Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 78

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

Inna - Party Never Ens

[edit]
: Jean-Dominique Fabry Garat playing lyre

All those alternative listings are NOT an excuse for more iTunes links. I found them and added them. And know-it-alls like you love to mess these kinda shits. iTunes is one of the most VALID source for tracklisting in here. I can copy-paste them back, you know? But let's see how you'd response and in the end how your so-called fix which you attempt due to your belief you're a F*re*KING master wikipedia user would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkisnis (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, happy new year to you too. In case anyone cares, we're talking about this spam list. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually Drmies you are a Master Editor III. Tough loss last night... --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks K-stick, I appreciate it. We're all a bit depressed. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can take solace in the Oregon beating Ohio on the 12th.--kelapstick(bainuu) 17:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is no solace to me, K. We should not have lost: our own fault. I let that one guy go and he ran it in, and I wasn't able to convert on 3rd down on those seven or eight drives where we could have scored. Maybe by 2017 I'll have forgotten. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Happy new year then. But let's not forget: almost most of it wasn't spam. Like Japan, Spain etc. bonus tracks... I can add it but I don't want to deal iwth wikipedia's monkey business. Because everyone here does the sh*t however they want. So you better fix your page's US Bonus Tracks. They are not even that order. Just check the album at stores like JP one. You'll get what I'm talking about. Just do that a few click, would you? (Note 1: Wow what was that kelapstick? Do your sycophant thing somewhere else please. Even if you weren't doing that it seemed like it because. If not so, sorry. He may be a good editor with some ranks, yeah. But that wasn't the point.2: And what about lyre Hafspajen? Please play somewhere else. Do you even check the page I'm talking about? Duh. Nevermind...) 88.230.129.248 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • My dear 88.230.129.248, you would do well to get your head out of your ass, and understand when someone is making light of a crass comment (such as due to your belief you're a F*re*KING master wikipedia user). The tough loss comment was regarding the Crimson Tide's loss to the Buckeyes, we are all a bit saddened. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I got what loss is about but it doesn't have anything to with what I said. Making light of it or not. It is not about head in ass. It is about that I do not like being interrupted. As you may call I can be crass at those times, I am sorry I can't be that elite. I am not idiot or something like it. God. See where the topic came. Anyway as I said what I was trying to say, I am done. So now I wish you people to have a nice day as I try to more nice... Dkisnis (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back again asking for more advice

[edit]

First: Happy New Year! Next: When you have a moment, could you take a look at this report [1] and advise as to whether or not it is an issue worthy of an AN/I? So far, it seems to have been ignored. As of today, the IP is continuing with the same behavior outlined in the report, by the way. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American professional sports teams by type of name

[edit]

List of North American professional sports teams by type of name is fascinating (and was grossly incomplete until I got hold of it). I had to move it, apparently someone thought Toronto, Montreal, etc. were in the US. Would the Calgary Flames fall under disasters, or should a fire-based section be created? Should this be expanded to include the Canadian Football League? Would the Winnipeg Blue Bombers fall under Weapons? Is a Roughrider an occupation or a type of person? Should Type of Person be sub-sectioned to for Native Americans and royalty? --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

[edit]

Happy New Year! There are a bunch of kpop-related AFDs that have been listed in the last few days. Take a look! ^_^ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Korea Shinyang-i (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I messed something up - can you help?

[edit]

I think I made a mistake. I was looking at GLAM (band) and in the lead the name was written "Glam blah blah (often stylized as GLAM) blah blah" and so I moved the page to Glam (band). But now I've read back through the article again and notice it says "GLAM" is an acronym for "Girls Be Ambitious" (which really doesn't make a lot of sense, but ok LOL). So I shouldn't have moved it probably. How do I fix it without breaking something? *sob* Thank you Shinyang-i (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinyang-i: That's how it's usually titled on pages so no worries. Similar to Shinee instead of SHINee, or Big Bang instead of BIGBANG. The only times I think the page name should be capitalized is if it has periods in between (like B.A.P, periods emphasized). Tibbydibby (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought at first, but then I realized it's an acronym (but with no periods).  :/ Shinyang-i (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alain Guionnet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Front National. 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) 11:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: Would you have any suggestions?

[edit]

(It seems that this thread was archived while I was writing my reply; here it is)

    • Thank you for getting back to me on the RfA concerns. I'd appreciate your advice on how should I explain "my admin role". You say that "certainly ArbCom was quite clear, quite clear". I assume you are referring to "has used his administrative tools in disputes he and other members of the list were involved in in order to affect disputes and in furtherance of their point of view." That does sound pretty damning, doesn't it? Now, let me try to explain it, and as noted I'll strongly appreciate your suggestion on how can I word it better to make sure I am being neutral, open, unbiased, etc., whether I should discuss this in my future RfA, and if so, in what length, format, etc. I certainly have been struggling with it for quite a while.
    • Ok, now - onto that incident. Note he single diff: [2] from September 16, 2009. The two numbers next to it [20090915-0602][20090915-0610] refer to two emails (from September 15, so the preceding day) that form the entirety of evidence here. The first of those emails is from me, responding to the email request from another editor. Although ArbCom didn't hotlink to those emails, they are still available online (with all of their outing contents, which was never of much concerns to the community). In any case, let me save you the trouble of looking for them. The first email [20090915-0602] is from me, a reply to another editor:
      • Email subject: "[WPM] Advice is sought on situation". Email content:
        • Hillock65 (talk · contribs): "Russian brigades keep targeting an article that I created 2 years ago: Battle_of_Konotop The main dispute is that they try to diminish the extent of their own defeat at Konotop by changing numbers and shifting emphasis elsewhere. Sporadic attacks were manageable. Lately, however, there appeared a concerted effort of at least two Russian editors. One of them is well established, the other is a newly created account. I was wondering if this is the same editor creating another account to bypass 3RR? How can I deal with this single purpose account and editor? Thanks."
        • My reply: "Since most of the edits are from IPs/newly registered editors, I slapped a semi-protection on it instead of reverting"
      • [20090915-0610]: This is the second email quoted by ArbCom as evidence. Why - I am not sure, as it is not either an email by me, or even a reply to my prior (or any other of mine) emails. Another editor replies to Hillock65 and states that he will revert the said article to his version.
    • Now, let's review the second piece of evidence, which is the edit history of the article (something that the ArbCom didn't believe was worthwhile). If you wouldn't mind humoring me, however:
      • The edit warring can be seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Konotop&offset=&limit=500&action=history . It started on September 13, and involved a revert war between Hillock65 and Voyevoda (talk · contribs) (now, this is looking a bit into the future, but: October 31, 2011 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked Voyevoda (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (persistent battleground editing, edit-warring and personal attacks)). Voyevoda soon received assistance from SPA HenrichB (talk · contribs) (November 1, 2009 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked HenrichB (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (tag team revert-warring, obvious proxying for blocked user User:Voyevoda)). Then there was one revert from User:Volunteer Marek, and two IP's warring started warring. At which time I stepped in and in my admin capacity I slapped a semi-protection. Please note that the semi-protected version was not the one that Hillock65 preferred, I just slapped the protection as soon as I could to keep the IP/SPas at bay.
      • This constitutes the entirety of evidence for "Piotrus has used his administrative tools in disputes he and other members of the list were involved in in order to affect disputes and in furtherance of their point of view".
        • Please note here that I used a single tool (semi-protection) in a single dispute. ArbCom, nonetheless, used the plural "tools" and "disputes".
      • Let's go back to the article's history for a moment. Edit warring between editors continued (without any involvement from me). On October 4, Will Beback protected this page for two weeks, starting a discussion thread on the talk page. As soon as the protection lapsed, edit warring resumed. On November 2, Future Perfect at Sunrise protected the page for three months. Occasional spats continued afterward, through they seem to have ended with Voyevoda's permban.
    • I do think that the semi-protection I added to the article, while improper due to breech of Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED, was otherwise in-line with what other admins would have done (in fact, two respected admins protected the article later). Nonetheless, looking back at this I realize that I should have referred Hillock to Wikipedia:Requests for protection rather than handling it myself, since I failed UNINVOLVED. I since have a policy that I decline any requests for me to comment or make any on-wiki edit I receive by email or by otherwise private form of communication.
    • Now, I hope this answers the question of "my role as an admin during the EEML affair", as well as the topic of "abuse of admin tools", more clearly. Please let me know if you have any questions. If not, I'd love to hear from you how I can "explain that EEML business" - in particularly the "abuse of admin tools" issue - better. Perhaps I could say, in my future RfAdmin statement, something like "regarding the 'abuse of admin tools' during the 2009 EEML case, I acknowledge I semi-protected a single article in violation of WP:UNINVOLVED, and since that case, I have a policy of not doing any on-wiki edits if I receive a request to do so off-wiki. If I was to regain admin tools, I'd certainly think twice before taking any admin action, to make sure UNINVOLVED is respected". Do you think this would be sufficient? Please let me know if this is not good enough. What else would you like to know, and what else should I say? (PS. As before - if you reply here, please WP:ECHO me - thank you). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Piotrus, it may well be that that is indeed all it is--but what I was reading and citing is what ArbCom wrote up, and I am not going to second-guess their conclusions when I am not even sure I am looking at what they were looking at. This is something that you cannot ask every individual RfA voter to consider. I appreciate your explanation, of course, but your policy cannot be evaluated by any outsider (that's a matter of course) and thus sounds good, but may not have much substance. If you ever want to allay these particular concerns, you'd have to get the Arbs to confirm this account, I suppose. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time. Best, and please see what you can do for Paweł Dembski, Drmies (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some Pancakes for you!

[edit]
And Brandy - quiz - how did that pear got into the bottle??
Boerenjongens, a Dutch snack made from thin layers of baked batter served with fruits. Hafspajen (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kpop resistance

[edit]

Dear Drmies, if you see a need, then please make an opinion on User talk: Shinyang-i's talk page. I'm out of words.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Drmies!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LesVegas (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

St. Cecilia

[edit]

Is something in nl:Messe solennelle en l'honneur de Sainte-Cécile that should be also in St. Cecilia Mass? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the...?

[edit]

I just found this No. MERCY (trainee) and I can't even figure out what it is. It's a TV show about (surprise surprise) making a new kpop group...I think? But the article seems to be trivia about the contestants on the show, and the article's title makes no sense. Or is it saying the article is about the "trainees"? I just...my brain hurts too much now. Do we go through AFD for this? Is there another procedure since it's so "WTF"? I'd have never even known it existed if it hadn't been for the Wikproject Korea's "new articles bot" thingy. Please help. LOL Shinyang-i (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. I cleaned it up some--but what that title is supposed to mean is anyone's guess. I think someone was simply trying to stick everything they knew about Yoonho into something. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh ooh, another issue. I found another new article here Yook sungjae. The author took such time and care withe the article he/she didn't even capitalize his name. Anyway, this article was previously redirected to BtoB (band) here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yook Sungjae. Does this new one need to be AFD'd? Redirected? I don't know the procedure. *slinks off* Shinyang-i (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's complicated. First of all, a BLP PROD would be very valid here. Second, if this version is very much like the deleted version, then it could be re-deleted. I chose option number three, a redirect with an explanation. If that's challenged we can always decide on option one or I can go into the history of the deleted article to see if it's substantially different. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article you may want to have a look at

[edit]

Greetings. Can you please have a look at The Low Countries before (1600-1609) and during the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621). It was created with a single edit a few days ago from an editor who did not edit Wikipedia before. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A New Year's wish

[edit]

(Not original, my daughter found it):

""I hope that in this year to come, you make mistakes.

Because if you are making mistakes, then you are making new things, trying new things, learning, living, pushing yourself, changing yourself, changing your world. You're doing things you've never done before, and more importantly, you're Doing Something.

So that's my wish for you, and all of us, and my wish for myself. Make New Mistakes. Make glorious, amazing mistakes. Make mistakes nobody's ever made before. Don't freeze, don't stop, don't worry that it isn't good enough, or it isn't perfect, whatever it is: art, or love, or work or family or life.

Whatever it is you're scared of doing, Do it.

Make your mistakes, next year and forever." — Neil Gaiman"

And thanks for the zebra.

Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's nice Dougweller, thank you--nicely found. Doing Something is a good idea, yes. I really kind of like Gaiman, by the way, though I am somewhat embarrassed to admit it. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Baconmas

[edit]

Interview for The Signpost

[edit]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (speak) @ 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you should. Hafspajen (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. This is an invitation (no obligation) to you. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 01:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:How many

[edit]

Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?Hafspajen (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of No. MERCY (trainee) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article No. MERCY (trainee) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. MERCY (trainee) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tibbydibby (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

A big thank you for the barnstar. Like I told TerryAlex, all the negativity kind of hit me at once, and it was overwhelming. I'm just not used to this type of conflict, but I will work harder. Thank you again! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tie Toter

[edit]

I do apologize! I am new to this and was laboring under the assumption that what I did in the sandbox section was for my eyes only as an experimental medium. Please excuse me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Rubble1927 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFD or some alternative process?

[edit]

This newly made article Baekyeol exists for the sole purpose of implying heavily that some fans have reason to believe the existence of a relationship between these two guys. Obviously the subject itself is unfit for an article, but can it go through a faster process under BLP violations? I read through the alternatives to AFD and I just can't tell (no experience with it). Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh Cullen, some good faith, for the love of God! It's a spiritual union! Maybe! I tried A7--let's see if an admin agrees to treat a supposed "supercouple" as a living entity. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what, Cullen, I missed that this half-full glass may have been filled in the shower (!). Maybe G10 is valid, though it's impossible to say. I'll add it, and will let the patrolling admin make the call. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys crack me up. I say if Yoonjae don't get their own couples' article, no one shall!!1! (some TVXQ-as-5 memoirs, there) But seriously, thanks for taking the reins on that. ^^ Shinyang-i (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

[edit]

Can you show me any consensus whatsoever for unilaterally overriding my block? Or are you simply committed to enabling this editor?—Kww(talk) 04:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your block was wrong. You can call me an enabler, and if you do I can call you an abusive admin who's got it in for this one guy and seeks any reason to block and hit mass rollback. I believe Yngvadottir might agree with my unblock, but I do that only on the strength of ESP. Get over it, Kevin: let it go. There's plenty of real bad people you can block, and plenty of ways in which your good qualities can come up. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People that lie in order to become unblocked are bad people, even if their edits are good. When he violates his 0RR restriction, will you say "naughty naughty", or will you let this strange tolerance you have for his behaviour go, block him, and help enforce his block in the future?—Kww(talk) 06:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, I find it very difficult to comment on a person's soul based on a few edits they make on a website. An admin claiming "block evasion" when the person wasn't blocked and so wasn't evading one, what am I to make of that? Drmies (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on editing

[edit]

Hello. I'll thank you not to edit my talk page comments in the future. Your friendship with the editor in question is clear, but editing my comments (while subsequently leaving his own alone above them!) does nothing but show your bias in the conflict. Thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't thank me, since I will remove such personal attacks. Eric Corbett has said nothing--at least not there!--that in any way compares to your rather childish taunts on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell are you talking about? an accidental bit of formatting allows you to remove my comment there? No, and I will remove your taunts again, and warn you for it--for the record. Drmies (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding quote tags to obscure a header doesn't exactly qualify as a "comment". That's simple formatting obstruction. You want to hide comments, go ahead. But you aren't going to be editing my comments without a revert. And I'm sorry, you can't be serious—have you been following his recent edit summaries and comments? You've got to be kidding—this guy is absolutely notorious for personal attacks and childish insults and then threatening to quit Wikipedia whenever someone attempts to block him. It's happened over and over. He's probably the most famous editor on Wikipedia for this sort of nonsense. This hardly qualifies as a "personal attack" to note. It seems that your blockers are on for your friend Corbett. I've seen you behave similarly before, utterly ignoring any insults he's made in favor of attacking whoever he may be attacking. I'm sure others have noticed as well—this isn't a good way to build articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be stupid--"hiding comments"? Sheesh--what do you think we are here--five? It's a fucking typo, which you should know about since you restored one in your opening insult: "they page". "Formatting obstruction"--what does that even mean? It's as inane as your original "Comment Editing" title for this section.

Now, I see that you removed my lovely, partly hand-crafted NPA warning from your talk page: I suppose that's not hiding the evidence? Not a formatting obstruction? Eh? Don't answer that, at least not here. Drmies (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take it as a threat, more as just nonsense from an involved user defending the nonsense (Undines as goddesses, a nonexistent folklore tradition, etc.) posted by his pal. As a result, I deleted it from my talk page, which I have ever right to do. Don't you have better things to do than pick an internet fight when Corbett goes on yet another rampage? :bloodofox: (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--why do you say I'm threatening you when you don't take something as a threat? Sorry, that makes no sense. However, I gladly accept your apology about that nonsensical "formatting obstruction" accusation; I'm happy you see the error of your ways. Also, I told you not to answer it here, didn't I? Don't answer that either. Drmies (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where's this "rampage" I've supposedly gone on? The reason you didn't find any comments of mine that compare to Bloodofox's "childish taunts" is that I didn't make any. Anywhere. Eric Corbett 18:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and kudos. He is right about one thing, though--I have better things to do. 2666, an article on one of the best novels of our time, is in very poor shape. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That article certainly needs some work. Eric Corbett 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Per this edit, I used to know somebody that enjoyed "getting it on" on the bonnet of a Peugeot 306, but per WP:BLP and wishing to protect my own body parts from physical damage, I cannot say whom. I dare say somebody has put an image of said act on Commons, but I'm not inclined to go and look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:PS: I'd be curious to know how you would field a question like this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please help

[edit]
original version
messed up current version

in Template:Infobox political party the results bars are seperated to far vertically from each other, the original version looked aesthetically better can you please help me? hello?! Dannis243 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some More Pancakes for you!

[edit]
Crêpes, snack made from thin layers of baked batter served with wipped cream and jam. Happy breakfast. Hafspajen (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you. Send her regards. Hafspajen (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]
pond

You blocked László Vazulvonal of Stockholm for a week. It would appear that he's been evading his block, so I've extended the block to a fortnight from today and hard-blocked his IP address to match. Just FYI. All the best and a belated happy new year, my friend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.jpg

[edit]
Don Giovanni Gon Giovanni, I am here to dine with you!!!!! Mozarts Opera
GiantDespair, after trying to find something interesting to write about this week's FAs
Noli me tangere in grisaille

I felt like that last time I tried reading the GamerGate Arbcom case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will feel like this if Phil leaves Wiki. Created Grey Passion, just to illustrate how I feel. Dedicate it to Xanty and Drmies. Hafspajen (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the pear tree comes from, suddenly? Hafspajen (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Merchant's Tale. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Byt the way Yobot is crazy [3] Hafspajen (talk) 18
09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The bot just tagged a poodle for Category:living people. Hafspajen (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ricky attended the Poodle Club of America show in April 2014 and afterwards travelled to Peru to be exhibited in South America." Not surprised the bot tagged him. Afterglow Rabid Quadrepedial (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is clearly stated that he is a poodle Best In Show at Crufts. By the way, there is nothing wrong with the Afterglow Maverick Sabre. If they mess up my account with this globalization, I might change my username to Afterglow Maverick Sabre. Sounds stylish. Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe to Afterglow Sugar Daddy. Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or Yakee A Dangerous Liaison. If I take Araki Fabulous Willy, I might get blocked for controversial username. Hafspajen (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Boduf Pistols At Dawn with Afterglow might get you blocked as well. Araki Superbulous Pussy (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Kpop groups" (again)

[edit]

Dear Drmies, can these three new articles: List of K-pop Debut (1990s), List of K-pop Debut (2000s), List of K-pop Debut (2010s) be speedy deleted or do they have to go through a AFD?--TerryAlex (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was deleting them while you were typing this up. Yes, A10 is the appropriate CSD tag. But look at the username--either a typical throwaway K-pop account (I saw another one just a few minutes ago) or a sock. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cotton

[edit]

Rather than constantly reverting what I have spent time editing (with good reason), can you see the talk page as I have made clear reasons for my reasons for editing. The current edition is dire.--86.144.245.7 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That talk page is, indeed, where you should convince other editors--not me; I don't watch the show, never have, and looking at those articles gives me a headache. I have, however, semi-protected it since you've been edit-warring for quite some time, with at least two different IPs, to get this stuff in. I do, however, appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hi, someone has a new section on WP:EAR that request for unreliable and questionable sources. Hope don't get mad. By the way, WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE does not listed Muumuse, and I think Muumuse is considered questionable source. 115.164.81.230 (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request II

[edit]
Spleen
Humphrey and Mr. Camel

This is not the spleen Beaudelaire meant. Can anyone direct me to right link? Hafspajen (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see one. Beaudelaire's usage is slightly different to the English "vent one's spleen"- there's no Wiki page on "spleen" as an emotion. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Five Poems by Baudelaire
Written by Charles Baudelaire



Spleen: When a Heavy Lid of Low Sky…
When a heavy lid of low sky
covers a soul moaning with ennui and fright,
and the whole horizon is rounded by
a black day pouring down, sadder than any night;
When the earth is turned to a muggy dungeon
where Hope is the shadow of a bat, feeling
with feeble, flapping wings along the grunge on
walls and bumping its head against a putrid ceiling;
When the crawling spiders of scattershot rains
drop cold bars that imprison us,
water trickles along the channels in our brains,
and the people around us feel poisonous—
the bells speak out suddenly with fury
and lance the sky with dreadful howls,
and frightened strays and exiles, sorry
and homeless, rage from deep within their bowels.
Long hearses roll, slow, silent, hypnotic,
through my soul. Hope, defeated, cries
out its atrocious anguish—despotic.
A black hood slides over my ferocious eyes.


  • That's spleen.-
...Hafspajen (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


"The sight of South Wigston on a wet and foggy Sunday afternoon in November is an experience one is glad to have had. It reaches the rock bottom of English provincial life; and there is something profoundly moving about it."- William George Hoskins. That's ennui. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baudelaire is rather modern for me to offer much help, and in English "splenetic" seems to denote wrath, but I believe the best link is Humorism, which associates it with melancholy. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

French has borrowed the word "spleen" to mean something like sadness, melancholy; I think it is a somewhat literary term. But I was tracking down an article with the help of the picture. Le Spleen de ParisHafspajen (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Requests for arbitration don't"
User talk:Drmies, it's only User talk:Drmies
Arguments, agreements, advice, answers,
Articulate announcements
It's only User talk:Drmies
Cat's foot iron claw
Neuro-surgeons scream for more
At paranoia's poison door.
Twenty first century schizoid man.
(cue long instrumental break involving mellotron, bicycle chains and out-of-tune violin)
Blood rack barbed wire
Politicians' funeral pyre
Innocents raped with napalm fire
Twenty first century schizoid man.
(cue long lunar note)
laces laces laces
blue cheese faces
Mayflower child met uh
25th century quaker
she’s uh pickin’ poppies
bringin them into her hue
(band realise they don't know who the fat bastard growling into the microphone is)
Lucid tentacles test ‘n sleeved
‘n joined ‘n jointed jade pointed
Diamond back patterns
Neon meate dream of a …
(band run from stage)
Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT? Elephant Talk? Hafspajen (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please clean up your own messes

[edit]

IP 200 is still stirring up trouble.[4] You unblocked them. Please supervise them properly or they will inevitably be reblocked. Jehochman Talk 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

suspicious similarity between these accounts IMHO

[edit]

blocked in late 2012: user: Ved from Victoria Institutions

please take a look at user: Leprof 7272 and see note I left on the "Ved from Victoria Institutions" TP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leprof_7272

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_culture#Source_review_begun

Thanks HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. First of all, you're User:HammerFilmFan. The "Ved" you're talking about is User:Ved036. That took a few minutes; now let's move on. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I didn't block them--that was SpacemanSpiff, who on that same page is called a "nut". I merely revoked talk page access--I suppose I must have had a good reason for that.

