find a balance between academic shorthand using precise jargon ("'John' has a referential index of i, but its anaphoric index is empty, since it is not c-commanded by anything") and the sloppier language of the general reader. Anyway, I have written a note to the course instructor, with some advice, quoting assessment criterion B6 .--Boson (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boson, don't really have much advice to give beyond what others have said. This course is purposefully putting their edits out there early in term, with the idea that this gives time for Wikipedians like yourself to offer feedback while the students are still involved. I've stressed to this class and others that a class cannot "own" an article, and that their content is very much subject to review by others. Hopefully they respond well to your comments, but, if you are having any communication difficulties with them, don't hesitate to drop by my talk or ping me. The Interior (Talk) 22:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is one hell of a project page. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help Requested

I have run out of patience with User:Ɱ and his roadblocking and ignoring asked for opinions (and common-sense) on the Stephens City, Virginia article. With attitude from the beginning, the editor seems to be trying to OWN the article with his perfered version and ignoring other editors (those with many FAs under their belts). I'm wondering if you could Talk:Stephens_City,_Virginia#Image_size have a look-see at the discussion and see if you can come to some sort of conclusion before I completely lose my patience. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homer, I don't know. That discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere but I can't judge policy or guidelines or anything like that. Perhaps the thing to do is to set up an RfC (to settle this for the article, at least, if that's possible) and ask Casliber and those others again to weight in. I'll ping Nikkimaria as well; perhaps they have some advice to offer. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, just following the rules. :) I will see if Nikkimaria has any advice, if she doesn't, I will go with the RfC. For now, though, I am going to go do something else. I got a project I'm working on, so I'm going to do that. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to state simple facts here for better understanding: Having had two editors (Nikkimaria was involved as well) point out to me in their FA reviews of Briarcliff Manor that the images should have the default size, I tried to change the Stephens City images to default, same as two editors had tried to two years ago. Neutralhomer reverted me like he reverted those two. I believe that Neutralhomer has been less than reasonable and cooperative in finding a solution to this issue. Wikipedia:Image use policy requires that nearly all images use the default size or a scaling factor, not the set pixels as is used on the Stephens City article. Neutralhomer doesn't think this applies because some FA requirement apparently requires good article formatting (which means little given that formatting changes depending on the device you use to read Wikipedia). He hasn't provided where that requirement is stated.--ɱ (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MJ, as Drmies stated above, he pinged Nikkimaria and he "can't judge policy or guidelines or anything like that". So giving your version of the discussion probably isn't going to get a different response. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I set up an RfC, I pinged all involved, you included because of this post and Nikkimaria. Hopefully that will settle it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm left some questions for both you and MJ there, but I've been looking through some past versions of the image policies, and I haven't been able to find the 175 number - do you happen to know where it was? The current tutorial mentions 170 for uprights, and as far as I know the smallest default for normal images ever was 180. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. I am pretty sure the 175px was from the FAC, but I can't remember exactly where. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I check there, and at the PRs and GANs - no dice. Also, do you have a default size set in your preferences? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme check my talk page archives. On the default size in my preferences, image size limit is 800x600 and the thumbnail limit is 220px. I'm pretty sure that is what it has always been. I have only changed preferences for gadgets, the time zone for DST, and my signature. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, the default size should be used for the vast majority of images, unless there is a compelling and universally persuasive reason to use another size image in a clearly defined case, which does not include generalized "I like it that way", or "it messes with my personal display choice". The default size is our consensus image size that works best on displays from everything from smart phones to monster horizontal monitors. Battling at length against the default image size is a bad move, in my humble opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: My main worry is that the default setting will (and has on widescreen monitors) cause smashed text and since this is an FA, that is frowned upon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have only been editing for five years here, Neutralhomer, and only have 30,000 edits, so I guess that I am a "newbie". In all that time, I have never once heard the term "smashed text", nor have I ever heard that the default image size is frowned upon in Featured Articles. But I am a guy who works in the trenches, rather than in the exalted areas of the encyclopedia. Certainly, you can provide a link here showing that the default image size should not be used in Featured Articles? Please provide that link here. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: This would be an example of "smashed text. If I could provide a link, believe me, I would. Problem is, I was told this about 3 1/2 years ago, so where it could be found, I have no clue. I can't remember last week half the time, not alone 3 1/2 years ago. :) My Mom, jokingly, says I have CRS...Can't Remember Shit. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the section called "Education and scholarly activity", where someone foolishly added a left image and a right image in the same section? That sort of thing is easy to correct. Let me get this straight, Neutralhomer: You are relying on your recollection of some unknown advice someone gave you 3-1/2 years ago as your ammunition for a protracted battle with an editor who supports using the agreed, consensus, default image size? That seems unwise to me, but perhaps there is an aspect of your argument that I do not yet understand. Maybe you should ask your mom for help explaining your position. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had me until that last line. I've dealt with enough snide comments from MJ, let's not start it here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, sorry this my be in the wrong position, it's rather a general comment) I never heard "smashed text" but think I know what you mean. Example Mass in B minor structure, many images, (so far) little text, on a small device no problem, on a larger one you have text that isn't together with the related image, or white space if you insert a forced "clear" before the next paragraph. One solution might be to have smaller images, my solution will to write (eventually) more text. - I have no problem with images smaller by scaling factor, but don't like super-large, as now in Mass for the Dresden court (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to MJ's perfered version and "walked away" from the discussion. Can't get anywhere with snide comments. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help me understanding, if you don't even look at my points, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that wasn't directed to you. This would be an example of "smashed text". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you could look! - I (only now) looked at the article in question, and don't like the images on the left under a header. I know that it was in WP:IMAGELOCATION to avoid that and is no more, but I still don't like it (and could defend my dislike by the wording "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages"). In this article, I see no good reason to "force" them left under the header. They could be left in the second paragraph, or right. - The first image on the Main page, in the TFA, has it "wrong" every day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to switch it up and have the images go left and right, so it looked different. Though that will probably be the next thing to be force-changed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflicts) Neutralhomer, looking at that example, what you're calling "smashed text" is what I've seen others call a sandwich; I think sandwich is the term used at the image guidance page. I've found it very hard to have any images on the left in articles, between the admonition not to have them cutting off headers from text or awkwardly isolating paragraphs and the danger that on somebody's display they will sandwich text between them and an image on the right; every time I try to have images alternating left and right, someone will eventually move those on the left to the right for one of those reasons. Unfortunately, I don't think shrinking the images is a solution, just as I've very rarely been able to get away with making an image large, for the reasons stated in the image guideline: people use a huge variety of devices, and have very different settings, so it's impossible to exert absolute control on layout, and specified image sizes will often wind up having a different effect from that intended because of the device/settings. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sandwiched text, smashed text, one and the same there. Apologizes for the confusion there. I'm open to having the images down the right side. I'm not sure how the one will work near the infobox. I think (but an unsure) it is frowned upon to have an image directly below the infobox in an FA. As I told Gerda, I was trying to be different with the left and right images. But I am open to all right side images. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: I moved all the images to the right, the first one (outside of the infobox) looks a little funky to me. Feel free to tinker at will, it's bedtime for me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact a redirect, MOS:SANDWICH, though I don't think that sandwiching is a matter of image size. Homer, Cullen was making a good-natured jab: you brought your mother along to the discussion. Don't think anything of it, please. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhomer: Glad I was able to help a tiny bit, but I won't edit it - I only meddle with FAs when I find a typo or have a link to a new article to add. And as I say, people are using so many different viewing formats and settings, quite apart from preferences, that image arrangement is very difficult. Hopefully it's now been resolved over there; the article has many informative pictures. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I always try to have the images as neat as possible and do my best to make sure they aren't causing problems with other screen formats (mobile, widescreen, etc.). The best I was able to find was 175px. It didn't cause any issues (at least that I was told). After dealing with User:Ɱ, everything right now feels like an insult. Maybe in a couple days I will think differently.

@Yngvadottir: Does it look OK from your end? Any image jutting or any unnecessary sentence breaks? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Order

Sorry, I'm still catching up with my watchlist from yesterday - gym, breakfast, and then out shopping and various errands, back to start a game pie, etc. I see Shawnsie has replied, do you still need my help? On another issue, I emailed you about a candidate for RfA, have you made a decision? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, looks like a great candidate who doesn't need my help. I haven't had much time today (just got out of class), but I was thinking about a shitty question to ask Jethro, haha. As for HOOM, well, the editor apologized for their accusations, so that's fine, but I have the feeling that the article is going to continue to need help. If we both keep an eye on things that would be good; I'm afraid they're not yet so hip on reflecting what secondary sources say. I'm pretty sure they're not a sock of Hermitstudy/PMH, so that's a good start already.
Game pie? You mean you got dead deer laying around? That's one hell of a lunch you're cooking; Bgwhite, a well-known meateater and Midwestern redneck, would be proud of you if he weren't so busy trying to blackball me all over the project. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'd like one with duck, please. (Not one of those ducks, above.) I see that my old pal ChildofMidnight is responsible for that article; Aymatth2 should get credit (like the "Ribbon of Good Riting", handed out by Jimbo hisself) for the phrase "Golden age of game pies", which is marvelous. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venison is easy to buy here, even the supermarkets sell it. There was pheasant, pigeon, rabbit and wild boar in it also. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really wanted to go hunting this weekend in Mississippi, but alas I can't join the elephant hunt. I am making some beef tongue tacos this weekend. I'd invite you over, but you couldn't find the place. You would be busy trying to find the mountain valley where I live in Kansas, Iowa or some other Midwestern state. Mountains do look pretty right now with a dusting of snow on them. Bgwhite (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep dreaming, Bg. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Stalking"

Are you serious? You consider appearing on a talk page where the IP is engaged in a discussion to be "following around"? Have I reverted him once since this "deal" was struck? No, but I damn well wanted to. I haven't because of this "deal". As I have explained to Yngvadottir, I was actually having a look at SummerPhD's edits, and up to that point, I wasn't entirely agreeing with all of what SummerPhD was doing. I trust you saw on the Michelle Thomas talk page how the IP accused me of bad faith several times, rounded off with an insult. Is it going to be impossible for me to discuss anything with this guy? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I don't mean to have a pop at you. But I take deep offence at accusations of stalking, particularly from someone I have been insulted by. I've deliberately avoided him in mainspace, yet I get bashed for appearing on no more than two talk pages with him. I have now effectively abandoned discussion with this guy, and where he and I disagree, I will invite uninvolved editors to interact with him. Nobody is interested in his accusations of bad faith against me, so I have no alternative other than to avoid them by not talking to him. Maybe that was the point of the "deal". It certainly isn't how it's all supposed to work. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you noted that I don't wish to tell you to stay away from the allision discussion, for instance--you have just as much right to participate there as I do. No, I have not looked at the Thomas page but I will. If it's just two talk pages where you two come together, I suppose that's fine; what I said on the IP talk page was not an accusation, just advice, and as far as I'm concerned it's more about edits and reverting edits, not about talk page participation. In other words, don't think that I always agree with the IP. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand that, it's no problem. And he has removed the main insult from the Thomas talk page, replacing it with an odd non sequitur. With the accusation of stalking, I was really referring to him, not you; and yes, I had thought that sticking to talk pages was OK. I was only at the Thomas page because it seemed to be the place where the "best known" discussion was taking place, which we were encouraged to have. It got nowhere of course. But it does genuinely seem that WP:AOBF does not apply to him, as today he has violated it practically every time he has addressed me. At least he didn't call me infantile, as he did SummerPhD. No matter, as I say, I will avoid talking to him. I've already steered clear of his talk page(s) and thrown him off mine, so the rest is easy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about personal attack

I have commented on your response at ANI about what I saw as a personal attack on WT:Five pillars#Clarifying for new editors the difference between "Wikipedia editorial consensus" and the "General_English_language" understanding_of_the_term. Dmcq (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read the "fucking idiot" comment, and I don't think I have anything to say to you. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you consider what I said as offensive and I didn't even say anything about bullying or shouting people down or dismissive crap. But you consider reiterating that sort of stuff as fine and within 'Editors should treat each other with respect and civility' and say what I said was asinine. Dmcq (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Pilgrim Cemetery

We have Hester's book, but I can't get at it until I have time to sit in the Heritage Room to look at it. It's not one I can just go grab off a shelf and carry wherever I want. LadyofShalott 15:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your memory is as good as that of an elephant...

... (see this Rolo), you remember this case: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Enough_is_enough. Unless I am totally wrong he is back, making it block evasion. The Banner talk 19:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mja, those articles weren't part of the set on ANI, but that talk page edit is pretty telling. All their edits have been reverted; let's wait and see. If needs be we'll protect what needs protecting, that's more helpful anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have that Rolo now. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not clean hands??

Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. It's clear vandalism and clearly-false statements about a living person. I reported it on the appropriate sanctions noticeboard, but in the meantime, are we just supposed to leave up specious false insinuations about someone because an IP doesn't care if they get 3RR blocked? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Next time you engage in such an edit war, explicitly claim BLP exemption if that's appropriate (which wasn't the case here) or more clearly claim vandalism (which in this case is iffy enough, though I granted it). Also, you're welcome: if Bbb23 had been on call you would have been blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was "on call", but it was late and I was very tired, so I didn't want to sort out the issues of BLP and incoherent English. First, even assuming there was some BLP violation imbedded in some of the edits (they weren't all the same), the horrible English claim kind of removed it because how can you violate BLP if you can't understand what it is being said? Besides, it was pretty twisted. The antecedents in the IP's posts were so confusing, I couldn't tell who was being maligned, if anyone. Also, I didn't like North's accusation of bad faith about the filer. Finally, there were so many reverts. It was obviously not the right way to handle the problem. So, yeah, if I'd studied it some more, I probably would have blocked both users.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing the GamerGate article

through protection. It's very very unappreciated that you're editing the GamerGate page through protection to do content stuff. Please stop that and wait like everyone else. Else, request an edit and hope to gain consensus. Tutelary (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see consensus, and I see bad paraphrasing and all kinds of other issues. Also, you may want to stop using the imperative in this way. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like your Gamergate page edit; certainly my biggest problem is now fixed, though by all means please leave me out of the article entirely until it's less radioactive. To be clear, my problem was that Ryulong's paraphrase of Isquith's article was blatantly wrong, akin to writing, "The New York Times said David Auerbach beats his wife." That's a Wikipedia problem, not an Isquith problem, and Tarc's refusal to acknowledge that is rather deranged, which his subsequent attacks on me seem to back up. Ryulong's behavior was also highly irresponsible in this instance. Auerbachkeller (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auerbachkeller, welcome aboard and thanks for stopping by. We aim to please; perhaps Mr. Isquith will also get an account, or I'll take to Twitter and we'll have it out there. (Seriously, can you remove a stupid comment like from that Icelandic Nazi troll?) I don't think we can leave your comments out of the article; they're published in the big time, and you clearly had something to say. By all means keep posting and keep involved. I typically get along with Tarc and usually think he makes sense, but I didn't quite follow the point he was trying to make with those tweets. Perhaps it's the 140-character format. Anyway, thanks again; your appeal to Jimbo clearly worked, so power to you. My interest, as I hope I made clear, was to do justice to the sources without regard to position or affiliation. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that you've got a serious problem on your hands: Ryulong's initial edit was not only slanderous but barely coherent, and Tarc's behavior speaks for itself. Saying I'm "siding with misogynist trash" is unacceptable. It doesn't rise to John Seigenthaler levels, but it makes me very wary. I have never and will never endorse Gamergate, but my reluctance to use insane hyperbole has put me in the position that many Democrats were in circa 2002 in the War on Terror. I still have varying levels of unease with some of the other citations of my work, but I'm tired of the abuse so I'm going to settle for what I got. And I am still troubled that no one bothered to verify that Ryulong's paraphrase was patently and slanderously wrong, even after I complained. I disagree with Isquith's interpretation of my article, in fact, but he didn't say anything out of bounds. That was Ryulong's doing. Why didn't anyone bother to check that? If you still want to quote me, please keep an eye on him. Personally, I'd kick off everyone except Masem and start over, but I suppose that's not going to happen. As for the troll, well...welcome to Twitter. :( ps--Your two allegories are great. Auerbachkeller (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony_Sidaway says "I always wondered why we bothered with the Auerbach material; much of it is just this guy's opinion (and for what it's worth, we don't have an article about him)." SGTM! :D Auerbachkeller (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ICYMI: "that awful paragraph" is Ryulong's: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=632030230 Auerbachkeller (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Drmies and Tutelary, give him a break. On this matter Drmies acted appropriately.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Devil's Advocate; I appreciate that. Auerbachkeller, I learn something new every day: "Silently Giggling to Myself". I don't have much of an answer for your other comments; I have not been intimately involved with the article in the last few weeks, and I checked the talk page only to see whether editors there were behaving appropriately since there's a lot of SPAs whose experience is in FPS and MMA, not in GGTF-related material. (I can do acronyms too!) I saw Tarc's comment on your Twitter feed (that's the right word, right? and you can't just remove that idiot's remark? and we can't ask for that person to be blocked?), and on-wiki, that would be pretty unacceptable. What I do like about Tarc is that he calls them as he sees them, and sometimes that's preferable over a honey-tongued backstabber.
Yes, if I had seen that paraphrase earlier I would have done something about it, but man that article is long and I can't hardly see the forest for the trees. Sure, GamerGate is important, but that article is almost the size of Napoleon: it's not that important. Masem typically makes good sense, though they made the mistake a couple of months ago of disagreeing with me (can't remember what about) so I need to avenge myself, obviously. I've had plenty of run-ins with Ryulong and I won't bore you with the details.
As you have seen on that talk page (ha, it's what you wrote, in a way) there is so much clashing going on that the middle road (of good editing) sometimes gets forgotten; it's part and parcel of that American pro and con type of argument that we teach all throughout the school system, to our detriment, as if the whole world and everything in it has to fit into a two-party system. I thought your article was quite interesting and insightful though I disagree with a couple of things as well, in a different way than Isquith I think, but hey, you got it printed so it counts. Now, that you don't have an article, we can fix that (there's plenty of Auerbachs but the more the merrier) for a small sum which I'll email you about, haha. I think it should be important to you that you get one before Isquith does. All the best, and thanks again for dropping by, Drmies (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks -- what's bothering me is that Ryulong's initial edit had no feasible motive other than to make me look as bad as possible, violating WP policy and moving into slander in the process. I do not like knowing that there is a Wikipedia editor who is out to get me, though I suppose it's nice that he's terrible at hiding it. The sad irony is that Tarc and Ryulong may think they're helping the cause of women, but they ain't. Acting like you're frightened of Gamergate, which is what they're doing by pushing so hard and unethically, is the easiest way to make a movement like GG think they're effective and should keep pushing. User talk: Auerbachkeller 16:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My ears must have been burning somewhere, with all these people talking about me here. Yes @Auerbachkeller:, on 2nd glance you may have been right. I don't read through the entire Gamergate article every single day, and how the prose was presented at that moment is not how I recollect it. So, sorry. The issue was that you went right to Jimmy Wales himself, and the problem with Jimmy and the Wikipedia is that he is really completely out-of-touch with the day in an day out editing of articles in this project. When he does decided to, quote "do something about it", he usually lands like a Bull in a China Shop and does more harm than good. A few years ago, he dived headlong into the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, because the folks at an off-wiki site injusticeinperugia.com harangued him that Amanda Knox was getting a bad rap in the article. The same Amanda Knox that is now a convicted felon fighting extradition back to Italy to serve her 29-year sentence for murder. We were right, and Jimmy backed the wrong horse because the right person got in his ear at the right time. So initially, I saw this as uncomfortably reminiscent of that. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind...

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know_nominations%2FForced_seduction&action=edit checking this]. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your Auerbach intervention. Sounds like the title of a Robert Ludlum novel, doesn't it? Oh, and you should definitely go on Twitter. :) Andreas JN 466 16:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no f***ing way! I got enough distractions already. Thanks Andreas; I hope you and yours are well. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Powers

We do not have the Payne book here (or in the system at all). It appears from OCLC, that I could go to Athens Tech to look at their library's copy, which I might have to do. It also is on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tvd3w, but I don't seem to have access to the relevant collection. Can you read that? LadyofShalott 20:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Interesting--JSTOR for books. I never looked at that before. As it happens, it tells me "Your institution has not purchased this book from JSTOR", so, eh, no. But don't go over there; if you like I'll try ILL. :) Drmies (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool beans! Let me know when you get it. I spent some time last night in the Heritage Room. I read Hester's book and an article he wrote for Athens Historian. I'm about to start incorporating some notes into the GPC article. LadyofShalott 16:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. AGF and the general atmosphere of Gamergate

I know you didn't comment specifically about the merits of my post, but I still could use your insights. First off, I don't like the abrasive tone that the YouTuber in question (Thunderf00t) used in his criticism of Sarkeesian either, nor do I condone the blatant misogyny in the comments section, but I think the argument he made has no less validity. The example Sarkeesian used in one of her videos was taken out of context and misrepresented. I was in a hurry when I posted that comment on the article's talk page, so I didn't get the chance to elaborate any further than I already have. My point was that the editing environment is not condusive to effective collaboration on any article pertaining to Gamergate, Sarkeesian, Quinn, etc.

It goes without saying that I'm not going to re-add what Tony removed. His removal appears to have the implicit support of everyone else involved, and I really don't want to wind up in trouble for a BLP issue. However, I take extreme offence to the manner in which he equated my comments to misogyny — and that, in a nutshell, is the sort of thing that leads me and probably several others to feel too intimidated to even desire any real involvement in this article. Gamergate is a hot topic, which means it's extremely important to have the best and most impartial coverage possible. As an area of contention, collaboration is crucial to achieving this. That was what I had hoped to convey with my original posting. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell you, Kurtis. I saw the redacted comment and had to backtrack through the history to find the entire post; I see now that most is restored with a comment or two redacted. As far as I'm concerned those were not BLP violations, though that one now-redacted comment of yours was....unwise, and I hope you see that too. With my short comment I wasn't pointing at you or your commentary, just at the Thunderfoot commentary, and the comments on YouTube. I typically don't look at YouTube comments, and now I remember why. Some moron said "I'm going to shoot a hooker" or something like that in response to the video. Isn't that nice.
I only watched the first three minutes or so of the video. I stopped when he was going on about some sex-trafficking ring, and if I understood him correctly he was saying, "well, intrepid heroes can't fight sex traffickers if we don't show the sex trafficking", which is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time. It is pretty obvious that the auction of women is in there so we get to look at scantily-clad women--pretty obvious to me anyway. One is reminded of the "educational" pornography of the 1960s. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. More pertinent to your comment is that the video isn't hardly a reliable source, so in that sense all of this is neither here nor there. I do agree that the general temperature there is in general a bit too elevated for my taste too, which is why you'll see that my involvement there is very limited. In the end, while I don't agree with the removal of your comment, or with the tone of Tony's response, I also see where he's coming from. If I can make a suggestion, it's too keep personality and personal feelings out of it as much as possible, and obviously I need to do that myself as well. In other words, your analysis (there) and mine (here) are obviously not going to be relevant to article development since they're our own (as you remarked there), and moving into article development based on those analyses easily leads one astray from what should be happening here, which is article development based on what the sources say. This is one of those cases where I find that the less one feels (not the same as "knows"), the better one can edit. Having said that, let me hasten to add that you're not the only one who wears their heart on their sleeve, and I wish that everyone there, on all sides, would try to tone it down. Then again, as I said in another thread, it was MUCH worse a couple of weeks ago... Thanks for your note Kurtis. I don't know if my ramblings are of any use at all, but your comment deserved an honest (if long...) response. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your insightful response, I really appreciate it. :)

BLP I find has become something of a suicide pact, and I say this as someone who counts it among our most vital policies. The fact that we care to get it right when it comes to authoring articles about real people is what sets Wikipedia apart from many mainstream media outlets, which are not unknown for jumping the gun on reporting news in lieu of a full investigation (Adam Lanza's brother comes to mind, if you're familiar with that case). I dislike when people use BLP as a means of shutting down disagreements and discrediting the other person. This is not the first time it's happened to me, and I'm sure it won't be the last either.

When you refer to an "unwise" comment of mine, I assume you're alluding to the part where I said "...no matter what the victim has done to attract it". Yeah, that did not come out as I had intended...

Gamergate is only the latest phase of a conflict that is longstanding and very contentious. The gender wars have been going on across the internet since forever, but over the past few years I find they've really heated up. The feminists vs. the men's rights activists — or, as I like to call it, the misandrists vs. misogynists. Two sides of the same jaded coin. It's taken the forefront in the real world, too. That was one of the biggest factors in the Isla Vista killings earlier this year. Granted, I do think the shooter was extremely paranoid (e.g. throwing coffee at a couple of women just for sitting there, because their presence is the equivalent of cold-blooded rejection in his eyes), but it still raises the issue of how gender roles and interactions between the two sexes shape modern society. I read a good chunk of his "manifesto" (he's actually a pretty good writer); it felt as if I was reading Mein Kampf, with every instance of the word "Jew" replaced with "woman". That people supported his acts of retrition is a sad reflection on the mindset of some people. Even in a site like this, where the average person is far more intelligent than your typical YouTube commentator, there is that divide between two impassioned minority groups. I'm always going to be on the side of treating others with basic human decency, no matter who they are or what they believe. I feel that women are not represented equally in society, and those who've tried to argue otherwise have failed to convince me. That doesn't mean I feel comfortable with using dishonesty to back my position. The article currently does seem to be a lot better now than it was when I first saw it. The valid positions are given credibility, whereas the fringe views... aren't.

This has reached ArbCom's doorstep, for better or for worse. If they decide to look into it, I hope they'll be able to enact something that helps the whole environment of gender-related topics (discretionary sanctions at a bare minimum are a given). Kurtis ^(talk) 06:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read Auerbach's piece and I'm willing to give "that" side the benefit of the doubt--that they're not all inveterate woman haters. But mind you, "feminist" covers a wide variety of opinions and theories; I find that all too often they're painted with the same brush. I'd get a feminist decal too, if I didn't want to keep my Prius clean. Suggesting that feminists are automatically man haters, well... Drmies (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 100%. And of course I'm only talking about the vocal minority among them who give the rest of the movement a bad name. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 15:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing: you said above that the thing with sex trafficking and the strip club were there for male sexual gratification. But then, should video games never feature strip clubs, or human trafficking? I'm not saying that this aspect of popular culture isn't heavily slanted against women (it is), just that excluding those things entirely would seem to have the same effect as wholesome 1950s shows like Leave it to Beaver and the like — painting an idealized version of the world while ignoring the ugly realities of modern society. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kurtis: (with my apologies for sea-lioning on Drmies' talk page, but I think you've asked a great question) — IMO, it would be profoundly unserious to say that such things should somehow be prohibited from appearing in video games, or should never appear. But the culture that we make shapes the world around us, and it would also be profoundly unserious to suggest that the portrayal of women in video games does not have a significant impact on our perception of women in the broader culture. What people like Anita Sarkeesian, etc. are doing is simply bringing that issue into the light of day to be part of the public conversation. Cultural criticism isn't about banning GTA XVII or turning Call of Duty: Global Thermonuclear War into The Sims: Fort Hood Garrison Edition. Rather, the idea is to discuss why so many games are like GTA and CoD; how the industry might evolve to produce deeper, more meaningful and more inclusive games; and what obstacles may exist to fostering more creativity and innovation in the industry. The current creative stagnation of AAA gaming (count how many current top games are endless franchise sequels) and coffin-corner development cost spiral is starting to push people to look for other directions. That is, things like Gone Home and Monument Valley are exploring the meaning of games and pushing the boundaries of gaming as an experience. No field of creative endeavor (and that's what games are — they are undeniably art, not science) has ever advanced far without people stopping to dissect, debate and ponder where that art form is going and where it might take us. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your insights. I'm aware of all that, and happen to agree with every point you've raised. It's not that I don't get the whole idea behind FeministFrequency; I do want to see women portrayed as genuine human beings, rather than being reduced to mere plot devices in male-centric storylines. Sarkeesian's thesis statement is one I can agree with — it's the body of evidence she compiles, and particularly its presentation, that I feel undermines her cause and gives credence to those who are opposed to the ideals that she espouses (most of whom are naive male gamers who fail to recognize the fundamental inequalities that women face in modern society). The misrepresentation I alluded to above and on the article's talk page is an example; Hitman: Absolution penalizes you for targeting civilians, rather than encouraging it. The question is, to what extent should we censor video games and other forms of media to achieve gender equality? Completely banning the presence of strip clubs from video games would detract a certain element of realism, especially if we're talking about adult franchises such as Grand Theft Auto or Hitman, which are no-holds-barred depictions of the seedier aspects of society. This is the sort of schism that I allude to when I say that I have "conflicting feelings" regarding Gamergate and other related subjects; I want women to be portrayed as human beings with their own opinions and desires, yet I am against the censorship of art to conform with an idealized reimagining of society.
    @Drmies: I'm sorry if this comment was a bit excessive, but I felt that NorthBySouthBaranof's post warranted a detailed response of some sort. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - My personal answer would be that we shouldn't ever censor anything from any video game — I thoroughly agree with you that government censorship is not the answer and, in fact, is rarely ever the answer to anything. The First Amendment is there for a damned good reason. Frankly, I don't think Sarkeesian has ever said anything about banning anything. The question is one of education more than anything else. A lot of these tropes I feel like aren't even intentional, they're just so ingrained in the "meta" of video games that they become second nature for developers. If we're empowered with the knowledge of what they are and how to recognize them when we're playing, our internal narrative is shifted. As developers, you might take that extra step of thinking, "If we include a strip club level/map/sequence/whatever, is that going to be a meaningful and irreplaceable part of our storyline or will it just come across as a cheap throwaway bid for some sexual titillation?" If the former, great, rock on. If it's the latter, maybe we need to get more creative and not do the same stupid cliché." As players, we're perhaps going to see the tropes for what they are rather than internalizing them as a valid conclusion about the role of women. As players, maybe we'll start to get storylines that are more complex, more involving, more diverse — and have fewer of the same shop-worn clichés that have plagued the industry for decades. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never thought Sarkeesian was out to have strip clubs and other things banned from gaming; I was responding more to Drmies's observation that the inclusion of a strip club in Hitman was meant as fan service for guys. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker)First of all, don't go off on 'Leave it to Beaver', it's a great show and I watch it frequently on Me-TV. On a serious note, I don't want to say what Sarkeesian and those who support her do doesn't matter, because it does. In a way. But it doesn't matter as far as what video games will and will not portray. Like films and TV, there will always be a medium for giving people what they want. Especially with the internet in the 21st century. Now, what people want may change, but that is not going to be accomplished by attacking people because they like to play GTA or Counter Strike. That's why the whole GG 'movement' is a farce, and just a backlash. Video game developers are always going to try and make games more real, more graphic and more enjoyable to the people who are their target audiences. That's not going to stop, no matter what, because of the money involved. If some want to offer other kinds of game(which they do, every market and target audience provide opportunity for ca$h), that's simple too. In any case, there we are. Dave Dial (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhukova...

Would you mind terribly entering into the discussion I have tried to commence on the Dasha Zhukova talk page? I agree with the bulk of your edits. There are a couple that I don't agree with and I'd like to discuss. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you haven't been indeffed yet? :) Drmies (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I looked at the article and commented there. What needs to be done there is that the two reliable sources are taken seriously, and more reliable sources found. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the things you learn about people.

Mississippi St - Oregon, it's on like donkey kong mother fucka!--v/r - T P 05:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that over Miss St - FSU, now that my team is more or less out of the picture. Volunteer Marek 06:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm also hoping Bama will spoil it. Volunteer Marek 06:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As my friend says, this is a good weekend for Mississippi State to look like they're from Mississippi. He meant that in the most derogatory way possible. FSU--overrated. Cupcake schedule. I remember when Miami was a force to be reckoned with, but that's long ago. And Marek, your Volunteers haven't looked decent since Lane Kiffin left--I assume that's where you got your name from? Now, if we're really honest, the national championship game should automatically be a rematch of the SEC Championship game. Right, Tide rolls? Drmies (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indubitably. Tiderolls 15:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't the Volunteers. Look at the colors, why do you think I only have this pretty signature during fall, but not rest of the year? War Eagle! Volunteer Marek 16:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding. I don't believe I can allow booger eaters on my talk page. I have not forgotten last year, Marek; that's a very deep wound. As a side note, my five-year old is even worse: she will not eat carrots if they're on a blue plate. I can't stack the plastic cups so that blue is next to orange. I have no idea where she got that from. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I get sad, I watch the video from last year, then watch all the videos of the Bama fans crying. It cheers me up. When we lost to T&M this year on that fumbled snap I told my wife "That's got to be the second dumbest way to loose a football game. The only consolation is that the top dumbest way to loose a football game is still trying to kick a 52 yard field goal in the last second and have it returned for a touch down". Volunteer Marek 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, sure, maybe. But who would have thunk that if you have 100 yards to tackle a guy you can't even get close to him? It was a special teams failure, as far as I'm concerned. Still, that call will haunt Saban for a long time. Then again, you lost that game twice in a few minutes--don't forget an unnecessarily fumbled hand-off. Or, to really rub it in, you're talking about the squad we beat 59-0, right? Drmies (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, yep, and yep. Volunteer Marek 18:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I felt a little bad for you all, though it made standing in front of a classroom a bit easier (ahem, my paycheck comes out of Auburn). To lose on such an exchange, or two of them, is terrible: so much work down the drain in a split second. Same with that Iron Bowl of course. Then again, some split seconds are worse than others; remember Tyrone Prothro? Drmies (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that the year we got cheated out of a national title? Volunteer Marek 02:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, grats. And uh... I need a hug. Volunteer Marek 04:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I'm sorry things ended up the way they did. I know the feeling, of that train derailing. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, had a couple of upsets this weekend. Oregon St vs Arizona St? I guess Oregon St was getting some payback for the Oregon - Arizona game on behalf of their friends from Eugene? And then how about that Bama - Miss St game? Checked ESPN this morning and the new rankings aren't out yet, but I hear Bama might jump Florida St and Oregon to the #1 spot.--v/r - TP 18:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was rooting for Miami, of course, for the first time in forever. We're #2 now, but rankings don't mean nothing. We have to beat the Western Carolina Catamounts (never heard of them before) and, of course, Auburn. That's the only thing that matters, for Marek too I imagine. And then the SEC championship, if we get there. Georgia? That was a close one, a few years ago. So I have no opinion on the rankings--except for that it's sad to see the SEC West cannibalizing itself, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Auburn game will be a good one. I'm still angry that Auburn stole the BCS championship title from us in 2011 in the last 30 seconds of the game.--v/r - TP 18:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm. I guess I never realized that Auburn went to a national championship game. I could say I feel your pain, but that would be a lie. :) Drmies (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - In 2011? We were 8-5 that year, and Bammers won that one. I think you mean 2010 and Cam Newton (nm, just realized you were referring to calendar year, not season year). But yeah the Iron Bowl, at the end of the day, is really all that matters. We could go 1-12, but as long as that 1 is against Bama, it's all good. Volunteer Marek 19:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The championship was in 2011 - the season was 2010. Auburn was undefeated that season.--v/r - T P 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I realized that's what you were talking about after I hit save, hence my comment there in parentheses. Volunteer Marek 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        So Auburn's had an undefeated season, huh? That must have been exciting for someone! :) I think I remember the name "Cam Newton". Vaguely. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Like an echo - slowly fading?--v/r - T P 22:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        More like, an echo drowned out by the echo of a missed field goal. Volunteer Marek 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading over this thread, for some reason I thought Drmies mentioned that Auburn was playing the Western Carolina Catamites. I thought that was an odd name for a team, especially for a team from the Appalachians, but now I get it... catamounts. Good luck with that. Tangentially, I've noticed that the one really taboo subject on Wikipedia—the one subject that dare not even be mentioned, much less written into an article—is anything to do with the disciplinary record of a college football coach's team. Even when coaches are (in)famous for the depredations of their players—I'm thinking of names like Neuheisel, Tom Osborne, Urban Meyer—you will never find a mention of such in the lead, or usually even in the body, of their biographies, reliable sources be damned. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MastCall, it's us playing the Catamounts--I had to look up what animal that was. Interesting point you make--I do believe that Mike Price has a strip club mentioned in his article; it was there a while ago. I'll check. But if you are right, that's seriously troubling and it should be fixed (didn't know that Meyer done something wrong): no fan pages allowed. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, yes, it's there (in Mike Price)--no mention of Destiny, or his destiny, which remains hilarious. American names are funny. Never name a child "Chastity" cause you know what's going to happen. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The idea of firing a college football coach for going to a strip club—which is, after all, legal—seems quaint. Anyhow, the arrest record of Florida's teams under Urban Meyer is notorious even by Division I college-football standards ([27], [28], [29], etc). The Orlando Sentinel even maintains a database of arrests during the Meyer regime ([30]). Ironically, one of them was Cam Newton, back when he rode the bench at UF ([31]). As the New York Times noted, a lot of the problems were covered up by the focus on Tebow, who was famously upright in his personal life, but when Aaron Hernandez was indicted as an (alleged) cold-blooded murderer, people started asking questions ([32]).
    The worst example of all, though, is Tom Osborne. I mean, he is basically the poster child for the college football coach who's deified for winning while his players are allowed to run rampant. His handling of Lawrence Phillips was notorious, even by the standards of the time. He allowed one of his players to continue with the team after being arrested for attempted murder. Another player fired a gun into an occupied vehicle; Osborne himself took the gun used in the crime and locked it away—an act which the County Attorney characterized as withholding evidence— and allowed the player to continue with the team. Another player was arrested 8 times (and convicted 4 times) and serially accused of sexual assault but never suspended. And so on. This is not my opinion; it's extensively covered by independent, reliable sources, but you will find absolutely no mention of it in his article, at least the last time I looked, despite a hagiographic section entitled "Legacy". I posted a brief run-down of sources on the talkpage a while back when I was bored ([33]). This article from SI is a starting point. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you look at this...

...proposal [34]. I realize it's made in good faith but it seems to be based on lack of experience. It's also going to make things worse, with this unnecessarily winding up at ArbCom or something. Need some experience folks - sigh, even administrator ones - to pour some cold water on these quasi-utopian schemes. Volunteer Marek 16:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left a paragraph there. I don't think it's as boneheaded as you suggest, but I can't fully support it either. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vendettas

Okay, I figure you're the person to ask here. Is there a way to request/specify that Ryulong and Tarc do not write about me or cite sources by me or about me? Both seem wholly unrepentant about what has happened, and lord knows an apology isn't on its way, so it seems I'm going to have to keep an eye on their edits lest one of them (Ryulong probably) pull this sort of thing again. Suggestions welcome. Thanks. Auerbachkeller (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we could easily get such a specific injunction. I mean, one can ask for it, at WP:AN or WP:ANI for instance, but that's far from a formality and I doubt that it would be granted. Personally I wouldn't be in favor of it either--I don't think it rises to that level. What I can say is that I will be happy to look at any future incidents. I mean, I have no intention of being a regular there and I don't really keep track of anyone's edits (unless they're Auburn fans, in which case WP:AGF simply doesn't apply), but if you see something you think I should look at I'll be glad to. Sorry, but that's the best I can do. Then again, apparently there's something brewing at ArbCom and I suppose at some point I need to check in on that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks. I hope that everyone knows to be more careful at least after this incident. I was going to ask Ryulong directly on his talk page but can't because I'm not autoconfirmed. But one other q--since you said having a page would help in disputes like this, is there any way to encourage neutral parties to create one for me that does not constitute self-promotion? There are less notable people with pages, I don't care too much whether or not I have one, but if it'll help in disputes like this, I'll take actions in that direction.Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I don't think I said that--I was joking I'd write one if you pay me handsomely. Actually, I did a quick search and--sorry--I don't think you're notable by our standards (WP:GNG), though if you keep this up you might be. (Well, not you, but others: others need to talk about you to make you notable, basically.)
    Autoconfirmed--so Ryulong's page is semi-protected? You're "autoconfirmed" if you make a couple of article edits, but I just checked a box in your user rights, so see if you're able to edit his page now. Anyway, Ryulong is one of the editors brought up in the ArbCom case; who knows what might happen there. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ryulong called me "prominent." I'm not sure if that's good or bad. (I totally did not get your joke, sorry.) Auerbachkeller (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need your advice...