    (Much later:) I looked at a whole bunch of edits, and I don't see it. The only thing I might could see--besides the admittedly odd "interaction" via Talk:Western culture--is the use of all-caps, but they're not the only ones to abuse that. They ran into Randykitty a while ago--perhaps they can have a look and give you a third opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dr Mies Award

[edit]
OOps, wrong kind of Doctor..
The Dr Mies Award
The Dr Mies Award Hafspajen (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

new haven school IP

[edit]

Those school vandal IPs (ipv6) just moved to a new IP and repeated their vandalism.[5] The newest IP probably makes a rangeblock difficult since it would be a very wide range I think (although I am not an IPv6 expert) but could we perhaps protect the page? They seem fairly persistent. Hope you are having a good new year and enjoying your school break Gaijin42 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just pinged you because you had already dealt with some of the IPs in question. Apologies if you think I should have taken it through normal channels. thanks for dealing it in any case. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be silly Gaijin--it was my pleasure. You know where to send the check. BTW, all you admins who want to get paid per block: hang out at UAA for a day or two. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article

[edit]

This new article GOT7 Awards and nominations duplicates an existing one List of awards and nominations received by Got7. Does it need to go through AFD or is there some other process? Thanks!! Shinyang-i (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) We have a speedy deletion category for new articles that duplicate existing topics, so I've deleted it under that criterion and let the creator know. The criteria are here and under A10 you'll see the tags you can apply if you see such a situation again. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, @Yngvadottir:. I'll use that information in the future! The various deletion methods can be a little overwhelming to someone who hasn't used them before. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--I have a deja-vu feeling here. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here mostly to confuse your talk page watchers (what is Floq talking about??)

[edit]
Next to the Yellow Rose Saloon

I technically didn't say "fat jerk", just "jerk". But in any case, I assumed (correctly, I gather) that it would be taken in the spirit intended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, technically I may have wished you a zebra, but what I really wished you was a heap of zebra DUNG. For you to sit on, so you're nice and warm. Hey, school's back in! Finally the house is a bit quiet! Drmies (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing the confuses me is why I keep logging back in ... anyway, whether Drmies is a jerk, or a fat jerk, is clearly a matter of great import -- I anticipate a long WP:VPM discussion, followed by an WP:RFC, with three WP:ANI threads arguing about conduct during the RFC, followed by a protest of the close of the RFC at WP:AN, resulting in a request for a three-admin closing panel, followed by a subsequent WP:AC case. That should take us until next November or so. NE Ent 02:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange case...

[edit]

Advertising? Self-privacy intrusion with oversight needed? I don't know! HELP.

The case is in fact the whole list of edits from Monirulsultant. Because the extremely poor English I am not sure if he is promoting a hotel or looking for a job. I will revert the edits on talk pages to stay on the safe side. The Banner talk 19:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

special bonus

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]

Hello! I'd like to apply for page protection for some of these articles that I have to revert every single day either because editors insist on all caps and over-wikilinking, or because some editors insist on continually re-adding fan-run awards and awards by allkpop and such, expressly forbidden in the wikiproject's MOS. I don't know if you need that much detail or if "edit-warring" is enough. I looked at the page with instructions but uh I don't feel like I'd do it correctly, and there seem to be various levels of protection. Can you help? There are many problematic articles but I think these are the worst:

Thank you, and if this is the kind of thing I could probably do myself, any pointers would be nice so I don't have to bug you. Thanks!! Shinyang-i (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought every single K-Pop editor has a sober, level-headed understanding of all our policies, guidelines and especially the Manual of style, but I guess that I was wrong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's a real shock, huh. Illusions shattered! Shinyang-i (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, if I were you I'd lay off the magic sauce before coming up with crazy talk like that. Shinyang-i, you're better off going to WP:RPP, formatting a request is a little confusing if it's your first one, and admins do check through an article's history sometimes, but if you come armed with diffs, you'll get a result within about 24 hours in my experience. To make a diff, go the page history (example), click on "prev" for each edit you think is a problem, copy and paste the contents of the location bar in your browser (example) surrounded by a single square bracket either side, and there's your diff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shinyang-i, I have a pull-down menu that allows me to report directly. I did not add diffs (sorry Ritchie) but gave a brief prose explanation. I'd do it myself, but you-know-who has alleged that I have an unhealthy interest in the boys of Got7 (sure). RFPP was frequently backlogged until recently; I think Samwalton9 and Ged_UK have grabbed that bull by the horns pretty decently: there isn't any unanswered request besides mine right now: outstanding work, Sam and Ged, thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here be trolls

[edit]
Trolls. 300 yards metres yards ahead.
A glass of wine with Caesar Borgia 1893

I don't know if I'm being a bit hypersensitive, but could an admin strike this edit summmary calling me a troll? I don't being like accused of having an anti-US bias when Mrs 333 comes from Louisianna and my stepkids come from San Diego via Rochester, NY. Or should I just ignore it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'd ignore it- you've trespassed on a bureaucratic reservation - six departments (one mis-spelled), 365 task forces and a map. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought when that happened you got a big red light and a voice saying "awooga, awooga". Or maybe that's the checkout at Sainsbury's. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yeah, it's not really disruptive enough to be struck. It's just a jerky comment and I'd leave it be. At least now you know, next time you run into this editor, what you're dealing with. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as a direct result of that comment, I've found a new article to improve and created another one. So it's not actually bad at all, all things considered. I think my beef with this guy is he's just turned up unannounced in conversations I've had recently and played the "outraged third party" - at least when the Best Known For IP calls me an asshole, I know exactly why. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are cleverly incorporating a reference to the question I just asked on Facebook, since you are clearly alluding to Paradise Lost, Bk 1: "If then his Providence / Out of our evil seek to bring forth good, / Our labour must be to pervert that end". Don't say Satan didn't warn you. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say - it must be the influence of that zebra. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was personally disappointed to see the particular edit summary that started this thread, though I don't think anyone disputes that it was ill-advised.
But I find it hard to blame him for losing his cool when for years you've been making edgy comments like suggesting that I be topic banned from that WikiProject that I helped to start[6], and even recently suggesting that the project be merged with other ones, and other further comments: [7][8]
Which I wish you wouldn't make; besides making things unpleasant for the rest of us at the project (and from my perspective, who seems to be working against us), it distracts from the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. To be honest, I don't exactly recall how this "feud" started, it's been so long ago and too much has happened since then, though I suspect that things got off on the wrong foot. What do you think about trying to put this in the past, in the spirit of "what Wikimedia is supposed to be, people working together"? --Rschen7754 05:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wonderful if all editors on such projects and on both sides of such disputes would abandon jabbing at each other, and instead focus on improving the encyclopedia. But I am an old idealist, and energetic young editors seem to "get off" on such trivial disputes. Please grow up soon. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All things considered, the main beef – if we're using that word – that I have with Ritchie333 is that he always seems to be trying to influence the guidelines of the U.S. Roads WikiProject despite not actually doing much (if any) work within that project. I don't know if that's actually against any rules, but it grinds my gears. I've let it go for a while, but recently I've let my emotions get the best of me. I am sorry for my earlier comments. TCN7JM 19:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TCN7JM: Don't worry about it. I think we all get a bit grumpy sometimes, just part of text communication and human nature. I do have a bit of a reputation now as a tough nut on GA reviews and I'll call people out when I don't think reviews will produce as good an article as they could, but it ain't personal and never has been. In your case, that Mississippi highway article is at DYK in absolute good faith. Now, the Doctor likes to keep an informal and relaxed fort around here, pull up a beer (but not Pauwel Kwak) and stick your feet up. Oh, and thankyou for the heads up on Sporcle, particularly the line ""We actively and methodically search out new and innovative ways to prevent our users from getting any work done whatsoever." Sounds a bit like the WMF (ooooh, miaow). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I certainly missed a lot of excitement. Rschen, you are an old-timer and you're always welcome here, even if you're not as German as your name suggests. Ritchie, I see, made that comment over a year ago and I am sure he feels different now and would not say something like that again. (If he would, I'd wish him good luck. The other day I typed an address into my Prius's road map and, as usual, it couldn't find it--but this time it blinked a new message: "ASK RSCHEN".) Now, it's Saturday evening and the Panthers are playing: I suggest we all root against Auburn and have another beer. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which type of RfC/course of resolution is best?

[edit]

Good day. Hope your New Year is starting out well!

Rather than stringing this out over more than one editor's talk page, I'm also asking User:HJ Mitchell, User:Bbb23, and User:EdJohnston to take part as well. All of you have been wise guides for me previously (I would include User:Dennis Brown in the list, but apparently, he is on a Wikibreak).

I have a question regarding RfCs/dispute resoluution. In the past, I have noted different results when posting an RfC at an article talk page versus going to a third party resolution or dispute resolution noticeboard. It's my desire to see as little drama and back-and-forth arguing as possible over getting a resolution for these two talk page discussions [9], [10]. So far, the as-little-drama-as-possible-theory hasn't been working and I'm pretty frustrated. Your opinions on how to get unbiased and non-shark-circling opinions from others and where to best get it would be greatly appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. I read most of the talk page material but not the article. My participation in dispute resolution is limited to yelling at someone on their talk page or simply abusively blocking them--though on occasion I have sought RfC, in which I am a big believer. I do not have much experience in the mediation boards.

    An RfC is an excellent tool to answer a relatively minor question. One can post on a project page to say that there's an RfC happening (I don't think it's required) and thus invite greater participation. You and Coretheapple go back a ways, a believe--their calling your comment a "wall of text" is needlessly pejorative, and your response ("you are so rude") isn't helpful, of course. RfCs should propose specific wording, and contributions should respect that and provide specific evidence; sometimes that helps editors to keep it neutral. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am pondering your response and will wait for anyone else to respond (if they have the time and inclination to do so). While pondering and waiting, I feel it necessary to add some context to my "you are so rude" comment. It was a result of the comments listed here (from an AN3 [11]) in one of my "walls of text" referred to as a "rant" by Core:
"I have repeatedly tried to work with and reason with Coretheapple at the article talk page. His choice has been to make several personal attacks, even after I have asked him to stop doing so and instead talk only about bettering the article. Along with wrongly referring to himself and another editor trading talk page comments in the middle of the night over a span of an hour or so "consensus", his attacks and rude comments to me have been peppered with statements such as, "you have not read and/or comprehended"; "Please stop wasting everybody's time"; "we are adding relevant details, and this is clearly relevant, amply sourced, above dispute--except by you. Again, why are you wasting everybody's time"; "why are you wasting everybody's time"; "This discussion is utterly pointless...Please stop wasting people's time.". When I first went to Core's talk page early on when I was confused by one of his edit summaries, he answered rudely there as well: "And haven't you anything better to do than waste people's time? (page/section link here [12]). Yesterday, at Jimmy Wales' talk page he referred to me in the following manner: "a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors." (see diff: [13]). I have tried numerous times to work with Coretheapple yesterday, last night, today, on the article talk page. I've asked him to stop being rude and personally attacking me. I've even thanked him (via the "Send Thanks" option) for an edit today that was a particularly good addition. In spite of all this, Coretheapple chooses to remain tendentious, rude, angry, uncivil and non-collegial. All of this, in my opinion, shows that he not only refuses to work with me, but that this report isn't really about edit warring, it's about someone he has chosen to dislike editing an article he's taken an interest in. If it were the opposite, it stands to reason that he would have changed his tone hours ago based on the discussion I keep trying to have with him at the article talk page."
Plainly put, I was sick of the preceding garbage comments directed at me and "you are so rude" was a frustrated response and, in my opinion, justified. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation is to stop trying to justify the "you're so rude" comment, since that will get you nowhere with the other highly experienced editor. Also, it is not justified. Instead, apologize, try to see their point of view, and attempt to work out a compromise. Your user page and user talk page declarations do not exempt you from the expectation that you will edit in a collaborative fashion. Just say something nice, and move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no, I will not be apologizing for calling out the editor as rude, when that is exactly what they had been repeatedly over a 24 hour period before I told them they were behaving rudely. I said nice things, reached out to that editor plenty, and still the rudeness continued (and continued on past my calling out of his behavior and into today, actually). Truly, I don't recall seeing policy stating Wikipedia editors are supposed to be attacked rudely time and again and never call out that rudeness. Or the policy where we're supposed to always turn the other cheek while the attacking editor is allowed to continue in their rude and uncivil behavior. I also don't recall asking you to comment. Yes, I know Drmies has talk page stalkers and this is a community and all in the community are welcome to comment, etc., but really -- your comments are neither helpful nor relevant to the situation. Then again, maybe you are trying to be helpful, but I'm just not seeing it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I thought about your advice re: an RfC and have decided just a little longer to see if things can be worked out at the article talk page. If things don't improve, I will probably go the RfC route. Thanks, as always, for your assistance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to answer you back, maybe this is how. This is joshualeefreeman or amovrvs. For some reason, it forwards my joshualeefreeman page to my other one amovrvs. It's been doing this for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshualeefreeman (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Long Distance Call (Muddy Waters song) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

since

[edit]

I am the only main dog editor nowadays ... wonder what you think about this: a newly added list, that looks broken somehow too, here at Herding dog. Bit bothersome, so I will now come often to your page with this kind of problems, of course. Hafspajen (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AND I need some major second oppinion at the Silver Labrador controversy, at Talk:Labrador Retriever Somebody is pushing for a colour not accepted by Kennel clubbs, and tagging article, previously rewritten article to sounds completely different as it is. Now no discussion, sources ignored. If I put back what it was before I might be in editwar. Hafspajen (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And there a weird IP running around writing accept as edit summary on dog articles, doing all kinds of weird and not weird things. I need Phil back. Hafspajen (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:علاقه 2014-02-06 05-09.jpg
Daddy, I don't want to be PINK when I grow up..... Hafspajen (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks. That was fun.... Have you noticed that weird image they used? About the last, well, I gave him EVERY possible reference that exists. It should work, I hope. Hafspajen (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look where that file is being used. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed that article real quick and we need to translate it. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HUH? Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The links will be a challenge :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Links, recht, links, recht, ein stunde ficken, drei tage dicken. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant, it was that for almost 48 hours now, the Alaskan Malamute are PINK; because nobody patrols dog articles properly any more. Hafspajen (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translate?