Before I get started editing, I need your advice with regards to the following: [35]

Is this a real "physical" school?
If it is, what is the physical address, who are the founders, and how does it operate?
If it is not, what is it exactly? I've never seen anything quite like it.

PS: my first "edit/expand" was promoted to FA. I am elated, and hungry to do more!! American paddlefish Atsme☯^Consult 19:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a thoroughly disturbed article which probably needs to be retitled, for starters. But it's "school of" in the sense of "'theological' school of Dante criticism" or "school of Aristotle". Or school of hard knocks, I suppose. I think the thing to do is to look at the sources cited in the article (looking for the phrase in Google Books is futile) to see what's being discussed there, and what terms are being used. It seems to me, not having looked at the sources, that the title is probably synthesized, for want of an accepted unifying term, from what those citations may call various kinds of things. In some cases, that's the right way to go, but those cases are few (none come to mind right now, but it's cold here) and it may not be the right way to go here. Get the sources, I suggest--and good luck with it. Perhaps you'll find that the "essay" tag is valid, in which case, well, ahem, AfD is the proper way to go, or a merge to some more general article in which this "branch" or "approach" can be inserted. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing on Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hello Dr. A cuple of days ago you reverted an IP-hopping POV-pusher on Bosnia and Herzegovina, adding material about some Bosnian throne claimant. I believe he's back, now as user Overdtop, massively POV-pushing, though not about the same stuff, but claiming that BiH is an "autocracy" and "international protectorate", etc. Basing it on a single article on an obscure website (sample edit, with the ref it's based on), and edit-warring to get it the way he wants it, just like the IPs did. And with the same style in edit summaries etc. So would you mind taking a look at it? Thomas.W ^talk 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't yet think it's the same person. I left a note on the talk page basically supporting your revert, with a few arguments thrown in. Have you left them a warning of sanctions? I made a new shortcut: WP:BALKANS. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't issued a sanctions notice yet, but I guess I should. There's been a discussion between me and Ovrdtop on their talk page, BTW, that you might want to read. Thomas.W ^talk 21:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I read that--tons of fun. And I saw you notified them; thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, you had more discussion. Would you like some advice? Back out--no point in pressing the issue. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: The earlier IPs are definitely socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian). Like Drmies I'm not yet convinced that the account is related, though I do have my suspicions. TDL (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, TDL. Can you nail the diffs--that is, can you identify one from the confirmed sock farm that uses the same source/website/spelling/idiosyncratic term? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, on the SPI page I've listed 3 diffs: one for both new IPs and one for a blocked sock. Amongst other similarities, all link to http://wiki.royalfamily.ba/wiki/Mensur_Omerbashich, which aside from being a rather obscure site was also only created relatively recently. Furthermore, I'm quite certain that the royalfamily wiki article was created by Bosnipedian, but to prove that would require other off-wiki material that might contravene WP:OUTING. TDL (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TDL: I think we have a link between the "throne claimant"-pushing IPs, and through that Bosnipedian, and Overdtop now: 37.203.115.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They started by removing the staticIP-template from the talk page of one of the "throne claimant"-IPs, and repeating edits made by one of those, and then started repeating edits by Overdtop and hurling insults at everyone in their edit summaries. Resulting in a 31h block for personal attacks. Thomas.W ^talk 15:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

31 hours? Haha. 37.203.115.171 and 37.203.115.208 are obviously the same returning vandal. Nice small range, too, I've blocked it for a month. I don't know about any other IPs, they may not be the same. I can't face looking into the Overdtop connection. Drmies, since you have already looked into this, if you think Overdtop is the same as 37.203.115.xx per Thomas above, maybe you'd like to extend Overdtop's block to match the rangeblock? They only have 36 hours at the moment. If they're all the same, we'd be well rid of them for an extended period IMO. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Bish, thanks--but I can't look into anything right now since I'm distracted by four girls and two boys in my frontyard. Good thing they're all really cute. Thomas et al., please leave a note on the SPI pointing them to this thread if that evidence isn't already there. Without looking at the evidence I can't really decide on anything, but I will tell you that I'd be happy to never look at Overdtop's page or edits again (haven't looked since yesterday and I like to keep it that way). Drmies (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm now convinced that Overdtop is Bosnipedian based on the new evidence. Usually the best approach for dealing with socks is to give them a bit of time and the eventually let their identity slip. I've updated the SPI report. Feel free to add anything you find. TDL (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced too: indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Bosnipedian. Acroterion (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W, Danlaycock, Bishonen, Acroterion, thank you all very much. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

Hey Drmies, I was observing RC and saw you added 'autochecked' into Auerbachkeller (talk · contribs). Just to note that user group is redundant. Best, --///EuroCarGT 01:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks. I thought it took care of the "confirmed" part, but in the meantime I found that box--all the way at the bottom. Again, thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please revoke it and tell him to stay away from me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not revoking anything, Ryulong--perhaps you should stay away from him; perhaps you should stay away from that article altogether. He's not the first one to mix Wikipedia with the real world, so to speak, and if you have encyclopedic integrity, which shouldn't be so different from journalistic integrity, you'd have answered his question on your own talk page. Besides--you said he asked for censorship, and here you are asking that I revoke a simple user right which allows him to post on your page? Do you see the squirrel in this picture? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, you are always doing weird things

What ar those weird ducks you keep on your notice? Hafspajen (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question, Hafspajen, one I cannot answer easily. It has something to do with shepherding, no doubt--but the problem with allegories, as you know, is that frequently they mean everything and nothing at the same time. As a side note (I like having side notes), I think ducks are both funny and delicious. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but don't let them sneeze in your face. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone's been traumatized and needs a hug. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avian flu- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30076961 Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A query about Autochecked rights

An editor has called attention to the fact that you gave Autochecked rights to an editor despite the fact that Wikipedia:Autochecked users makes it clear that currently the Autochecked user right is not to be used. I came here with the intention of asking you whether this was a mistake, or whether there was some good reason that I didn't know about. However, on checking back at Wikipedia:Autochecked users to make sure I had got the details right, I noticed that it says "Currently there are 0 autochecked users; if there are any, they must be removed by an administrator from the list." In view of the word "must", I am going to remove the right from the editor. If there actually was a good reason for what you did, please (a) forgive me and (b) let me know. (See here for the relevant log.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, please see above, sections "Stuff" and "Vendettas". A simple mistake and thanks for correcting it (I never looked at the page you linked). I gotta tell you, though, I am puzzled by the whole thing--having user rights that don't mean anything and shouldn't be assigned, it begs a question so obvious I don't want to ask it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Why hasn't it just been removed? And, incidentally, as far as I remember I had never even heard of "Autochecked" until I received a request to look into this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the love, admiration, and deference to admins that us peons give you would lead to unreasonably swelled heads without counterbalance, WMF has cleverly sprinkled the site with Easter eggs to ensure it's impossible to be an admin without messing something up, sooner or later. Nice of them, huh? NE Ent 22:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ent, why don't you just run and get it over with? I even cited you the other day, so you can now say that your wisdom is spread like dung over the fertile field of ANI. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Run ... away? If I was truly wise ... NE Ent 22:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Hey Drmies, I don't know if you are interested, but I think you would be an excellent candidate for ArbCom -- strong content experience, administrative contributions, etc. -- a very balanced candidate. Considering the lack of candidates, you should consider it. Go Phightins! 21:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DO IT WE CANT AFFORD TO LOSE YOU. But in all seriousness... actually I stand by that, and I'm sure you're smart enough to know better than to run, even if you would be a good arb. Wizardman 22:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Considering the lack of candidates..." That's how I got to be an SGA senator too, with two votes I think. But in these elections you can vote against someone too, I believe. I've probably made enough enemies to end up with a negative score. I don't know. Do I really want to run for an office that has clerks? Would I be of any use? What has it done to poor Beeblebrox, who used to be so much fun? And Floq? Why doesn't Bishonen run? (And let's not hear "Jimbo hates me again"!) Or Bbb23? Dennis Brown would get in with a landslide, and He Would Do No Harm. Wait--these are all people who have on occasion said "Jimbo hates me". Dunno if he hates me. But, seriously, I appreciate the thought, I do. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies would be a drunkard before the two years were up. Or stark raving mad from the paperwork. So yes, I support. Dennis - 2¢ 21:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drunkards are among the few people who can do little harm in ArbCom, provided that their mics are turned off and no one can be forced to hear them singing. I am prepared to engage in some really repulsive unseemly fawning if required to encourage Drmies to consider getting his drinks on the WF tab for the next few years. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He did promise to block me if I ever considered a run, then the other day, lost his memory of that fact, leaving me twisting in the wind, so.... DRMIES FOR ARB 2014. Lets force him to run, as penance for his many, many sins. Dennis - 2¢ 22:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#.5BPlease_read.5D_Wikimedia_and_Right_to_Information.
Message added 23:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 23:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link was changed Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikimedia_and_Right_to_Information Tito☸Dutta 17:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vision 2021 (Sheikh Mohammed)

Hiya

I posted this but appear to have managed to delete it all by myself. Clever.

I saw you'd pruned the linkfarm but missed the Vision 2021 delete. The initiative was very much driven by him and the cite is the government website for the whole thing - agree on the language, but those are the stated goals of the initiative, which is a government reform movement and quite a big deal here in the UAE. What's a better way to include/refer to it? Tks! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah--you're talking about Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Well, I'd say that his biography still may not be the best place for this citation, but you can make an argument for linking it there (or in the references) by including some (brief) discussion of it in the text (I haven't found it). Then again, looking over the article, it strikes me as a bit full, if you know what I mean. For instance, there's a lot about horses. Given that it's a monarchy I'm not surprised to find a lot of stuff in there that in other biographies would not be found, esp. in the Charity section. A Western head of state would not donate 2 million of their own money because they can't; here we have a blending of person and government whose function in our article, unfortunately, is to inflate the matter--it makes personal (rightfully or not--one may ask who the 2 million belonged to) what in other countries is political. I suppose that can't be helped but the net effect is an article that some might call puffy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have given you a link as a clue! It's a difficult one, alright. I've been trying to get the tone right, but the fact is he's impelled all this stuff, caused it to happen, called for it to be done and it's built the city and a number of associated business ventures that have become world leaders. It's not a Western democracy but is a viable political system, and yet this all triggers loads of alarm bells about freedom, autocracy, self-promotion and aggrandisement. So trying to build an accurate picture without getting caught in perceptions of 'puff' is proving to be a bit of a dance! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peace

Did you know ... that Arvo Pärt began his choral composition Da pacem Domine (Give peace, Lord) two days after the 2004 Madrid train bombings? - I suggested the same in German today, found it in French, - how about different languages? It's great music, and we can hardly have too much peace. - I started something on the text, - help welcome, and again other languages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little in Dutch, if that's what you're asking. It's so hard to search Google these days--whatever happened to Advanced search? I think I need to change both language settings to Dutch, and then change them back again afterward. So no--I don't think I found enough to write an article with, but I'll just translate what's there now. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, you just need to search for it.... Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ps: see also, hardly too much peace ... - I archived the 2012 "'tis the season of banning" on my talk but possibly too soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, OK? Sorry, I don't understand what brings Carcharoth and Malleus into this. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am worried seeing arbitrators claiming banning as "the only solution", - is it just me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on who is to be banned. But we don't read the same papers, I suppose: what are you referring to? Drmies (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arb case GGTF, banning proposals for three people, - talking about civility. - I believe that the idea of banning is more incivil than some bad words, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, civility. I'm there two minutes, trying to read the talk page (OK, I spent twenty minutes on it, which I'll never get back), and start yelling at someone right away--someone who confused "What about topic x?" with the old "How do you feel about things?" Anyway, I had no idea that it had gone that far, but I guess that was always in the cards. I'm still waiting on a couple of those editors to rack up some article edits. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the English word for "Armutszeugnis"? More than one arbitrator voted banning as "the only solution", while I believe that it is no solution at all. A bit more creativity should be the minimum requirement for people who claim to arbitrate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indictment- but inditing is composing or writing (just found that out- My heart is inditing)- I claim no expertise but amended ignorance . Put it this way- a close personal friend is a retired university lecturer, fluent in two European languages and with a good knowledge of design history. And female. And has no interest in editing Wikipedia. How the **** is any "gender gap task force" going to convince her (and others) that this is a worthwhile pursuit. As for civility, what's worse for the editing environment? Coat or cu*t? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rely on environment (more than I want to admit): not the absence of certain words, nor niceties, - I am still here because personalities like Eric and Drmies (and women!) stand up against banning. I see it threatened, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I believe in your query, you are referring to poverty of imagination. I hope this can be forestalled, and had better not say more. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keurig Green Mountain

I'm currently sitting next to a marketer from this company at a conference. The article has tags saying it reads like an advertisement and it is not referenced. While the article certainly is not perfect, I didn't think either of these tags really applied on any kind of severe basis that would warrant an article-level tag. I think in this case I would want to avoid the appearance of dishing out favors to friends in the marketing community and wonder if you would take a look and consider whether the tags are warranted. At-a-glance, it looked like one of our better company pages, given that the quality standards on such pages are usually very low. CorporateM (Talk) 01:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we got one of those machines at the office, so if your man can send me a box (I like Sumatra), that would be nice. I'll have a look. Enjoy your conference! Drmies (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This event I go to each year; it's the only group of marketers I have ever encountered that really care about ethics. It's interesting though that when I say I do Wikipedia "ethically" they assume this means there is a disclosure of my financial connection to readers as required by the FTC's astroturfing laws. However, Wikipedia lacks the concept of authorship completely and does not allow any author a means to inform readers of their contributions. I was thinking a disclosure like the template below in article-space would make my contributions more legally compliant, but it is highly unlikely the community would allow me to make such a disclosure, which seems counter to our principles.