[edit]
File:Toorop Dame in wit.jpg

Mies, if translating, how about Dame in wit. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portret_van_Annie_Hall_in_Lissadell,_Kenley,_Surrey. The Dutch are the only one who have an article on it. Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I feel sad I usually write an article nowadays, or nominate something. Lady in white would that do? File:Toorop Dame in wit.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woman in white? Hafspajen (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Lady in white (Toorop) Hafspajen (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Koekjes

[edit]

Buster7 has stopped by and given you some Nice Speculaas Koekjes which promote fellowship and goodwill among editors. Spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by sharing them with someone else. It has been a long time since I have spoken Flemish...and I don't remember the last time I tried to write in Flemish. Anyway, I hope I didn't embarrass myself too much at WER. Speculaas are the best cookies in the world!! These are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy! Buster Seven Talk 03:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I got confused there- thought "Nice Koekjes" were something to do with Nice biscuits. The article doesn't actually say how "Nice" is pronounced- "A packet of Neece biscuits please"- shopkeeper looks confused "Niece biscuits?"- "Ahem- a packet of Nice biscuits please" "Yes, certainly. What nice biscuits would you like?". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article merged but talk page not?

[edit]

Hey, I was assessing articles and ran across a situation. The article Youjeen was merged to Cherry Filter at some point, but somehow Talk:Youjeen still exists. Are you able to tell what happened? Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes: merging is not the same as moving. If you move a page typically the talk page goes with it. In this case (as Whpq can tell you) the content was merged, which means that the "original" page and its associated talk page are still where they were. It's not a big problem, and as far as I'm concerned you can leave it--you could put a note on that old talk page with a link to the merge discussion and the redirect target. Maybe that will solve the next problem also. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one: T-ara N4 goes to T-ara but Talk:T-ara N4 still exists. Is this the kind of thing I can fix myself so I don't have to bug you? Shinyang-i (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note of interest

[edit]

Thanks, for your note. I know you're probably not even interested, but I hope you don't mind entertaining a cathartic reply from me here so as to lessen the drama in ANI.

You're right, I probably do need to be a big kid. I understand ANI is not Solomon's Temple. However, I hope you understand how really difficult it was for me getting blocked, not for the accusations made against me in this latest ANI, but for the way I responded to the accusation (using links to sections instead of diffs). It was absolutely my fault for doing that and PBS has, since then, kindly shown me how to link to diffs that have been archived. But it's still very, very difficult to be dragged to ANI repeatedly, each time have it dismissed for no cause, and then finally end up having your entire future at WP junked for something you did in an ANI in which you never wanted to be involved in the first place. In the previous reports I was being hit with, and that were being dismissed, I practically begged for a topic ban against filing reports against me. But that was never determined necessary and the reports kept coming and coming. And even then none of them stuck - but I got blocked for finally reacting.

And after all that, to then come back with my freshly minted scarlet letter only to immediately, without any break or let-up, start being needled with a steady stream of [X article you wrote is now being patrolled] alerts just made me feel like I'm being WP:DEPEed. Document★Error 16:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • DocumentError, my comment applies to your opponent as well. Thing is, it is perfectly possible that they are in fact stalking you, but the problem is that it's couched in a narrative that wants to be a novel. Do you want a complete indictment of their character, or do you want them to stop following you to new pages? Two very difference charges with (likely) different outcomes. People say "you can't always get what you want at ANI" and that's generally true--but if I ask Santa Claus for sex two or three times a week (not with him, obviously) and that I don't have to do the dishes anymore, I should know I'm going to be disappointed. If I ask for a pair of socks and a bottle of whiskey, I am more likely to get what I ask for.

    Now, I don't know the history of your block exactly and I don't know if it matters. Stick to the narrow case. Is your block relevant to that case? Is Legacypac's foolish disagreement with (that's foolish by definition, of course) relevant? Drmies (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what I want to know is what plans Drmies has for whiskey and socks together. I mean the socks are obvious, to put on your head right? and then the whiskey I imagine might be to help build the courage to go outside with a sock on your head. CorporateM (Talk) 17:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, Corp, you are neither a fan nor an imitator of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will never think of socks the same way. Also, if that is what the sock is for, I don't what to know what you'll do with some whiskey in you. CorporateM (Talk) 01:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You raise valid points. Honestly, I'm obviously too raw after what happened to detach myself enough to fairly answer the two questions you posed. I realize this isn't your problem and apologize for pinging you. It's probably best if I exit stage left. Again, my sincere apologies for involving you. A respectful clarification, he's not my opponent as we don't edit the same articles and I've never considered any WP edits to be "winner/loser" propositions. I believe I acted like a big kid (as you correctly note we should) by ignoring the repeated ANIs that were shotgunned at me, all without action. It was precisely because I didn't engage in a robust enough back-and-forth in his most recent ANI that I was blocked. You're not supposed to be able to throw ANIs ad infinitum against another editor to see if one sticks (and one never did stick - I was blocked for not being thorough enough in my defense of an ANI that ended up being unactioned like all others had been before it; specifically for linking to sections instead of taking the time to dig-up diffs). I know enough that any block is a scarlet letter and portends the end of your WP career; it may as well have been an indef.
The other diffs I included (and they were only just a few as I had to truncate the list for brevity) only to show specifically that I had already long done what you suggested: turn the other cheek. For months I did that as I was savaged by him (like other editors have been) with a string of insults so questionable any other editor would have been blocked on first instance. I came to ANI with clean hands and a request for help after absorbing this without respite. Even just the edited version of his Talk page is a parade of cautions and third and fourth "final warnings" he's received as a result of his ongoing entanglements with other editors. And yet I, who has never had a disagreement with any other WP editor, never a ban or block, am left being shown the exit because I didn't properly format my defense in the latest frivolous ANI he slapped me with. Anyway, sorry for being long-winded (and possibly sounding snippy, which is not my intent). I just feel this needs to be recorded in hope the next guy might be spared the pounding myself and those who went before me have received. At the end of the day, I should never have got involved in the ISIL articles for the 2 weeks I was there. Document★Error 18:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A line must be drawn

[edit]

Re the Kelpie and Undine, I see nothing to be gained by further discussion with either Kiyoweap or Bloodofox, whose agenda is quite clearly to provoke me into breaching my ArbCom sanction. You in the meantime have allowed both of them to make personal attacks against me. Yours, unimpressed. Eric Corbett 20:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bramshill House

[edit]

You and Eric might remember this one, I've opened a Wikipedia:Peer review/Bramshill House/archive1.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah

[edit]
File:Riviergezicht met rotsen. Rijksmuseum SK-A-1314.jpeg

Well, you can always start annoying me, if nothing else. Here are some ideas... Hafspajen (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady in white (Toorop). To honor Drmies. Hafspajen (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'What is THIS? User:Drmies/Pink Poodle? 19:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Hafspajen (talk)
I cut that bit out about the wine glass being the only patch of colour cos' there's red blobs on the carpet and blue and white china. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wWell, maybe the only PROIMINENT PATCH OF .. (oops uppercase) Hafspajen (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I linked to above. A German joke :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is that called WP: .... you have to have some basic knowledge when editing. Hafspajen (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a quiz? CIR! Drmies (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only German joke I know is: How many Germans does it take to screw in a light bulb? One, we are very efficient, and don't have a sense of humour.
I am not sure if that is funny, or offensive, or both. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+ the punch-line of a particular genre of joke that probably needs no context:
Peter (no relation to Saint Peter or Zwarte Piet) in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xantho: My brother: "these puns fucking suck". I enjoyed it though.
@Drmies: love the pink poodle thing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Pink Poodle's diet differs significantly from that of all other Canidae: they are almost all vegetarian and subsist on muesli and Swedes. Well, indeed. Hafspajen (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I can actually spin out a genuine article on the Pink cat, given I have found four unrelated news stories [14][15][16][17] .... or have I finally gone completely insane? @Northamerica1000:, this sort of stuff is in your area of expertise, isn't it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respons to your message, I did not receive it

[edit]

Drmies Hello, How are you? I love your zebra1 I received a message that you sent me a message, but I did not receive the message. Thank you. (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

he's back again

[edit]

Vgleer is back again. He's posting links to his stupid website on all the users' pages he possibly can before getting blocked.

  • Cool cool like ice tea
  • Cmdm4sd40595jdndks - that ID is probably him too, though I can't say for sure

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinyang-i (talk • contribs)

  • They're both blocked already; no wonder the boy is pissed at Materialscientist too--thanks for taking care of it, MS. I'm pretty sure that most people know how to take his comments, so I'm not so worried about his little website. Now, his MySpace, that's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumpy test

[edit]

Do you still work on new pages? Do you get frustrated that the notability guidelines for musicians take too long to read. Well, you need The Dumpy test! The Gents seem to pass it, so do Drmies' favourites Rubberen Robbie - what else, I wonder? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great Ritchie, since looking at that page, I was drawn back to an article I wrote years ago, which has since lead me onto some marginally (or not at all) notable bands, singers, and albums. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reminded myself of the wonderfully titled Cheers Elephant actually Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to post something about a band that's been playing since the 1990s, and have released 13 studio and live albums, but there was an edit conflict, and then their bass guitarist knocked on my door, and I had to hide what I wrote damn quick. Saved by the ec. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another

[edit]
St. Anthonisdijk in 1651-De doorbraak van de St. Anthonisdijk bij Houtewael in de nacht van 5 op 6 maart
Forget it. I don't care any more. Hafspajen (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whole article probably needs a good trim- it seems to be claiming that the American bulldog is descended from bulldogs brought over by immigrants during a period of mass emigration from the West Midlands of England to the south of North America after the English Civil War. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:'De wanhebbelijke liefde',

Maybe. Now I have been called an ignorant racist because I said that Pedro I of Brazil was tanned. You and I Mies, can build and expand the very interesting and exciting Wiki-drama-Wikipedia club of editors who have been falsely accused by racism. I think I prefer dogs from above if I have to chose. Hafspajen (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well; good morning. And thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does this De doorbraak van de St. Anthonisdijk in 1651-tDe doorbraak van de St. Anthonisdijk bij Houtewael in de nacht van 5 op 6 maart 1651 say? It is about the dam crashing , righ? Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says the St. Anthony's dyke at Houtewael burst in the night of 5–6 March 1651. Presumably that's what the folks are pointing at. The noun to use in titling the pic would be "The dyke breach". (I think. I don't really read Dutch.) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • AQnd : File:'De wanhebbelijke liefde', misschien de scène van de weduwnaar Joost bij Lucia, 2de toneel uit het gelijknamige stuk van C J van der Lijn Rijksmuseum SK-A-4099.jpeg ... ? Hafspajen (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember...

[edit]

90.217.221.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Well, they're back with another IP, 90.217.158.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and are pulling the exact same type of stunt as before. Trying to hide it with some vaguely productive edits, but not exactly succeeding. I don't want the pages semi protected, because it means I can very easily catch the vandal before they do too much damage elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Joseph and Josh Dun

[edit]

Hi Drmies, how are you?

I don't get this last warning... I was the one fixing all the mess in these two pages mentioned above, and I'm the wrong one? Okay then.

Ah, and please, if you could semi-protect them, it would be great. I had to restore a full intro in Tyler's page today, aside from fixing his infobox.

Thanks in advance, MYS77 ✉ 02:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being comprehensive. Happy week, MYS77 ✉ 02:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see enough on Josh Dun to semi-protect, but I did the other one. Hey, you can't go around calling these people "douches", and besides, at least one of the two IP edits seemed like a good-faith effort to me. I threw a couple of blocks around, by the way. I have some serious doubts about Dun's notability. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, but the genre thing about these guys are a lot confused. That's why I included a comment in Joseph's page. What's the problem about Dun? He's not like any band drummer at all? Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 02:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's barely notable outside his band. The coverage is quite slim--that he's part of some hot couple seems to be the only source of genuine coverage. I mean, stuff like this, that's nothing. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure they were more into the media in 2013, when they released Vessel (also, I know that some articles about them from the Alt. Press exist) or in 2012 when they signed with Fueled. However, it's on you, mate. Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 03:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

To replace the one that was hidden in the process of hiding the conspiracy.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Worldwide

[edit]

You may have noticed the recent ArbCom ruling regarding seeking additional eyes on this topic area. I note that you have had previous discussion with others regarding the topic, and that you have some degree of familiarity with it, so your input, if you were to see fit to offer it, would be more than welcome. Also, there is an ANI thread regarding the matter as well, and if you would be interested in offering any input there that would be more than welcome as well. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, there is discussion at the article talk page about moving it to Landmark Forum, which DaveApter among others is objecting to. I've contacted several people to maybe get together a group to do a sort of committee to review the relevant found sources for the possibility of maybe getting together a sort of RfC, more or less along the lines of a proposal for a "comment" committee (not a "content" committee), more or less as per Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content? which might be able, if successful the first few times, to maybe make it easier to get some contentious topics adequately dealt with. Maybe. Also, there are at ANI and at ARCA multiple requests that one or another editor be sanctioned or banned from the topic or that "something be done" in a far from clear way. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, let me say something though. I'm looking at the move request, and I'll look at the other stuff later. I lost interest in the ArbCom case so I don't know exactly what happened (very little, I think); but DaveApter was apparently not topic-banned from the article. I recognized his POV very early on and did in fact argue (must have been ages ago, on my talk page) that he should be topic-banned, but I do not feel strongly about that anymore--the last few months of my involvement with these articles I thought he was fine (that may have changed; I'll find out, I suppose). What I will not allow (in my capacity as Big Bad Administrator) is that he's treated like shit. You and Astynax are just on the right side, I think, but only just; you will note, perhaps, that I just removed Legacypac's last comment, which is far on the other side of acceptable: and I'm pinging Legacypac so they know.

    I'll say this again, for all who care: I have no interest in the club or its products. I don't care for any cult, unless it's devoted to bacon or Saint Boniface, but that doesn't mean I'm "against" the topic, one way or another. I treat the article like I would treat that on any other company or its products--with observance to our guidelines. I have no problem acting as an administrator since I consider myself uninvolved (per WP:INVOLVED). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW, John, this move request isn't particularly difficult, it seems to me, and I will be glad to close it when that time comes. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray L. Watts

[edit]

That article could use some updating from a neutral party. I am not such a neutral party. Anyone interested? LadyofShalott 18:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'

[edit]
And why isn't any Wikilove with Swedish gymasts?

Can we make a regular wikilove with Pink Poodle? Not fair that we only have kittens. I think a Pink Poodle would be really nice. Or several puppies and a pink Poodle. Hafspajen (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes...

[edit]

... is sitting on your hands the only thing that you can do. The Banner talk 20:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, something for you. Among Gnomes and Trolls
Some early pink Birthday Party Poodles for 2015 . . .


...with much pink feelings.....

Best wishes from Haffy for a happy and healthy 2015
Hafspajen (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band Famous

[edit]

Got your message. I will let the Afd run its course. Edward321 (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with 3RR policy?

[edit]

Hey, can you give me some more information about the 3RR policy? I've read some discussions before that if you're right, it doesn't matter if you violate 3RR, and only the person in the wrong does. Other places I've seen that anyone who violates 3RR can get in trouble, period. Can you explain a bit more or is it really subject to personal interpretation? The issue is violation of WP:ELOFFICIAL. She wants to have extra links for SNS because kpop. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear lord, this girl is going to file a dispute resolution request. I hate Wikipedia. No wonder nothing ever gets accomplished in kpop. Can anyone please jump into this discussion before she goes over the edge? Shinyang-i (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, she decided to "compromise" by doing exactly what I told her to. WTF, I don't get people. Shinyang-i (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talkpage-stalker)Hi Shinyang-i. Wikipedia is a wonderful accomplishment, and can be a wonderful place, but it can also be distinctly frustrating. I think you're experiencing the latter. I have some answers for you, and some food for thought. I'm not sure how happy you're going to be with the latter, but I've got a soapbox here and I'm not going to waste a perfectly good opportunity to get on top of it. Wikis are built on top of collaboration. The premise is that every edit that is not vandalism is an attempt to improve the content of the encyclopedia. Even if the edit doesn't actually succeed in improving the encyclopedia, it is done to improve it nontheless. That means you can use it. If someone makes an edit you don't agree with, the best thing to do is to turn it in to a change you do agree with. The best way to view an edit you don't agree with is as an opening bid in a proposal to improve an article. In some cases the only way to change it in to something you can agree with is to completely revert the change they made. Reverts however give rise to re-reverts. It can be easily seen that if two people disagree, and the only tool they find to come to a point where they can live with the situation only with a revert of the previous edit, no progress is being made. It's just reverting back and forth. This situation is called an edit war, and doesn't generally have a positive outcome, and is therefor not allowed. Reverts can be seen as the anti-thesis of the wiki idea. That's why the three revert rule has been invented. There can be disagreement over whether something is edit warring or not, but the three revert rule is a bright line, after which there can be no further arguing. If you pass 3RR, you're definitely edit warring. Regardless of who's wrong or right, no progress is being made, so for 3RR it doesn't matter at all of you're right or not. The person whom you're edit warring with probably thinks they're equally right anyway, or they wouldn't have made the change in the first place. Because all rules have a single exception, this one has two. The first is obvious WP:vandalism. I linked the term here, because it's not completely obvious what it means. Vandalism requires bad faith. An edit is only vandalism if the aim of the edit is not to improve wikipedia. That's not always immediately clear, so only obvious vandalism reverts are exempt from the 3RR. The second one is WP:BLP. Because of the influence wikipedia can have on real peoples lives, biographies of living people require special attention. It's still bad for Wikipedia to allow breaking the 3RR for biographies for living people, but we find that it is more important to prevent real harm to real humans than it is that an article develops well. I hope that explains reverting and 3RR. This was written from a bit of an utopian perspective, and the situation on the ground is far murkier than the ideal I described. Nonetheless, it's a good standard to try and uphold.
As for compromising by doing exactly what you said, well, that's a great outcome, isn't it? People have a tendency not to want to 'lose' disputes, even if there really is no losing involved when everybody is happy with the outcome. People don't like losing face; it's a fact of life. If you want that somebody does something it's an extremely bad idea to have the road to that solution be having them admit they were wrong (or even that you were right). People don't like that, and will resist that road. In this case, the road to avoid losing face seems to have been claiming compromising. That's fine. If you make your goals into other peoples victories, they will work towards it rather than against it. Allowing somebody else their victory is a low price for your goals. Since your goals were co-aligned in the first place - they both were improving wikipedia - doubly so. I hope you can take away something useful from this long rambling rant. Please, don't despair, but have fun editing. We're building Wikipedia together. That's something to be proud of. If you can have fun in the mean time, this time, everybody wins. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pep talk, but it was a bit more cut and dry than that. I removed her excessive links per WP:ELOFFICIAL and she reverted me, bitched at my talk page about how I was wrong. She kind of implied she was adding extra links because the sponsors of the event wanted it done that way, which really torked me off. (I didn't accuse her of a COI because the article is pretty NPOV and adequately sourced in secondary media.) I showed her the policy, reverted her reversion, and she continued to just say that she would revert, while never talking about the policy to which I pointed her. Then she threatened me (twice), again refusing to talk about the actual issue. Once she "compromised", at the same time she insulted me again saying I do "grunt work". So yeah, not a lot of sympathy or patience from me on this one. Kpop is a huge mess and a constant frustration. I'm all for constructive edits, but most of what goes on is people with a personal stake in the article crying because they want to use WP to actively promote kpop. There's little "progress" involved. But thank you, anyway. I've actually given a similar talk to many kpop editors who constantly accuse others of being "haters", having racial/nationalistic goals, and of various other ulterior motives. It never makes a dent but I often continue to do it anyway. So yeah, my faith in Wikipedia gets low sometimes. Glad people like you are around.  :) Shinyang-i (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pff, practical concerns have no place up here in my ivory utopian tower ;) Everyone has their own things they easily shrug off, and they get really annoyed by. I remember being accused of racism by someone who was just flailing accusations wildly that I should have just shrugged off, but which I experienced as really hurtful. Once things get personal, it's really hard to get "back to business" and the strategy of allowing others their victories if it works towards your goals becomes really difficult to pull of. Things like "the sponsors want X" is one of those things that irk me too, and I've noticed that my initial reaction tend to be "that's nice, but we don't care", and after that it takes a whole lot of effort for me to assume good faith towards that person, which I don't always succeed in. I agree with you that you're in a situation where little compromise or progress can be found; either the link is included or it isn't (it still doesn't exempt you from edit warring, which I really understand is frustrating in this case). Bonnielou2013, I invite you to read the above as well (don't feel obliged to agree or to comment if you don't want to; if you just read it for yourself I'd already be happy, and if you don't want to, that's fine too. I know I tend to ramble) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meneer Hoekstra, thanks for weighing in: I fully endorse your words and sentiments. I could not, however, help but notice you dropped a few things on your way in, and I picked them up for you--here they are, <p><p><p><p><p><p><p><p>. There may have been more. :) Drmies (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there they are! I only had one left when I arrived here, which I put somewhere in the middle as a last-ditch effort. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martijn Hoekstra, Drmies, Shinyang-i - I'm pleased to see that Shinyang-i was able to rally an informal "dispute resolution" forum, at my suggestion, although it was resolved before your discussion got underway. It appears that I acquiesced, but after reading the policy Wikipedia:External links through, I will look to other pages that I have created and bring them up to specs for WP standards. As most newbies do with WP, I struggled for months in my Sandbox and uploaded my first article in December 2013, a year ago, just getting the basics down. WP is a huge Bible of dos and dont's (or you will forever be banished to hell!) and I admit to learning by example - rather than ploughing thru all the intricate language. This page Wikipedia:Uploading images even has a tag "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand." In the real world, ignorance of the law does not mean you are exempt from committing a crime. However, this is WP, and things are done, ideally, by consensus and agreement. At this point in time, I think the "Undo" edit button should be BOLD and in RED letters - it is not for the common user, (ie. - me) and I realized this a while ago - if it didn't exist - we would have to tediously search for the prior edits, cut and paste, or re-create the deletions. This would provide a cooling down period, when egos are miffed, or mistakes are made. I learn from example, and recently saw another Editor get criticism for not adding an "Edit Summary" - so I learned what that was - since I had never added one - but now do. I think that each of us interested in WP and willing to stick in there (what, 15% of editors are women, and the amounts of patrolling editors and administrators are falling - per media reports?) do so because we're both meticulous bores and, also, because we like people. I'll admit this time that I had based my "External Links" standards on what I had seen, and since I have admitted that my hobby or penchant is K-pop - then it's obvious I've been looking at some lagging standards - in other K-pop pages. When I have free time, I sometimes add references to pages that have 1 or none, fix bad links, typos, or try to rescue pages nominated for Deletion - without weighing in on the Discussion pages - I am not an expert. As to any COI - yes, in general, I have a soft spot in my heart for those enterprising and often poorly paid K-pop idols - but mostly I just like the music - and try to keep my nose clean by writing NPOV pages, one sentence at a time. I think our choice of subjects gives us away - I am not writing about rocket science - I am writing about K-pop. I don't have an ax to grind for any of the industry, and forgot myself when referencing KOCCA's outreach efforts, in my talk with Shinyang-i. Yes, the fan language does sometimes overlap inappropriately, but I think I have a broader history of non-partisan behavior on WP. I respond to other Editors, listen and have feed-back. I think we might have benefited this time if Shinyang-i had discussed the deletions with me. She indicates it is not necessary - but I have found this the common accepted standard among both friendly and distant Editors. I also refrain from the use of bad language on WP talk pages, re: her use of "WTF" and "Bitched" - although you may find my language different among friends, on casual social media. Thanks for your insight into our little misunderstanding. I'm far too old to learn new tricks, and pride myself that I can partially negotiate this jungle called WP; and if it includes sticking to the rules, compromising, and admitting my mistakes - I can do that, too. Thanks--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnielou2013, thank you so much for coming here and pouring your heart out.I don't have time to respond properly to you at this moment, and might not have time to respond until tomorrow afternoon/evening CET, but if the good drmies will allow more time and space on his speakeasy I'll still give this the time and consideration it deserves.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything goes, meneer Hoekstra, as long as it's done in impeccable prose. Bonnielou, please pick up some of Martijn's paragraph breaks--it's very hard to read this long paragraph. Also, no one is ever banished to hell: as Shinyang can tell you, many editors find it easy to keep coming back to this place. I yield the floor. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martijn Hoekstra, thank you already for your time, you're very thoughtful.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, you didn't ping me, but I saw your note to me. If you prefer, I can be equally verbose in slang and colloquialisms. You and I haven't broken the ice enough in our relationship to let our hair down, but if you would feel more comfortable, just go on and call me a "do**chebag", I'm a big girl. (said with a very broad friendly smile on my face!) There - ice broken! Re: paragraphs - I try to follow style, and didn't want to make Martijn Hoekstra uncomfortable.