A major contributor to this page was sponsored by _______.

CorporateM (Talk) 06:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the template has to be restricted to articles about companies etc. Otherwise… Drug trade, Brothel, Puppy farm, Refrigerator trade above Arctic Circle. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was more or less pondering out-loud whether I would be allowed to add this to articles, where I have a financial connection that clearly applies to the FTC's regulations, as oppose to any kind of widespread application. CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The changed template is clearer; the previous one seemed to me to lend itself to mischief-making! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's also a bit less "legalezey". Do you think such a template would be appropriate? I rather felt the reception to something like that would be very negative. CorporateM (Talk) 18:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure- I've just read up on some stuff; it looks to me like you wouldn't have problems with the FTC, but with Wikipedia- a template might seem to be intended to discourage editing by others etc. For example, you write an article, I look at it and refrain from editing it because I think it might cause problems for you with your sponsor. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, you'd be surprised how often that kind of thing happens. We don't have the same kind of hard-nosed attitude as professional journalists, so as long as a COI editor discloses and appears to be trying to do things ethically, editors are very sympathetic to them and want to make an article that will "help them out". Maybe I'll just ask for it to be added to a specific article and see if I get away with it ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 14:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this while abusively stalking your talk page I so took a look at the article. My impression was that it had a breezy, PR-ish tone not typical of Wikipedia, so I can see where someone could in good faith tag it as an advert (though I think that's a bit much).

After some digging I found that a big chunk of the article was essentially plagiarized from company documents (see e.g., here). Whether this was by an insider or an enthusiastic fan of the product or someone else is impossible to say.

Although it's been edited in the meantime enough is left to explain the tone. I don't think the article should be tagged but thought you might be interested in the backstory. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point--yes, there's really enough there to warrant that claim. I think that most, or all, of that stuff is now gone from the article and I'm somewhat reluctant to remove almost the entire history; after all, it's stolen from some SEC paperwork, not from a "real" writer's work. If any expert has a different opinion, I'll be glad to reconsider or let them take care of it. Thanks! And yes, I agree with someone above that the tag looks like sponsoring. I wouldn't mind being sponsored, but not by Keurig: that coffee is overrated and the cups are just so much waste. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the C word?

The 'banned' word? What happened on Dark Shine's page, btw? Russavia? Tutelary (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't confirm or deny that. I saw people mentioning Russavia's name all over the place, so I assume that was them--I don't know, I've had very few dealings with them, and I wasn't all that close with DS, so I really don't know. There are others who could tell you for sure. All I saw was blockable disruption, clearly from someone who was out to get DS. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect the word "candidacy" is banned on this page. --Rs chen 7754 03:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And "Cam Newton". Drmies (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RTG thread

I requested that RTG be IBAN'ed from me in a completely different thread on ANI that got archived before RTG started the retaliatory thread that you just closed down. This was not an attempt to Boomerang at all. I asked the community to tell him to stay away first. There is no tit-for-tat here because he has done nothing in his communications with me or regarding me other than demand I get banned and I can stay as far away from him as necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what I said. Look at the final section, including the last set of comments: you're all over them. Of course you are trying to get admins to take action against you. I think you should be pleased that you weren't sanctioned-you're welcome. But I got a better one for you: I'll go through some of their edits and look at a bunch of diffs and see what's there. I am not pleased with how they're acting at all, and perhaps something should be done--perhaps I'll propose an iBan myself. But I'm telling you: you should take it easy. The number of comments you provide, the verbiage, the accusations--it is counterproductive. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Hello Drmies,
I admire you as an admin (and you are the only person in Wikipedia who scolded me ever), I want to know you opinion on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikimedia_and_Right_to_Information. If you want I may provide more details over email about why and what I am trying to get. --Tito☸Dutta 10:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic "Reversing of warning, past sanctions and past blocks". Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revels on Darkness Shines talk page

This is Russavia, can I ask why did you revdel the email correspondence I sent to Arbcom from Darkness Shines talk page? It is not degrading material. Sorry wait, it is degrading--to the twits of Arbcom, such as Kirill Lokshin who were presented with clear evidence 3 years ago and they fobbed off a clear duck case with "we're not convinced". Sorry, but WTF Kirill. Please don't tell me you revdelled it because it embarrasses the hell out of Arbcom. I really fucking hate being right when I comment on the bullshit that comes out of this project. 88.196.12.14 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where do I start--I'll start by saying that it looks like an email correspondence which you may not have the right to reproduce (and there was an email address in there--someone else's). Also, you're banned and should go play elsewhere. Sorry, but I have very, very little respect for this kind of editing. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean Kirill's response? He was acting in his position as an Arb and it was reproduced elsewhere on WP back in 2011, and was not removed. Additionally, his email address is freely available here for example (pinging Giano) and here, etc, etc. It is hardly secret information. Your revdel seems to be more a case you protecting your chum Darkness Shines, whom you have expressed affection for.
- As to me being banned, have you not seen, I don't give a shit about any community ban. The "community" is a filthy disgrace and I fart in its general direction. And will continue to do so. 176.46.88.99 (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why should I care about you? As far as I'm concerned, you're just trolling: "This user has zero tolerance for trolls", to cite your Commons page. DS is not my "chum", and I don't care so much for the ArbCom institution that I would want to "protect" them; I don't even know how that exchange you reproduced would incriminate ArbCom--so keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, and try to understand that other people care a lot less about you than you think they should. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

Hahaha, I was only using STiki to check for vandalism. I do it sometimes when the vandalism alert is in the red to remove the thousands of penis references people add to Wikipedia. Ogress _smash! 16:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite amazing. Thanks for cleaning up penises; lord knows we have plenty of em. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Just a head's up I sent you an email about some sensitive stuff, which I hoped as an admin and a parent you could give advice on. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice from more experienced admin

A few days after I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination) as "delete", somone showed up on my talk page wanting me to change the close to "no consensus". In the course of declining to do so, I mentioned that we have an article, WinFixer, that says the two malware programs are the same, and that he might want to create a redirect from Windows Police Pro to the WinFixer article. Instead of doing that, he now wants me to recreate the article, redirect it to WinFixer myself, and emend my closing statement on the AfD page. I'm a bit reluctant to do that as an admin action, mostly because it would involve redirection to a target that no one suggested in the AfD. (Admittedly, I've also had some bad experiences with people who wanted article histories retained under redirects, or in their userspaces, because they wanted later to try to surreptitiously restore the articles in defiance of AfD closes. These experiences may have made me unduly suspicious.) What's the best thing to do in this case? Deor (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) @Deor: I'm not Drmies (put that SPI away now) but if you offer an article's creator a route to undelete it, it's not too surprising that they've jumped at the issue. I personally think you're on safe grounds closing the AfD as delete, simply because there is no convincing article to redirect to - we don't have List of malware and there is so much of it that such an article would probably be deleted per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - and I am not convinced of "Windows Police Pro" as being a reasonable search term for a layman reader. Cunard gives the best "keep" argument, but even then, it looks like run of the mill coverage that would cover any malware program ever. As a possible solution, you could offer to userfy the article or put it in draftspace on the proviso that if it goes six months without editing, it gets deleted (this is per our WP:CSD#G13 policy on drafts). Something to think about. (On a related note, given what I've just posted elsewhere on wikispace, this does illustrate some of the problems of the Article Rescue Squadron). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kind of what Ritchie said. I see no need to amend anything since I don't see there's anything wrong with the close. Userfication is, as you offered, a valid option--and if an AfD is closed as "delete" we shouldn't automatically preserve the history under a redirect: the discussion Cunard points to is interesting but open-ended. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice from more experienced admin, me too - the you got new messages is permanently red

Can't get rid of it. Is it just me? Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is orange still... Drmies (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it's gone. Some temporary mess around. How's yours? Hafspajen (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Drmies, may I say, the Wikipedia is running after us or we are after it, in both conditions we are getting and losing the energy. Thanks for your thanks. Justice007 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're a nice person, Justice. I'm glad we met. Keep warm! (And in case you want to know, since it's the Dutch thing these days, yeah, I think Zwarte Piet is a relic from a racist past, though I don't know how to adapt my Sinterklaasliedjes...) Drmies (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blp

You missed a spot. On a related note, do you think there is a higher standard as to what can be kept in article histories (not revdeleted) for BLPs?--64.233.173.170 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)aka Googleman[reply]

I don't know what Drmies thinks, but I think yes. He almost certainly agrees with me, and if not then I shall set the doggie pictured above on him. (Why are there so many doggies around this page at the moment?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I blame Hafspajen, Demiurge. But I don't mind dogs, though I'm still afraid of other people's dogs. And yes on the BLP thing; the IP also posted on Harry Mitchell's page, where I left a longer response. That was some disgusting stuff in the Menendez article, and such stuff was one of the reasons I wanted to run for admin. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. And why would you be afraid? Because if you do, they will know. Dogs simply know everything you feel. They just get it somehow. It is better to think Ooh what a cute animal" - and soon they will be all over you, kissing and jumping. There is a little immortality issue around here again. Hafspajen (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Orfeo

Thanks for the note, and I'll be sure to remind my students about the issue of single user accounts. Feel free to contact us with any other concerns! Redcknight (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goedenavond, Drmies. FYI, I have now softblocked the Newpaltzbritishlit account. It might have been abandoned anyway but in this case a pro-forma-block won't hurt. De728631 (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Talbot (scribe)

Hi Drmies,

I'm doing a bit of Oxford Dictionary of National Biography-Wikipedia metadata matching, and came across this article which you created a few years back - do you think it's likely to be on the same person as their "Talbot, Robert, antiquary..."? I suspect they're the same person, but not quite confident... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, that is an interesting question--I'd say "yes" unequivocally if the biographies weren't so different. But what I wrote up was a quick note/stub based on a quick reading of Ker, where perhaps this is the only time he's mentioned. The book is at the office, I believe, so I'll have a look in the next few days to confirm, but I have little doubt, honestly. I mean, what are the odds? If you want to get to work on it, and if you find enough to change the title from "scribe" to something else, go for it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think this (a useful source] nails it--prebendary at Norwich. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - it's not my field but I'll expand it a bit and tie the details together later. Many thanks! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Forced seduction

On 20 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Forced seduction, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the literary motif of "forced seduction" was called a male rape fantasy, an attempt by the hero to get to know the heroine, a useful lesson for women to not dress sexy, and an enjoyable fantasy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Forced seduction. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 22:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination)