As to asking Shinyang-i about WP users not being banished to hell, I might have terrorized her enough for now. And, with sincerity, I do appreciate the so-called "grunt" work of tidying up WP articles and getting loads of complaints about it - I certainly don't have the patience, or personality to do it. As I said previously, we are all needed.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to refrain from making another long rant as I intended to do earlier. But I will make an observation. You're both clearly have the best of intentions. And still, Shinyang-i said your behaviour was very frustrating to them to the point of saying "I hate Wikipedia", and I don't believe for a single moment you intended for that. At the same time I read plenty of frustration in your post, which I can't imagine being Shinyang-i's intention either. So how can we avoid that? A thing that can help you is that you are not your edits. If someone critizes or even complains about your edits they are not critisising you.

This is especially important in Wikipedia. We're asking wikipedians to be bold in their edits, and at the same time, we put a lot of scrutiny on the edits. The un-intuitive notion that an edit you don't agree with is still a good edit is the central point. People are welcome to try things out, and make all the mistakes in the world, with the understanding that their mistakes will be undone, and they will be told why they are mistakes. Not to banish anyone to hell, but to help them make their next edit better. Receiving feedback is hard. Try to make it work for you.

Secondly, express your frustration. If somebodies edits are frustrating you, please, please also give feedback on that. Let them know their edits are frustrating to you. Tell them what you're struggling with. Nine out of ten times, they will help you, because people are awesome like that. Giving feedback is about as hard as receiving it - I know, I'm not good at it myself, but if we neglect to do it, and do it well, Wikipedia will fall apart. For too long we've fostered a culture where criticism is not done, and repressing frustration with one other is the norm, until the dam breaks, and we turn in to a lynchmob. We have to put a stop to that.

Lastly, you say that Shinyang-i should have talked to you earlier. I agree. But hindsight is 20/20. The corollary to that is that you should have discussed it earlier with them. It turns out that this became a medium-sized rant. I guess I can live with that, and I hope it contains something that can help you on Wikipedia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This event is ancient history to me. However, I will never, ever initiate a talk page discussion to remove a couple of extra links when it's cut-and-dry policy and can be easily explained in an edit summary. If I did that, I would do nothing but write talk page messages all day on articles with editors who, for the most part, don't read talk pages and would argue until the cows came home. Most kpop editors do not care about policy or are way too lazy to look for it, and trying to talk out every teensy non-debatable thing with them is utterly pointless. No way will I ever ask for permission or try to "get a consensus" for something as tiny as removing a link that violates a very easy-to-find and easy-to-understand policy. Editors need to take a teensy bit of responsibility for what they post. It is the responsibility of the person adding information to ensure it conforms to Wikipedia standards, not the responsibility of the one removing it to prove it doesn't. Editors need to do some legwork on their own when they see something's been removed, not just rush to whoever removed to protest. And if the remover tells them why it was changed (even if already stated in the edit summary), again, that person needs to go do the legwork instead of again complaining. No sympathy. NONE. bonnielou says she didn't even know about edit summaries until recently. They're explained on like page 1 of the "how to edit Wikipedia" instructions that every editor is supposed to read, and is present at the bottom of the screen every single time she edits a page. So if all of this somehow makes me a bad editor, then so be it. Pretty sure I've never banished anyone to hell, don't appreciate the implication(?) that I have. Let's just drop this, because in the two minutes it's taken me to type this, probably 20 kpop articles have been unproductively edited with violating garbage and now I have to go deal with that. Yeah, kpop really is that bad. Shinyang-i (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It pains me to hear that Shinyang-i. I believe making wikipedia a non-toxic place, and helping other editors out so they can help better is worth more of our time than that, but you're under no obligation to help me with that. Regardless, happy editing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so do I. That's why I'm nice to people until they act like (I removed the not-so-nice name) who argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, I just cleaned up many dozens of kpop navbox templates, every single one of which was in violation of the navbox parameters. No way was I gonna leave a message on all the talk pages asking for their permission to get rid of their rule-breaking garbage. Ten seconds on WP:NAV would have told them the right way to do it, but like so many other kpop editors, they didn't bother to look. Now they're all done correctly. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and a request for clarification

[edit]

Hi Drmies, thanks for your even-handed comments at WP:ARCA, and for your constructive intervention at the discussion at talk:Landmark Worldwide. There are two issues that deeply puzzle me and I would be really grateful if you would give me some feedback on them.

The first is that you have again stated "Dave Apter's COI is a matter of record". I am honestly of the opinion that I have nothing that could reasonably be described as a conflict of interest, still less that it is "a matter of record". Apart from yourself, the only people who have made that accusation are editors that are openly hostile towards me and who have been trying to push negative viewpoints regarding Landmark. As I have every respect for your impartiality and for your commitment to the policies of Wikipedia, I am greatly troubled that you have come to this conclusion. I would appreciate it if you would explain your reasoning, and I would like to reach a shared understanding, even if that involves a revision of my view of myself.

Secondly, I am puzzled by what appears to me to be a gross asymmetry of attitudes towards personal attacks. On the one hand I made a single ill-judged comment about Theodore Tiger (which I have acknowledged and which I regret), and a storm breaks out with a chorus demanding my head on a plate. On the other hand, I have been subjected to a stream of vindictive accusations and personal attacks on a daily basis for months from John Carter, Astynax, Lithistman, and now Legacypac; and nobody blinks an eye. Every attempt I have made to get this resolved results in a stream of counter-attacks and repetitions of the original unfounded charges, rather than any attempt to address the issue. I would really appreciate your perspective on this, and any advice or suggestions you have. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dave, real quick: I do believe that your COI is a matter of record since you have stated on-wiki at the very least that you've taken their classes (or whatever those things are) and, if I recall correctly, that you view the outfit favorably. That's all it means. A COI does not automatically mean one cannot edit objectively or that one shouldn't be editing in a certain field--if that were the case I shouldn't be editing beer articles and Dr. K. shouldn't be editing K-pop (although his love for the music is so obvious that his very user name proves it). You may have noticed that I initially considered you be excluded from the area; I do not feel that way anymore. I think you have a COI, and I think it's not much of a problem (and I think ArbCom agrees).

    As for the personal attacks--well, if you made amends (I need to look at that comment more carefully) that's great, and as far as I'm concerned that can be the end of it. I do not know everything that's going on on the other side, although you will have seen I have removed one personal attack and discussed it with the editor. So it's not the case that nobody blinks an eye: I blinked once already, but I can't blink at what I don't see. I trust, though, that those editors will be on their best behavior. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. DaveApter (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment would you mind taking a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Continual_abuse_and_harassment_by_John_Carter . My original request was closed an hour later on an (I think mistaken) assumption that "the matter was being handled by Arbcom". John re-opened the discussion and I have responded, but we just seem to be going round in circles. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What

[edit]
Karl Bodmer - Scalp Dance of the Minitarres
I am your faithful ass. Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the entire mention--I think it's trivial, and even if that name is properly verified (Amazon links don't count, Hafs, and are frowned upon) it adds nothing to the article. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Still, I doubt it is called spamming. Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And concentrate on Tito. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tito_Torbellino&diff=next&oldid=642721770. This editor: states. I LOVE ANNA SANTAMARIA, By LEO VELAZCO. Or something like that. Hafspajen (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such homely little scenes you left me. I saw a video of a baby pig that slid on ice, but apparently I am not allowed to go out and buy a pig, so I think a donkey is certainly out of the question. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hafspajen, you should take down the image of the livestock. Considering what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is alleging about me at ANI, that could be considered fairly provocative imagery...!! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock again...three names this time

[edit]

Guess he thinks it's not so obvious this way, but of course it still is: Warez men be 4o3, Donner of dones, Vitomanes 1. When a brand new account has nothing on its record except undoing my edits, it's pretty telling. LOL Shinyang-i (talk)

Make that four names: Henry sluffs. Thanks so much! Shinyang-i (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five: Drinarivven. Think I got them all now. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the five that undid my edits. Maybe he went after someone else too, though lately I seem to be his favorite target. Shinyang-i (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch guy with no article: Antonie Frederik Jan Floris Jacob van Omphal

[edit]
Herman Antonie de Bloeme - Baron van Omphal

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_Frederik_Jan_Floris_Jacob_van_Omphal Herman Antonie de Bloeme ... Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YIPPIEEEE!!!!! Sorry. I mean. But it is a NICE picture... Hafspajen (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Markt in Enschede
He's not that boring- he commandeered a regiment, so he's like the Captain of Kopenick. Michel van Rijn (art smuggler) also hasn't got an article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the article, Xantophant--booooooring. Also, I don't know what a regiment is, or a colonel, or a lieutenant-colonel, or an aide-de-camp, which is why I was dishonorably discharged from MILHIST after one night of barrel duty. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointing announcement: I am very picky in my choice of articles. The Banner talk 10:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But there are good chances he will be a featured picture. Hafspajen (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

[edit]

User:Nitramrekcap is back, this time as 2.27.131.84 and 2.27.132.49. His edits at Talk:Cambridge Apostles are in my opinion a clear give-away. To freshen up your memory: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Enough is enough. The Banner talk 23:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haha, you know my memory. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thing is, Banner, what do you want me to do? I semi'ed Gerald Shove, and I suppose I can semi that talk page--in fact, I'll go ahead and do that. But I can hardly block those two (or three) IPs; there's little point to it. How 'bout next time you just revert, let me know, and I'll see if semi-protection is sensible? And when is the last time you ate kapucijners? Drmies (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did nothing on the articles, was waiting on your reply first.
    • It is no comment on your memory. I just know that you are a busy man and the case was in August.
    • Goodie, I haven't eaten them in Ireland. So, it would be at least 8 years and ten months ago! The Banner talk 23:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got some in the oven right now, with Conecuh sausage. We call 'em "shelled field peas" here and I tell you what, you dress 'em up with some bell pepper and other stuff, they look a hell of a lot better than that nasty grey stuff we got in the old country. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Award

[edit]
Suricata suricatta Monkey Award
So Monkeys and Donkeys. Popcorn, you go buy yourself. Hafspajen (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band Famous

[edit]

As per your suggestion, [18] I have pointed CombatWombat42 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. [19] Edward321 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WeAreAllStars is now accusing me of hounding for attempting to discuss reliable sources on the talk page.[20] Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice, please

[edit]

Esteemed Drmies, sorry for taking up your busy time, but I was wondering could you possibly either give me some of your highly regarded advice on this dispute here, or alternatively tell me where to look for advice. Basically I'm being prevented from creating shortcuts to sections on my home page here, here, and here, by a user who deletes them on the basis of rules that explicitly say that shortcuts are an exception to the rule that redirects from article space are not allowed. He may even be right but just quoting the wrong rules, but as a result I feel somewhat abused (to put it mildly), and I also feel that if he is right then the rules need amending to make this clear and to prevent others having the same unpleasant and time-wasting experience in future - but I can't currently try to do that, as I have no evidence that he is right. I should perhaps mention that I suspect it's also possible that the real but unstated problem is the content of one or more of the sections on my home page, in which case it might help if somebody just said so. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help, Drmies. And I really loved your stopped clock comment :) However I have at least temporarily removed it to avoid unnecessarily annoying Bgwhite, whom I'm expecting back on my page. But if you prefer me to restore it, please just let me know and I will restore it ASAP. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Bgwhite knows what I think about him, but thanks for your diplomacy. :) Drmies (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

For stubbing an article that was given good aesthetics. TheDethklokGuy (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Uncivil and disruptive behaviour at Talk:Kim Jong-un

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I wonder if I might get you to take a look at the above talk page; I just returned to the space after a long absence and have discovered three editors (213.100.108.117; Jack Upland; Maxl) are engaged in extensive personal attacks and diatribes against numerous other contributors there. Apparently this is all fall-out from an RfC which didn't go their way on the contentious issue of use of a non-free image for Mr. Kim (which has been raised countless times there previously and has long been a thorn of contention, but previously without leading to uncivil behaviour). I actually incidentally agree with these three on the content issue itself, but their behaviour in expressing their anger over the RfC going the other way is ludicrously over the line; they are entering thread after thread on the talk page (regardless of whether it has any relevance to the subject they are peeved about) and attacking the character of those who opposed them and just generally taking to the soapbox at length to denounce what they view as bureaucratic failings of Wikipedia.

Numerous others there have tried to advise them to follow WP:C, WP:NPA and talk page guidelines but it only seems to incise them more and the IP is particularly caustic in reaction to criticism; I'm the most recent to point out that adherence with these policies is not optional and this was the immediate response I got. Anyway, I don't see this behaviour stopping short of administrative action, or at least a warning of such, and since I've observed ANI to be a real slog of late, I thought I'd bring the matter directly to someone -- and you were the first dependable admin who came to mind (lucky you!). Hope you can look into it, but if you don't have time, let me know and I'll take it elsewhere. Cheers! Snow talk 09:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow Rise, I had a look. I removed the last comments from the IP (you're a douche, twice over!) and warned them--that's unacceptable. I have not read every single thread, every single word on that talk page; I do see some snarky commentary from Jack Upland though it didn't cross the line like the IP's comments. I also see that Cullen "oil on the water" 328 is active on that page, and I hope that maybe he can exert a calming influence. Jack Upland, Maxl, I hope you all can (continue to) observer proper decorum. Snow Rise, if specific posts in the next days or weeks fall foul of FORUM or whatever, you can do what you are allowed to do--remove them, for instance, and warn any offending editors (goes for all of y'all, of course). If need be I'll walk by with my big admin boots. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the new nicknickname, Drmies. Yeah, things have gotten a bit nasty there recently. I don't think I can be of much help regarding the photo issue, since I believe that it is possible that someone of the Dennis Rodman/Harlem Globetrotters group or similar celebrity visitors might freely license a photo of the great leader, so I am seen by some as an implacable enemy and a soulless bureaucrat. Jack Upland is useful there, and I appreciate his input, though we seem to disagree on the photo dispute. He's actually visited the DPRK, I believe. Finnusertop has a really constructive idea that might pay off. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drmies -- if not for concern that the IP would rile things to a new level, I'd probably not have bothered you with the matter, general pointy-ness not withstanding; I share Cullen's perspectives that Jack has some unique insights that could be put to great use in that space, if he has as much first-hand experience with the country as he seems to be suggesting, but because he's run afoul of editors who insist some of the content he wants is inadmissible (because of sourcing issues or non-free image restrictions), he seems to have permanently lost sight of WP:AGF and decided most everyone else there is either A) a propaganda warrior looking to trash the DPRK or, B) an obtuse bureaucrat enabling them. All of that said, since the most recent admonitions, both he and Maxl have avoided renewing that conversation, and with you having warned the IP, I hope that will be the end of it. And, thanks to the ingenuity and initiative of another editor, we also may have a plan of action on securing that image at last, which will bring the longest-lasting single content discussion (and biggest point of contention) I think I've ever been involved with to a close, and that will hopefully improve matters further. Anyway, won't clutter your talk page further with the matter, but thanks for the assistance, "Drmies, who walks softly but wears the big boots"...err, guess that (mixed) metaphor doesn't work nearly so well, does it? Snow talk 22:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't intend to raise the issue of the photo again. In my opinion, however, lengthy dissertations about protocol only serve to prolong discussions. I have been to the DPRK, but I don't pretend to be an expert (unlike many people who haven't). I'm certainly not an advocate. I am always prepared to work with other editors in good faith, but I think that this means acknowledging differences of opinion. I'm not sure what Snow Rise is basing that assessment of me on, but it is certainly not how I see things.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, protocol is a big part of the Wikipedia process, as I'm sure you're aware; there simply isn't any other way to organize so many people working across such a breadth of topics in a way that makes our approach consistent with our priorities. And our policies aren't arbitrary, they represent broad community consensus, typically formed over years of massive discussion. I agree that they sometimes put us in a "cart before the horse" kind of situation, and I've long been an advocate for the fact that a non-free image on that article would meet our criteria for extraordinary exceptions. That said, we can't just toss policy out the window any time it gets too burdensome, and exceptions to usually hard-and-fast rules are hard to gain consensus on. Nor is a talk page the appropriate place to be discussing at length what you think of Wikipedia's bureaucratic woes.
But all of that being said, I want to state for the record that I didn't view your behaviour as having reached a place that necessitated administrative action -- rather it was the IP's behaviour that forced my hand in bringing the whole affair to a mop, since they (the IP) were taking things to a new level of incivility, and the conversation looked to be on its way to becoming more deeply entangled and vitriolic from there. As one of our very few editors who have observed the DPRK firsthand, I certainly want you to stay involved on the article and the talk page -- I'm just hoping you'll keep your comments a little more on point and argue the content/policy issues alone, without unnecessary reference to the perceived shortcomings of individual editors or extensive and distracting asides about how Wikipedia's bureaucracy is counterproductive. But anyway, we should probably continue this discussion on the article talk page -- if there's anything more to be said on the subject anyway; I think we can all get back to work from here without issue. My thanks again to Drmies and apologies for the length of this thread. Snow talk 00:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had to go ahead and block that IP after they reinstated the douching bit. (I encourage you all to read this article.) So, Jack, you've been to the DPRK? That's exciting--and you came back, which is even better! That's a hell of a lot of hungry people in bondage. I suppose you didn't get close enough to take a picture... Anyway, thanks for dropping by. I hope that all y'all can get along there. BTW, the IP threatened to reboot their Mac and get a different IP and hack the hell out of me or something like that; please let me know if you see them coming back with a different number and the same behavior. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no -- so sorry to have put you on the wrong side of such a rogue! Good grief. But yeah, will do. And that article is indeed an interesting read. Snow talk 03:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Count on the guy whose sockpuppet fighting skills are negligible to keep his eyes peeled. My left eye is almost worthless as well. I posted the douchebag piece on my Facebook page, by the way, provoking fiery debate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How come I've been mentioned here (first paragraph of this section) as "disruptive" and "extensive personal attacks" in the talk page of Kim Jong-un? I have been neither. I simply stated my opinion, and I have NOT mentioned anyone by name in my comments. I think it should still be possible to say your opinion without being denounced. And this is neither disruptive nor "extensive personal attacks" - it's just, obviously someone does not wish to hear an opinion that diverges from his or her own. I don't think that's an appropriate way to deal with other peoples' opinions. --Maxl (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: I originally posted a response to Maxl's concerns here, but then moved it to Talk:Kim Jong-un to be kinder to Drmies and her talk page.] Snow talk 07:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's a bit inconsistent, in this context, to make sarcastic comments about me and hungry people...--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should really not be doing anything to encourage protracting the discussion here further, but I can't help but comment briefly; I don't see where Drmies comments were sarcastic in the least. Her sympathy for those hungry people struck me as genuine and the (mildly) jocular tone with regard to you coming back seemed to reflect only A) the very real risk of serious complications in visiting that country and B) a collegial gesture at inside humor with someone who had done something impressive in facing those problems, whatever the work or reasons that took you there. I share that appraisal, by the way -- that's one place I wouldn't go into without immensely compelling reason, and I'm impressed that you did. But I do think you're taking offense here where it doesn't seem any was remotely intended. Snow talk 01:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Upland, I do not know why you'd think I was making light of anything or anyone. The oppression of the people of North Korea is not a laughing matter to me. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not offended. It's just an illustration of how something can be interpreted differently by different people with different perspectives.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
File:Uchermann-karl-christian-1855-en-matfrier.jpg

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you (and this means you, not anybody else, so don't try and wriggle out of it) edited Antonie Frederik Jan Floris Jacob van Omphal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Wellesley. 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) 09:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated

[edit]

to Phil and Drmies. Beakfast!! User:Hafspajen/Frokkost. Mies this is an article on a painting Phil gave me as Wikilove way back. Hafspajen (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wooohoo. + additional refs not worked in yet... under artist's wifes. [1]
I give you some time if you want to have a go on it, Drmies. 17:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Hafspajen (talk)
Haha funny. Hafspajen (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ingelman, Ingrid (1984). "Women Artists in Sweden: A Two-Front Struggle". Woman's Art Journal. 5 (1). Woman’s Art Inc: 4. JSTOR 1357877. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

Concerning your passive aggressive threats [dubious – discuss]

[edit]

Calling me a douchebag is apparently fine, calling someone (Jack) ignorant and childish is apparently fine. Calling someone a douche for calling someone ignorant and childish is not? Fuck you and the hole you came from. I can change my IP , spoof my MAC and install a new browser. You can't regain your aura of objectivity. 213.100.108.117 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Question

[edit]

Drmies, I don't know if you missed our (Random86, Shinyang-i and I) question during this discussion, but I've never gotten a response back from you. Wanna know what do you think about those filmography pages? User_talk:Drmies/Archive_77#Got 7 Removal Thanks--TerryAlex (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, sorry, I never checked back on that. I hope Mikepellerin is alright. Listen, first of all, whatever you all come up with on the project page and get consensus for is already a step forward. I know that I am much more drastic in how I prune these things. But I do have a take on this, yes.

    First of all, and I think you all recognize this, these long-ass lists of video links have got to go. They are so far into promotional/directory territory it's not even funny anymore, and there also those editors are simply mimicking the company policy. Surely every fan understand why there are so many videos, teasers, special versions, remixes, J and K editions, Laser discs (do those still exist?), and what not--so the fans will buy them. And listing them all does nothing whatsoever for us as an encyclopedia. Besides, it's completely UNDUE in all those single and album articles.

    Second, appearances on TV shows are simply not of encyclopedic value--period. Unless they're proven to be special, of course. Imagine listing every TV appearance the Beatles ever did, or Radiohead. Then quadruple that for groups that are made for television, with television shows made for them. Then throw in these fake weekly popularity contests ("wins")--listed as if those are really actual important things. How are we not Allkpop, but better looking?