It was a surprise to see that the AfD with 6 Keep and 8 Delete, after strong discussions on either side appeared to be "no consensus," was closed as a consensus for "Delete." Please note that the Stats counter was off and did not reflect 2 Keeps in the head count although they are included as bold "Keeps" in the discussion. Also, the activist group AutoAdmit has had an active thread going for 2-1/2 years to "take down" Pynchon's Wikipedia article. The controversy was mentioned several times during AfD, plus the AfD opened with it. I am hoping that you will reconsider your closing based on the strong discussions on both sides, the 8 Delete and 6 Keep count, as well as AutoAdmit's attempts and enlisting its network to have the Pynchon article deleted. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Do you count "Very very weak keep" as "keep"? I don't really know what you mean with Stats counter: I count arguments anyway. Moreover, I saw no evidence whatsoever of disruption at the AfD, no matter how often it was mentioned. What was brought up, however, was the dearth of reliable sources that discussed her, rather than mentioned her, and that (as I indicated) was the decisive factor. Tomwsulcer, for instance, talks about how her work makes her significant, but is then unable to produce anything that proves that; it's all inference. Looking at that article again, I would have been troubled by it as an editor. For instance, you got that CNN article, which gives her seven sentences in a short sort of interview thing--and then the article (which is about performance reviews) is used to cite that she worked as a litigation attorney for 25 years. In fact, the article seems to verify the entirety of this:
to the State Bar of California, and, in 1985, to the U.S. District Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern Districts of California and to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. In the mid 1980s, she was a business law professor at California State University at Northridge. She practiced law as a commercial litigator for 25 years before starting a mediation practice
when all you can get out of it is "I was a commercial litigation attorney". No, I looked at those sources, I read the comments, I agree with them: mentions do not amount to significant discussion. If that were the case, we'd be even fuller of resumes than we already are.
Finally, please remember that this is not a head count. Admins can count, and they do, but they look at other things and those other things are usually more important. Thanks, and sorry that you didn't get what you wanted, Drmies (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I will ask you a similar question: Do you count a "weak delete" as a full delete? And two "strong keeps" as simple keeps? The article needs work, for certain. One editor said he would help improve it should it survive. As Ravenswing pointed out, sufficient reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail had been produced and GNG was met. But you seem resolved. Thanks again for responding. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Personally, when I use weak keep or weak delete, I mean its keep (or delete) but the other view is also valid so I don;t propose to argue about it. When I close, of course, I don't count !votes as such, but what people say. DGG ( talk ) 11:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's how I look at "weak keep" as well. "Strong keep" has an intensification that for all intents and purposes, except for rhetorical ones, is useless. But it's never about the bare count. Ravenswing may say that the sources are reliable and significantly discuss the subject, and you may agree, but that doesn't make it so. One other editor said "That being said there do not appear to be multiple reliable sources, where the subject of this AfD is the primary topic, and where the subject of this article is given significant coverage". Milowent says "there is precious little coverage about her as a notable person" (and saying "we don't need a date of birth" is a fallacy--it's taking one tiny element out of a larger argument, "no coverage"). A source citing someone is simply not the same as a source discussing someone, and the case of the CNN quote confirms that. So I'm sorry--I've looked at this AfD twice, actually, this week, but after a careful reading of the arguments I can come to only one conclusion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For you and talk-page stalkers: Overlapping good intentions

File:300x300 Princess.jpg

non free of course

File:Puppe alone.jpg

I started Computer Engineer Barbie in my user space, and moved it to mainspace without leaving a redirect. Unbeknownst to me, Tokyogirl79 had started I Can Be a Computer Engineer in her user space, and subsequently moved that to mainspace without leaving a redirect - so now there are two. Hers was started earlier but mainspaced later. Hers uses more of the available sources on the controversy (I quit to go to bed and have just got up), but does not include the sources on the development and release of the doll; it is limited to the book. There appears to be one other article on a Barbie "I Can Be" book, and no others on particular Barbie dolls (I initially mooted the class of article at Dr. Blofeld's talk page, wondering whether there had ever been an AfD or other discussion on the notability of Barbie doll editions, and kind of hoping he or one of his talk-page stalkers would start the article). I've placed a link in each article to the other. What should be done now? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: Eh, I'd say redirect it to yours and merge any additional information into your article. Makes more sense to have a section about the doll as a whole, since the book was originally packaged with the doll. The only thing I'd really add is that the book didn't really gain media attention until Ribon blogged about it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's noble of you; you got there first! In fact one of my sources makes the point that there is no trace of the book in 2010; Amazon was listing it as a 2013 publication. (It appears not to have been issued an independent ISBN?) The same source has a statement from the book's author, who was assigned to write about Barbie as a designer; I left that to add to the article later, but must now go to work. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm fetching the tea already, but my crumpets aren't done yet. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think a merge and redirect to Computer Engineer Barbie is probably best here. One idea is to move that content into a subheader of the Reception section. (Also, gosh, I just love it when editors are totally cool and work together in situations like this rather than play tug of war with where content should go, so props to you both.) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, you're an admin. Stop playing nice. Actually, I can't decide which of the two titles is best, but it's likely to be CEB, rather than the title of the book. We could have an RfC to decide it... Drmies (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ha— I was half-thinking to wikilink "play tug of war" to WP:RFC in my previous comment. :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, any time any of you are bored, there's a heap of 'em waiting to be closed. I tackled a few tonight, but it's slow going...and now it's bed time! With a dirty book, with pictures, from an academic press! Drmies (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--Amazon pulled it? That's a DYK waiting to happen. And Barbs infected the computer? How silly of her! Drmies (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two computers, not just one. Plus at one point she has both computers hooked up to a library computer, so she probably infected that one as well. Seriously, how would a teenager in 2010/2013 *not* know to run an antivirus program or to not have one on her computer at all... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I like redirecting to the article about the doll best because this would help to take care of those lingering concerns that I had about notability. The criticism for the book is pretty extensive, but it's all recent and I'd been worried about it being the book equivalent of 1E. Pair that with the doll's reception (which was quite positive) and we have a pretty nicely sourced article as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, would anyone know how to go about uploading a photo of the doll? I know that we could upload a cover of the book relatively easily, but I'm not familiar with pictures of things that aren't movie posters and book covers. I'm actually a little surprised that we don't have a Barbie specific WikiProject, all things considered. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tokyogirl79: If no free image is available, the fair-use rationale for Template:Non-free 3D art might work; given that the doll is the topic of the article, it's probably OK as long as all the other fair-use boxes are checked. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Saturday...

I agree with you that a new afd discussion is appropriate. I hope it won't be immediate, but it probably will. I'm staying out of it, of course. BTW , the ANI got archived. Since you just closed and its a live issue, perhaps you want to unarchive DGG ( talk ) 11:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, DGG, sorry--unarchive the ANI thread? Can't we just put a note on the article talk page pointing to it? Fill me in: you are more experienced with DR (not just the process but the spirit too) than I am. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you can do that. It might be easier. I consider the special procedures in maintaing these and some other pages a total nuisance, and there are some things I almost never do because I don't like working with codes and the like. WP is very good at setting up complicated workflows, without much thought for whether they make for good decisions. The only complicated thing that actually works is Huggle. Normally, if I close something complicated, I ask someone else to implement it. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I added a note to the article talk page; please tell me what you think. Thank, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boys will be boys...?

What a sweet photo!! LadyofShalott 15:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a lovely photo. I have sat my eldest son down today to read Simple Wikipedia's article on cats after he saw me copyediting Who's Next and asked me what I was doing. I hope I haven't put on the slippery slope - I've got this nightmare vision of me telling him aged 15 to stop blocking vandals and go to bed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My girls are interested in Wikipedia also. I'm not going to show them the ArbCom pages, obviously, but my oldest loved Green children of Woolpit. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the related topic between Arbcom and Woolpit, we could write a "Best of Eric Corbett" book with that, the Cottingley Fairies, what else? For good Eric stuff, I found Moors Murders an utterly fascinating read, though obviously that is not particularly something I would want my children to read. I can remember Myra Hindley appearing on the news again and again as a child, and I wondered who on earth she was until I finally read up on the murders aged about 14 and it all clicked into place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least that would be a book. "The Best of Drmies" is going to be a little folder full of one-page trivia, but at least it won't be completely empty. I did read Moors murders, a while ago, and found it fascinating as well. I have read a lot of his articles for fun. Whether IP72 and other named parties in the conflict have produced anything worthwhile, well. I copy edited an article worked on by one of them--holy moly. Note that I'm already speaking about Eric as if he's in the past tense; I have yet to learn what the evidence is (all I get out of Dennis Brown is sarcasm). Good thing I didn't run for ArbCom: them pages is too complicated. Well, I wonder if I should make myself scarce too. When I see editors I used to like and admire (GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, and others) vote for banning him, well, then I wonder what I'm doing here. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My fear is that the ending itself is the evidence. And the reason I didn't send you a list of damning evidence against Eric is that I quite literally found none that hadn't already been adjudicated. Here is a "Did You Know" for you.....Did you know that both my GAs, my FA and my TFA have Eric Corbett's hand on them? I never wrote a real article until he took the time to help me. Before that, he was just another person that opposed me at RFA. I guess I could have judged him for that, but I'm a richer man for not judging that book by its cover. Dennis - 2¢ 22:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I may have said before, it really doesn't matter to me what the outcome of this interminable ArbCom case is, I just wish it would end. There's a limit to how many times even the most even-tempered editor ought to be expected to have to be told on a daily basis what a .... they are. Eric Corbett 22:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thank you for the image and the dedication. Makes me cry. Remember I put civility and team spirit up about two years ago? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. Um, not that there's anything wrong with that. Dreadstar ☥ 22:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've love to change the world
but I don't know what to do
so I'll leave it up to you
— I'd Love to Change the World listen here

Looking at the ban vote, it's one short of a site ban with NativeForeigner still on the fence. The important part are the comments: you've got 4 voting for because they don't know what else to do, and the opposes are clear they don't consider the conduct acceptable. As I recall -- and Eric can correct me if I'm wrong -- he's pretty much on record as saying his position that Wikipedia, not him, has to change. So what other option(s) are there? NE Ent 23:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It happened that an arb changed their mind. On the infoboxes case it happened twice (by two who vote ban now again: "I have given a lot of thought to this proposal, and have come to think that it is perhaps unnecessary.", "Indefinitely separating an long-term dedicated editor from this project should take more than the closest possible vote of a divided committee."). Without these changes, Andy would have been banned. (And why? Because he was banned before. I didn't see any other evidence.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add, I love that photo. Children are blessed by being unburdened by the prejudices and preconceived ideas that we eventually heap upon them. As I'm literally one foot out the door on an extended break with no deadline, I wanted to stop by and just say this: Thank you for all the things you've done for me and all the things you did without me even knowing it. You made a difference. Dennis - 2¢ 19:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I'd hug you if I could. You've done more than many to improve the atmosphere here. I think the most recent RfA is the first time I may have ever disagreed with you, and I did not find that enjoyable. You take care of yourself and if your extended break takes you thisaway, you know you're always welcome. All the best, and my regards to Mrs. Dennis Brown. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- We'll miss you, Dennis. You've done a lot for Wikipedia. All the best to you and yours. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3PO etiquette

user:Bilbobag and myself have agreed to seek a third opinion regarding the proper weight and NPOV description of a recent news item on the Publishers Clearing House article, where I have a COI. I posted a proposed 3PO message here and asked Bilbo here to verify whether he/she felt it was a neutral notification for a 3PO discussion.

As you can see on his Talk page, Bilbo felt the proposed A/B format needed to include four primary arguments he has made and additional context. In comparison, I felt we would end up with a large wall of text if we attempted to summarize all the arguments (naturally I'd want to include my own arguments as well).

Since you are active in dispute resolution-type work, I was wondering if you were familiar with best practices on this manner. CorporateM (Talk) 01:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) From 1967 to 2012 PCH disbursed prizes valued at $225 million (not necessarily cash). According to the article, since 1995 PCH have announced the winner of the $10 million prize just before the Superbowl (apparently some major annual baseball game, where somebody shows a nipple or something). That makes a total of $200 million (20 years times $10 million), leaving $25 million as the grand total of the rest of the prizes, disbursed over 45 years. ??.

Reading through some of the material regarding the selling practices of PCH, it seems to me from the materials that repeated complaints by state governments about them only result in PCH paying said governments "no-fault" cash settlements, and the selling practices continue. So the state governments are taking a "rake-off", and not actually forcing PCH to do anything? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your depiction seems reasonable and justified by the sources. They have paid many settlements (I don't think the payment is pocketed by the politician) and consumer complaints about elderly citizens in particular being confused and whether the company is complying continue. CorporateM (Talk) 13:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to paint PCH as the "bad guy"

. A cursory reading suggests to me that the long-term processes (of the relationship between the development of the business and the government's attempts to regulate the market) are complex, and perhaps difficult to summarise in a paragraph or two, especially NPOV style. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I have different opinions depending on the case. For example, in my opinion offering a map where a participant can draw the fastest route to their house from the airport for the prize patrol is pretty obviously just marketing (intended to promote fantasizing about winning) and not an actual logistical request that suggests you won. However, I can see how a small number of elderly citizens with diminished mental capacities (they may not know that nobody uses maps anymore due to GPS) may misunderstand, which will result in very angry family members.

They go through extensive efforts to properly estimate the odds of winning and educate the public that buying stuff doesn't increase your odds of winning, that if you win a big prize the prize patrol will show up at your doorstep by surprise (not notify you by mail, email, or phone as scammers do). So it's definitely not a willful type of thing, but they are in a precarious position of being financially motivated to get people to buy stuff and their primary promotional vehicle being the sweepstakes, but those two things not actually being directly connected by law.

Anyways, Drmies do you have a minute to chime in on best practices for 3PO and whether to summarize the arguments in the request or just leave it as a/b choices? CorporateM (Talk) 19:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corp, I've never been formally involved in that part of the project. I cannot tell you if the question is phrased neutral enough for them, though I don't see a problem with it. I don't know which of the two is yours (the short one, I suppose?) and I don't have a preference either way; it all depends on the sources, whether they are strong enough (and that Senate committee important enough) to warrant that detail. How 3PO likes their controversies delivered, I don't know, but it seems fair to me that if one side can present evidence, the other side can too; it's probably helpful to set a limit. Is TransporterMan still active there? Drmies (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'll see if TransporterMan responds or maybe ask at a 3PO Talk page. Yes, the only sources available are a couple news-of-the-day type sources that mostly repeat what was said in the press release, hence my feeling that only a sentence, as oppose to the current paragraph, is needed for this item in particular. We've had similar discussions on this page in the past that have gone my way, so I was thinking of using a formal 3PO to avoid the appearance of relying on friendly editors that support my arguments each time.

Catching up

Just saw we have two new solid admins (candidates I wish I was around to support, but was too busy at the Sarah McLachlan concert). I also see that (in answer to your ANI comment you mentioned me in) we may be the same person.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. 716, that's nothing. I have almost a thousand with CoM. Mandarax and I have almost 4000, most recently. 'Ullo John! Gotta New Motor?. But if anyone's the same as someone else, it's Mandarax and Bgwhite, whose almost 10,000 collaborations includes ! (disambiguation) (speaking of trivia). (!) Drmies (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 1620 and only 284 (me and Drmies, K). -LadyofShalott 18:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be honored to be thought of being Mandarax. We do have many of the same tastes. But alas, I'm not Mandarax, but instead I'm Magioladitis with 28,623 collaborations. Plus, having Mandarax and Bgwhite in the same sentence does sully Mandarax's good name. Thanks to Kelapstick mentioning RfA, I had a look over there. On the plus side, I've never heard of 'casting aspersions' before and now I know. On the minus side, how in the name of all holy did NorthAmerica become an admin? Egads. Bgwhite (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aww, thanks. But, as for the "same tastes", I have a horrible secret I've been keeping, which I feel I must now confess. I finally got around to seeing Mulholland Drive, and I'm not a fan. On the plus side, I liked it a lot more than Lynch's detestable Wild at Heart. BTW, Magio and I intersect over 12,000 times. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, Mandarax, I always imagined you as much more avant-garde than you really are. (Dr. WHO? Stargate? {Is that what it was called?)) I did like Mulholland Drive and Wild at Heart, but I'm mostly a foreigner, so my expectations in terms of realism and straightforward narrative are always going to be lower. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I've still never seen Doctor Who. (Or Stargate; did you mean Babylon 5?) I'm surprised you liked Wild at Heart. I think of the movie merely existing as an excuse to string together the longest, most grisly series of gruesome deaths I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. It is my most hated movie of all time. Note that, though I deplore depictions of violence, I don't let that keep me from appreciating quality works which include it. If you need proof of that, I'll point out my userbox proclaiming my assessment of Breaking Bad as the greatest work of entertainment ever produced. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that me and BG that enjoy the Dr. Who, which given your penchant for non-linear storylines, it would be right up your alley. It's about time travel after all, everything is happening in a different order.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thanks for your wisdom and a smile at GGTF. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool netherlands thingy of the day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UBGU-Rh-ZQ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Gaijin, that is cool. Drones made it? I guess I never thought about drones doing stuff like that. Isn't that a beautiful church? Did you know I have a professional interest in Saint Boniface? Drmies (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back in August, the 2014 South Napa earthquake hit the area where I live, severely damaging half a dozen buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. A few days later, a video drone hobbyist flew very close to these beautiful structures, documenting in great detail the damage they suffered, in a way not possible by conventional inspection techniques. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't

believe people were complaining about my talk page ... It was only 154 sections -or so. Hafspajen (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, is mine worse? I'll get on it. But it's the images that take so long to load. Your page on my phone would crash the lines here. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MY images? Who posted a boy lately? (not this one) ... Hafspajen (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a kluizenaar. Een kluizenaar. Oude man met een bril mediterend met een kruisbeeld. Op een tafel liggen een opengeslagen boek, rozenkrans en zandloper. Old man with glasses, sand-clock or whatshisname, and cross reading with rosary - I get that. Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hermit. Old man wearing glasses, meditating on a crucifix. On a table are an open book, a rosary and an hour glass. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look up "kluizelaar", Hafspajen; should have a Google Book hit or two. That's your next assignment, after The Best Karlsson in the World. Drmies (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Kluize"- hermit. "Laar"- switch."Hermit"- Simon. "Kluizelaar"- Spanky Simon, who will whip you with his magic bramble bush for being "naughty". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gosh, how everybody can speak Dutch nowadays. Thanks! What shall I do with theKarsson? Hafspajen (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some input

I edited this page to be "correct" . Its assembled in a way to mislead that the band started in 1999 , the band wasn't called the name the article was made for .

I reassembled it to be like this (scroll down to Preformation) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rise_Against&diff=635328250&oldid=635328071

Which basically shows Transistor Revolt formed in 1999 released one release and rise Against was formed in 2001 . It was called "disruptive editing" and the page was "protected" . its written as "Rise against was formed as Transistor Revolt . No, Transistor Revolt was formed as "Transistor Revolt" . They are staring to edit war and control the page . I am making it Read True like an Encyclopedia page should .

What I corrected

Pre-Formation-Independent years (1999–2003) Transistor Revolt was formed in[2] in 1999 by former members of the bands 88 Fingers Louie and Baxter.[3] Lineup consisted of Tim McIlrath (vocals), Joe Principe (bass and vocals), Toni Tintari (drums), and Mr. Precision (guitar and vocals). Though the band never performed live with this lineup, it released a self-produced demo EP entitled Transistor Revolt in 2000. Tintari left shortly after recording the EP, and was replaced by Brandon Barnes, after a short time with Dan Lumley of Screeching Weasel and Squirtgun on drums.

"Rise Against" was formed in 2001 after signing with Fat Wreck Chords, and released their first album, Unraveling (produced by veteran punk producer Mass Giorgini).[4] Guitarist, Mr. Precision left the band later in the year, and was replaced by Todd Mohney of The Killing Tree.[2][5]

After touring in support of The Unraveling, the band returned to the studio in December 2002 to work on their second full-length, Revolutions per Minute (produced by Bill Stevenson and Jason Livermore at The Blasting Room),[3][4] which was released in 2003. The band toured extensively in support of its first two records, opening for Sick of It All, NOFX, Agnostic Front, No Use for a Name,[6] AFI, and Strung Out. In addition, Rise Against participated in the 2003 Warped Tour.[7]

they have it like this, very Deceptive and Misleading.

Rise Against was formed under the name Transistor Revolt[2] in 1999 by former members of the bands 88 Fingers Louie and Baxter.[3] The first lineup consisted of Tim McIlrath (vocals), Joe Principe (bass and vocals), Toni Tintari (drums), and Mr. Precision (guitar and vocals). Though the band never performed live with this lineup, it released a self-produced demo EP entitled Transistor Revolt in 2000, a year before signing with Fat Wreck Chords. Tintari left shortly after recording the EP, and was replaced by Brandon Barnes, after a short time with Dan Lumley of Screeching Weasel and Squirtgun as the drummer.

The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001 and released their first album, Unraveling (produced by veteran punk producer Mass Giorgini) on Fat Wreck Chords that same year.[4] Mr. Precision left the band in 2001, and was replaced by Todd Mohney of The Killing Tree.[2][5]

After touring in support of The Unraveling, the band returned to the studio in December 2002 to work on their second full-length, Revolutions per Minute (produced by Bill Stevenson and Jason Livermore at The Blasting Room),[3][4] which was released in 2003. The band toured extensively in support of its first two records, opening for Sick of It All, NOFX, Agnostic Front, No Use for a Name,[6] AFI, and Strung Out. In addition, Rise Against participated in the 2003 Warped Tour.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_Against

You seem Pretty Important so I figured Id ask you . Thanks ahead of time . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how important I am, but I am not much more important than Acroterion who protected the article. This (whatever this is, precisely) is an argument you'll have to win on the talk page. BTW, I think that Acroterion was being nice to you, semi-protecting the article; they could have blocked you for edit warring. Anyway, good luck with it. I don't know anything about the content, since punk rock is waaaay too commercial for me. Drmies (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, semi-protection seemed like the kindest available action. It may have been the wrong version, but that is not my concern: editors are expected to politely discuss the issue on the talkpage, not edit-war. You have no choice but to do so now. Please work it out. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the talk page I haven't seen you reply , yet . I don't see that article ever becoming accurate ad I have two ideas why. One is criteria for articles where this is being challenged with "get sources" and also where ever since wiki became popular people say things in interviews to "influence" what can be claimed in an article .I know some people who have done (music) interviews where they knew they'd be able to use it someday If I needed (as a reference somewhere) . why wouldn't those at "semi-commercial" level . So the references aren't from when any of that was out (the material being discussed) . Its Interviews with "the singer" . He could lie and re-write his story or back up how fake it is by just mentioning it in an "interview" to a reliable source. A reliable source is only as reliable as the people proclaiming it . Anyone who does an interview with a reliable source could say "My uncle was the head of Wilsons Sportswear" . It could make it in tot he article and if no one "picked" up on it and if a "reliable" source didn't write about it(to contradict), it would stay there. it could have been a Blatant lie. Just like "Our first band wasn't really a Different name and set list , its really us formed as Them and then we became "ourselves" in 2001" . completely Wrong . Not my business or band . Hurts them for anyone who sees it with a shred of intelligence. First time Ive seen a situation where the "rules" or criteria Prevented the obvious truth from being fixed . We aren't robots . We can think for ourselves. If we see a thing that says so and so was doing something for 16 years and it says 2000-2014 We can pick up o it and change the 4 to "6" . This is No Different. Bit it is apparently . I picked up on a blatant "tricky" wording and its not going to be fixed because Im going to be "warned" , plus when others revert my edits its "alls fine" when I did it twice With Proper Explanation Im "disruptive" . Well Im right, the truth will still be aggravating to people when they figure it out . We can go back and forth a few times on the talk page and I don't really care not my band or business . Anyone who IS anyone would never have such an "Intro" calling it "independent years" its a way to group that section as "one thought" though its TWO BANDS . whatever 68.39.152.45 (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also what about this Horrible Writing ...Weasel and Squirtgun "as the drummer". AS THE DRUMMER ? No Real articles write "as the drummer' (any wear) unless its about "hype" like the band or label wrote it...... .....IS the Drummer , Current Drummer, On Drums , its not "Bruce Wayne as batman". The drummer IS the Drummer not "as the drummer" he's in the band or not ? ....Thats reads really bad "good article" or not other brains can go way beyond that level, you should let it happen when it does. see you at the talk page for probably not much more than "see ya later" 68.39.152.45 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The kluizenaar Award

	The Important kluizenaar Doctor award
	I am silent strucked with awe, awestruck, filled with awe Hafspajen (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks. Also, I sent an email on your behalf. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German edition of tear down this wall!

I wonder if you can create either de:Reißt diese Mauer ein! or de:Reißen Sie diese Mauer nieder! as translation of this article. --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked first and declined, but looked: "Herr Gorbatschow, reißen Sie diese Mauer ein!" - As the person is addressed, "Sie" is correct, de uses "ein". See also de:Liste geflügelter Worte/H. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If neither of you wants to create it, at least I added a request in de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Politik/DE/Fehlende Artikel. --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies

But you;ve been quoted at ANI. Please advise if I need to notify TRM and the users in the collapsed section. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

About a sockpuppet/master you recently blocked

Hi, sorry to be bothering you (I've been saying that a lot lately), but I need help with a sockpuppet you blocked recently. I am talking about that case and the new puppet Radko Kovac (talk · contribs). He has made it blatantly obvious he is the same person, but just now went on to edit war on the same page as the master account (here). Thanks (in advance), --Laveol ^T 10:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a "sockpuppet". Radko Kovac (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've already played that game once - you're making the same edits, in the same manner. Just pretending to stumble upon comments left by the IP editor does not sound too convincing, does it? And mere days after he was blocked? Editing your talkpage from the same IP range does not help either. --Laveol ^T 11:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has already been resolved on the talk page. Oh, wait, we've heard that one before too. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking cats

Since we're all cat-lovers here, I thought I'd draw your attention to this AfD on the kick the cat effect that turned up this morning. I've had a go at creating a decent article out of it, but hopefully with a bit of care and attention, we can spin out a suitable DYK from it. What do you think? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK… that physically abusing cats relieves frustration? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The series reaction of venting anger towards other, for example, Lisa had to stay at her company extra longer to finish the work her boss John given to her, she hated John because his attitude toward her are extremely impatient, after Lisa has finished her work, she noticed a big ugly scratch on her new car, so she went to pass down her anger toward a fast food worker Bob, by throwing her money at the Bob’s face. When Bob got home, he discover his teenage son has stay up all night playing a video games, he decide yell and say some harsh things to his son Mike that day, because he has to let off his anger at work towards Mike, when Mike got back to his room, he stated banging his stuff on the floor. The old man living downstairs has suffered all night from Mike’s video game noise, now he couldn't take it anymore; he sees his cat is grinding his paw on the sofa, and the old man hit his cat. The cat got scared, and ran out of the house. That's life. Hafspajen (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he discover his teenage son has stay up all night playing a video games - oh come on, it could be worse, he could be an admin on Commons. (Oooh, miaow). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, that's pretty funny. Also, that's one hell of a cat. At least it doesn't have Auburn colors, right, User:Volunteer Marek? Drmies (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I got a bad feeling here... Volunteer Marek 00:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the article, the above citation - ex-article you may say. Hafspajen (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Netanel Arami

Following the conclusion of the investigation that has deemed the death as a murder and an act of terrorism, I have recreated Death of Netanel Arami, a page for which you closed the AFD as deleteShulMaven (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I left a note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Netanel Arami. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dropping you a line

Hi Dr. You once very kindly suggested I drop you a line if I wanted you to block someone. [36]. I do. That Dennis Brown has been on "wikibreak" for three days now [37], is really fuzzy on the concept (hint: It invokes the "Log out" link), obviously needs help: "more slowly than I would care for". Surely, with all the wp-this and wp-that we have around here, there must be "something" he can be blocked for? After all, it's been said admins just block people and then make up the reasons afterwards. ("I" would never say that, of course, that's what socks are for!). NE Ent 00:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I scorn you, scurvy companion. What, you poor, base, rascally, cheating, lack-linen mate! Away, you moldy rogue, away! Obvious Sock 2¢ 00:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Plagiarised from Bish's Shakespearean Insult Generator? Shame on you, you varlet. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, you can block him for personal attacks, socking and copyvio. NE Ent 00:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ent--and I would, but I just gave up my tool to protest admin abuse. And I still think you should run for admin. You and Hobit. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC

.... Very funny Drmies. Hafspajen (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to see how badly we'd fail? I'd put NE Ent at 40% and me, maybe, at 50%. At the moment I've got enough real-world work to keep me busy for months, even if I thought I'd stand a chance I don't have the time to be useful. Work, kids, wife, friends. All higher priorities for the foreseeable future. Hobit (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still have friends? Well done... Anyway, maybe next year, same time, same place, we'll talk about it again. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admin intervention/review/neutral opinion - Bengali Kayastha

Sorry Drmies, I am posting on your talk page once again, requesting your/other admins' intervention. Honestly speaking, it doesn't make any sense to engage in an edit war with one of our trusted and senior editors like Sitush; and in spite of all efforts from my side, talk page discussions have failed. In fact, I have always maintained that as a Wikipedian, I have great respect for Sitush for his contributions. But at the same time, we all need to understand that no one is an authority here, no one owns an article, and no one can dictate terms or violate the policies or the essence of Wikipedia. As you probably know, I have interests in articles related to caste/ethnic groups, and I regularly keep a watch on a number of such articles, improve content, delete puffery and misinformation. Sitush is a great editor without any doubt, but he has his own opinion or POV as far as these related articles on Kayasthas are concerned, and has always come up with utmost resistance and all sorts of excuses, when it comes to incorporate even reliably sourced content endorsed by a number of historians; this is clearly evident from the talk page discussions of these articles, and I had to fight with him for more than a month (long time back) just in order to make him accept that as per our policies we need to show all reliably sourced opinions when it comes to the mythical origin of a community (something very obvious, but against his point of view). Therefore, I would like to request for neutral opinion(s) regarding our current dispute in order to resolve the issue here only; I am ready to accept others' opinion(s), even if it goes against my views. My only concern is that Wikipedia should remain free and fair to all editors, and edits should be judged based on our policies/merits/relevance, and not the editor.

I am providing the links of the edits (comparisons), along with the reasons:

1. edit1 - Incorporated the section 'Surnames and origin' as per detailed discussions on the article's talk page, after Sitush agreed that the section he removed recently can be added but without the surnames (please check Talk:Bengali Kayastha/Archive 1#Recent Edit - Nov 2014 for explanations and consensus).

2. edit2 - Quoted Shekhar Bandypadhyay from the source, otherwise the statements appeared to be misleading and incorrect; you may please check the source, this Page 20.

3. edit3 - Stating what Andre Wink says, using quotations wherever required, in order to avoid original research or synthesis; please check the source, this.

I don't have any clue about the rationale behind reverting the same.

Awaiting feedback. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't review this: it is too far outside my area of expertise, and as an admin I can't really intervene in what appears to be a content matter--note "appears". I noticed that Ritchie333 is trying to help out and I appreciate that. Ekdalian, I will tell you that this Sitush is a strange fellow. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your observation. Best Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong...again

Don't really know who to turn to or if anything can or will be done, but figured I'd make an appeal here. I expect people will just yell and say that what happens off Wikipedia is irrelevant, but I really wish someone could do something about Ryulong and the unpleasant claims he's making about me ("enabling harassment" now): ANI update here with links Auerbachkeller (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but there's nothing I or anyone else can do about that. Even a topic ban on Gamergate wouldn't change that: we cannot control off-wiki behavior. I do have the feeling that if people would stop tweeting and commenting on every single damn thing this would be much more agreeable quickly. I haven't checked on our Gamergate pages recently and so I don't know what's going on, and I haven't been on-wiki a lot either. As soon as this holiday is over I'll probably check more regularly; for now all I can say is Ryulong, please. This isn't helping. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David Auerbach should not be tweeting to his followers stuff I'm doing on Wikipedia that has nothing to do with him. He is followed by several thousand people on Twitter and several hundred of those have done it since he stepped into the Gamergate fray. He is enabling the harassment of me off site by continually doing this. I want him to leave me alone because I've certainly stayed away from anything involving him until he made a tweet yesterday raising the alarm that I dared to touch a discussion about Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a thought. Maybe both of you can stop. Maybe both of you can consider that telling the rest of the world what you're thinking and feeling right now isn't all that real. Why don't the two of you have a cup of coffee in a neutral site, like Canada, and talk things over? Drmies (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE

NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE NOT UNCONSTRUCTIVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreat8211 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, an artist, at last. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xanty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You destroyed our modern artwork!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O'Haffy's Swedish lesson

Cool Swedish words. 10 Swedish Words you won't find in the English Language!!!! Fun fun fun, educational! 28 NOVEMBER (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harkla. Very duktig. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Det war roligt. INTE! I really wasn't so impressed--I think those translations didn't indicate intranslatability. What's the Swedish word of the year? The Dutch (and I think the Belgians are included) have one of those each year. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not impressed what Americans know about us, just fish fish, fish, meatballs and dynamite ...Hafspajen (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well , how about Lagom ...? Hafspajen (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pleb- the £3 million pound noun. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.

Well, there's Orienteering and ABBA ... NE Ent 23:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and the Swedish Turnip. DYK IKEA stores in the UK have a good selection of new Swedish hardback books? What do IKEA stores in Sweden have on their shelves? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABBA is correct! High score! Of course IKEA uses IKEA shelf, what other they should use. They sell - all thing appropriate to start a new home, revamp and old, make your dogs life easier and revamp your business and stores. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I've visited, in the US, had paperbacks, and multiple copies of the same thing; I wasn't impressed in that regard. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The older I get the more I appreciate ABBA's craft. And IKEA...ah I wish I had one nearby, and more money to spend there. But if Yngvadottir is not impressed, I'll take my business elsewhere, like to Rooms To Go. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the bookshelves aren't bad, and they have a cute stuffed dragon. But the book selection on the shelves was underwhelming. I think shipping costs come into play here as they don't in the UK. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are selling the bookshelf, not the books. Those books were there just to make the display look more homey / and to discourage people to steal books, of course. Hafspajen (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I voted

Breaking Ent rule #7 (Thou shall not suck up to admins) I voted for your proposal [38] since someone had to go ruin a perfectly fine snow vote with an oppose. C'est la vie. Anyway, I was wondering about "users/admins" -- are you saying admins are distinct from "users"? Or that admins are users? If the later, is that a preexisting condition or does admining drive one into drug use? NE Ent 22:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "peon/overlord". Ent, I've been very fragmented in my Wikipedia contributions and that finds its way into my very language. I made a terrible grammatical error the other day, so bad that it looks like I'm trying out some kind of vernacular which isn't mine. Thanks for the vote; as for users, I'm drinking a delicious glass of wine (my second one, actually) and feeling much better thank you very much. Purists will scoff at the mixedness of this "rouge", but hey, I'm a rougey kind of admin/user anyways. I hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving, Ent, and, since you're asking, I am thankful for fellow users like Favonian, Slim Virgin, Bishonen, TParis, HJ Mitchell, Bbb23, Dennis Brown, Sitush, Eric Corbett, BlueMoonset, Mandarax, Ritchie333, Hafspajen, Yngvadottir, Sagaciousphil, DangerousPanda, Masem, Beeblebrox, LessHeard vanU, Ched, Gaijin42, Lightbreather, Ealdgyth, Kelapstick, FreeRangeFrog, Xanthomelanoussprog, Bgwhite (just kidding: Bgwhite can **** my ****!), Newyorkbrad, Gerda Arendt, NE Ent (oh! that's you!), Acroterion, Ponyo, TransporterMan, Tnxman307 (happy trails...), De728631, Deor, Cullen328, LadyofShalott, Dougweller, DGG, and a whole host of others (a whoooole host of others). (How's that for sucking up to admins?) Seriously, the real list is a lot longer; thinking about that, about all those nice, helpful, good-faith contributors (each in their own way) who have helped me become a better writer and administrator, yeah, that makes me thankful. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you. My name is on the list, I notice

Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. I think you know how thankful I am for you too. For, among other things, your sense of humor (even when poor Bgwhite is the butt of it). BTW, the finicky notifications system didn't notify me; maybe you overwhelmed it by being thankful for too many people. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that is so sweet of you Drmies. It is nice of you to say "Bgwhite can swim in my pool" and "can Drink my beer". Too bad I won't be caught dead in Alabama. How about we meet in Athens just before Alabama loses to the Dawgs next year? Bgwhite (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, was I so unclear??? I meant you can *&^% my (^%)! :) Dawgs...the ones that, well, eh, lost to a team that's not even in the SEC? (Believe me, I'm sad about that too.) Sure, though you'll probably be late, clock management#Game_summary being a bit tough sometimes. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*blushes horribly* Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for including me in your list (missed it so far), - possibly because I praised one of your recent edits as the most constructive I've seen in a while, #Boys will be boys...?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awww... Now I feel kind of left out... Serves me right for wanting to stay off the radar for a bit... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snaky

Do we have this article? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Snakes Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have Sacred snakes of Cephalonia, but that's only one sentence long. Good thing it's a very well-written sentence. Other sources are here and here. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderfully written piece of sentence, indeed. Do you care to add more or do you want to wait until the festivities in August 5 - August 15? Hafspajen (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[39] [40][41] >*Video Kyrios, good video, sakes, very good nice snakes, Kyrios. Not one pic on Wiki so far. Hafspajen (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the kind of snake, Tellescopus fallax. Hafspajen (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

snakes in thr Greek TV news

Box

This user owns one or more dogs.

a nice new userbox for you as a thanksgiving present - THIS USER IS A DOG OWNER - not to use, if not like Hafspajen (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if it fits. After today's laundry I deserve a different user box--"This user uses cotton diapers". Drmies (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Glas.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Glas.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, have you looked at Glas (book)? A damn fine article, if I say so myself--especially given that I'm a complete amateur. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Test

Do you prefer the Musburger broadcast or the Finebaum performance art?

The test is, if you respond to this in the next 3.5+ hours, you're less dedicated to your religion than I anticipated. :-) Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Mrs. Drmies showed me some viral clip from some idiot who called into to Finebaum's show about the officiating and whatnot--apparently had cheated because they scored? Sometimes I watch his show when I try to take a nap. I didn't know Musburger was "reassigned"; I just looked it up after you mentioned him. I suppose I'm an old-fashioned sexist for not being offended by his remark about Katherine Webb (see the AfD for my comments: I am still convinced it's a BLP1E fueled by nothing but media hype). To be offended by that remark while remaining silent on the essential sexism and commercialism that's part and parcel of college sports, pace title IX, is hypocritical. Is that part of why he was moved? (FWIW, I do like Jesse Palmer as a commentator and damn, is he handsome--Mrs. Drmies agreed. But we stopped short of tweeting that for fear of a viral backlash.)
Is that the kind of answer you were looking for? :) Roll Tide! Drmies (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Very impressive essay. I think ESPN suits made a calculated decision to get a younger voice further exposure, while using Musburger's draw to build the SEC network. I'm wholly agreed that complaints about Musburger's "sexism" are misguided. I will continue to be angry that too many fighters of gender warfare consider Musburger and Ray Rice to be, if not equivalent, then deserving of similar contempt. Calling out Brent for ogling dulls the impact when someone like Rice needs to be publicly flogged. But it's unlikely that Brent was demoted for his Webb comments. Gambling references and complimenting women in the stands are part of what make him popular; and ESPN is all about popularity.
  I can't comment on Jesse Palmer, whether about his attractiveness or his commentary. I've only watched a few college football games this season -- my high school team, the Cincinnati Bengals,* and Arsenal "football" have taken priority. *[Footnote: if you watched today's game against Tampa, you might consider these commas indicative of an appositive rather than a list.] And while rooting for Northwestern is fun, it's difficult, especially for someone far, far away from Evanston. You've got it good, Drmies. While Bryant >> Saban, the recent incarnation of Bama is a dynasty for the ages. Enjoy it. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right--now I see it (duh!), why the SEC network graphics look so much like the ESPN graphics. Sorry, I'm quite dull. Well, Palmer is quite a looker, though I don't think he should make the two-day beard and the one-size-too-tight suits (with a very thin tie) his outfit for the ages. I like your grammatical note! No, I did not watch the Bengals; whatever game was on CBS suffered from our CBS station blacking out. Now, after almost all the chores are done, I'm going to watch the Peyton Manning show. Yes, I'm lucky these days, no doubt about it, but I gladly accept that gift having gone to school there after 1992 and before Saban. Northwesterners have it hard, I realize that, but at least you got a better eduction that I did! (But mine's paid off...) Drmies (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damn it, after all the kids are washed and brushed and put to bed and all the other shit is done, it turns out I missed 17 Denver points. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]