    Again, though, WP:V helps here: if it's not verified by reliable sources, that probably means that it's not important enough to be listed in our articles. Compare to U2 Videography, already not a great article--but there you have a band whose visual presence is huge and was probably revolutionary for the music industry. And any K-pop article has ten times the content and color and detail of that little chunk of the discography article... (Radiohead, another creator of incredibly important music videos, has Radiohead_discography#Music_videos--and that article is an FA. Tell that to the K-pop fans.) Drmies (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looooong draft on an Indonesian colonial administrator

[edit]

I am about to take my dentist-abused oral cavity to bed. Anyone feel like accepting Draft:Jacob Emil (‘Dick’) van Hoogstraten (1898-1991)? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting you would ask that. Den Haag does indeed occupy special position; it's also metonymic in the way that "the White House" is. I would love to be a government official, in an Audi and with a briefcase, and then get out of the car and sit down at a lovely terrace downtown and drink koffie verkeerd. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it's other official name, 's Gravenhage, has more flair... It's being used less and less, in contrast with another Dutch city that has similar double names: Den Bosch/'s Hertogenbosch :-)--Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The kpop song issue

[edit]

Hello. Every time I look at kpop song articles I just get worked up again. They've got to go. There are so many, and none of them contain most of the sections listed in the song MOS because, duh, such info doesn't exist. They're chart placements and personnel lists, and none of them ever can be improved beyond that. That contain no information that isn't better served on the album/EP article. A very few have acceptable reviews, but they were album reviews (which would be a lot more meaningful in the album articles...). Few have any cultural impact or significant background. Language barrier aside, most people know darn well no such real discussion of these songs in Korea or Japan either - they are considered commercial entities in those societies, not art. No one is discussing the chord structure of anything by any of these artists in any language, besides fan blog contributors with no credentials in music. WP even says very few songs merit articles; not even most popular hits deserve them. Can we come up with a plan of action maybe? AFD them in bundles by artist? by album? bundle non-single album tracks only? Or do 'em all one by one? Ignore all of them and let them breed? Those few Shinee and EXO AFDs took forever and some still aren't done. Even a few of the non-charting NC.A (who?) songs are still hanging on. I'm just...ugh...brain hurts. As someone who's been around for a little longer than some of the rest of us, do you have any ideas? Thank you, no rush. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Maybe it's time for a Faux Dung Beetle award- "You have been observed gathering up bits of dung, rolling them into a ball and shoving them into articles. Unlike the real Dung Beetle your activities are neither productive nor useful." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds mighty useful! Shinyang-i (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page happener upon) Suggestion - If looking at something gets you worked up, don't look at it? Squinge (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this is a joke, but just in case it's not, it defeats the purpose of editing Wikipedia if everyone just ignored the bad articles. Kind of counter-productive, I'd say...Shinyang-i (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No joke at all, just that things we do for pleasure (like volunteering at Wikipedia) should not get us worked up, and if we do get worked up then perhaps we should leave the improvement of such things for those who don't? In the wider sweep of humanity, kpop really isn't that important, and it's really not worth getting upset about. Anyway, my suggestion is as it is, and obviously you're free to reject it and carry on getting worked up if you wish. Squinge (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's only a small group working on kpop articles and we're trying to get them cleaned up. I'm not literally upset about the articles, it's just that every time I try to improve them, all that really runs through my mind is "ugh we gotta get rid of these." Sorry if I assumed you were being a smartass. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, we're cool ;-) Squinge (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(may I pop in here, looking to comment to Shinyang-i and found them here!) Shinyang-i, you remember me right, I'm the one you called a "lazy cretin" up the page a bit, while kind Martijn Hoekstra was trying to reason with us about our little tiff. First of all, a belated thanks for reviewing K-Pop Night Out at SXSW for WikiProject Korea. I knew you had done it, sometime after our dispute started, although you didn't ping me to let me know.
Which brings us to why I'm talking to you here. I saw that Squinge had noticed your angst over editing, too, and had recommended you might want to take a breather - since we do volunteer at WP for pleasure. I told Martijn Hoekstra virtually the same thing earlier today, well the part that I do it for pleasure, and will stop if it becomes unpleasurable. I really try to stay away from self-flagellation.
Now, to prove I'm not a lazy cretin (and I really challenge the whole use of this word - since it's connected with handicapped people - a real no-no, in my book), I looked to see what Squinge was all about, and found that someone had offered him a helpful tool that you might like to use - since you claim not to have time to speak to (human beings that are other editors) but more commonly called, by you, "lazy cretins", about deleting anything on their pages. Actually I was stalking Squinge's page, since he seemed to be a (whatever you guys are called) patrolling editor/administrator whatever - and wanted to see how unhappy he was with it all, how he was handling the "stress". Well, I gotta tell you, he sails thru it like a champ - seems to be the smiley sort.
Well, here's the research for you, dear Shinyang-i, to prove that I am thinking of your health and well-being. Another editor, Command and Conquer Expert! (the name says it all, doesn't it?) - put on your happy face Shinyang-i, - all your problems with those pesky lazy cretins can be solved with what C&CE recommends - TWINKLE, a handy-dandy little tool that C&CE can explain to you, and will, if you ask! It can open up User pages for those pesky new users & leave any number of multiple warnings and notices - bada bing, wham bam - I done it to you Mam, - which dear, may in the long run - help you quickly communicate with those less-than-worseless K-pop editors (lazy cretins) and they may actually learn something and thank you for it, or at a minimum - not stalk you.
Don't worry about me stalking you, this is my one-time outreach until you want to talk again to me. I don't look at K-pop pages and say what you said above to Squinge "all that really runs through my mind is "ugh we gotta get rid of these." I may be a fool, (lazy cretin that I am!) but I still have faith in K-pop editors, like the genre, and feel that WP itself is a wonderful living breathing thing. How do they all end it here, Shinyang-i - Happy Editing! Sincerely! Thank you Squinge and Command and Conquer Expert! and dear kind Martijn Hoekstra for listening in - when we're alone, Shinyang-i and I tend to fight a wee bit!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, thanks. I don't really care about your language preferences, as you've already chided me for being morally inferior to you in that regard. And as you can see, I did not call you anything and I even deleted the name myself because it was mean. Anyway, I have twinkle and most of what I do has nothing to do with leaving messages for individual people. Did you know most articles are edited by hundreds of users? Did you know no one owns Wikipedia articles? Did you also know many of these users are anonymous IPs or sockpuppets? Do you know that most of my edits will not be helped by automated messages? And finally, did you realize your post has nothing to do with the kpop song issue about which I left a message for another user? I know you mean well, but honestly I will be much happier if you just leave me alone and stop trying to counsel me. I don't take well to it. Thank you. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kpop members tables

[edit]

There appear to be numerous templates for Kpop members tables. Since it's been established the members tables are not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia biographies, should we nominate the templates for deletion too? I have no idea how that works. Here are the ones I found, all created by a single user:

What do you think? Shinyang-i (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinyang-i where was it established that the tables are not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia biographies? Knowing that would help in the nomination. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh,@Kelapstick:, there's been a lot of discussions all strung out in different places. Drmies has been in a lot of the discussions, hence my bringing the request for help to him; I was hoping he'd know how to phrase things and what to point to. But let me see what I can dig up, too. Shinyang-i (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know Drmies is our resident K-Pop expert, although he may be unavailable, I believe he is traveling to Incheon to see the K-Pop version of Gone with the Wind (featuring Seohyun). I know he was quite excited to hear about it's existence. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•We have tickets for the matinee, yes. In the meantime we're drinking beer and playing cornhole. The game. It's over 60 here, so K-stick, I'm sorry if you're still freezing your balls off. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are killing me. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo and harassing

[edit]

In October last you warned Trackinfo to stop harassing me ([21]). That did help for a while, but he is again in full attack now. See this edits [22], [23], [24], [25] and [26]. Calling me worst form of cyber bully is one thing, his many lies are too much for me. The Banner talk 12:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for example this one: [27] The Banner talk 13:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[28] The Banner talk 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)To be fair, ANI seems the appropriate place to mention (in a limited fashion) if a user has been involved in past interactions with another to establish a history of concerns at least. However, not knowing their history, it does seem like Trackinfo might be laying it on a little too thick for a specific topic they aren't involved in. The rest of us are not asking for anything beyond a limited topic ban though, so some things they describe could be considered a bit over the top for just establishing that there's a recurring issue in other topics. I'm definitely not going to try to draw the fuzzy line of where discussing behavior concerns crosses into harassment though on this one.
The overall conversation seems to have reached its near-end though, and it doesn't seem like there's anything new Trackinfo could add to really move it along. Would it be better if they just agreed to let the ANI post be to run its course? That would at least cut down on the drama a bit so the discussion remains at least somewhat on the direct topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that I am unable to discuss this guy's behavior at ANI? That is exactly where it belongs. And yes, I do have a broader reason to ask that they look at this guy's history. It goes much farther than one complaint about one topic. How or where do I get the broader community of administrators to LOOK AT IT? Especially when you seem to want to enforce censorship on my expression of that in the proper forum which is ANI. Perhaps you need to be a little more specific about your complaint. Now if you are ONLY referring to my slip up on the Kolkata bus thing, yes that did express my (well founded) prejudice that this guy is attempting to delete content in bad faith. Bad on me. I haven't done anything about him in months, I've got plenty of other things to do with my time. Just waiting for him to come back to ANI. He'll be back. Ask yourself why he's been in ANI 48 times. Doesn't that tell you something? Is the problem me? Or is it that I'm just trying to point out to you administrators, he keeps coming back because you haven't successfully done anything to change HIS behavior. Why do you stick up for him? When you do, you serve as a tool to help him continue. Do you want to encourage him to keep doing this? Trackinfo (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Banner? The Banner talk 00:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps this can soften your heart about my critical look at articles about pageants and contestants: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive. And in fact, I am convinced there are more sockpuppets and metpuppets out there. And real interested people too. The Banner talk 01:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trackinfo, you may have noticed, in between what must have been fits of rage, that I did not block you or warn you or scold you for posting on ANI: as do most others, I regard ANI as a sort of free for all zone where one may indeed discuss these things. Did you miss that? Now--you want to call me a tool? Who the fuck do you think you are? I'll tell you one thing about Banner: he is a net positive. You, you don't even have manners, and this kind of insult tells me you're also lacking smarts. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were NOT specific as to what you were scolding me for. Certainly I missed that. Further, you responded exactly when The Banner used my comments at ANI as motivation for the exact (BS) warning you substituted with your plain language statement. Your failure to be specific is what motivated my question here. As to "tool" you are the function to which The Banner uses you. Each controversy he goes whining to you and is quoting your warning. You could easily correct him for that. Your absence of comment or reprimand supports his actions. That is not the slang derogative. By the definition "Something to perform an operation; an instrument; a means" you serve as a tool. And he uses it. And net positive? What the hell kind of positive comes from his constant negativity, deletion and harassment of less experienced editors? Trackinfo (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm scolding you now for calling me a tool, and that's all I have to say to you. Want me to add an NPA template to your talk page? Drmies (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TY

[edit]

Thank you, man. Thanks for the advice. Thanks for cutting down to the bone and seeing it all for what it truly was, is, and has been. Not really sure how to repay someone in Wikipedia (Wiki-trinkets seem too trite and silly for this) but, I owe you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, not at all--you were being picked on, and that's never OK. There will come a time when you'll have to stick out your neck for someone else: what goes around comes around. What I hope is that these two realize that they're going to have to bite the bullet and improve the quality of the articles they're working on, since that's the cause of these sour grapes. Also, you noticed on ANI that I wasn't the only one who saw what was going on: I know you don't like ANI very much (and with that current thread and those six sub-threads, I can't blame you), but it's not the cesspool of iniquity it's sometimes claimed to be. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Apollo Hotel Amsterdam

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They take a ridiculous amount of time to go through these days though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Drmies. I've been too busy crying by what that nasty man said about me. Crawled up in the fetal position, sobbing my little heart out. No wait, I've been issuing death threats to Boko Haram, ISIS and those slags that crashed those planes into those buildings. And seeing as you asked, I've made you happy. Who said I was a heartless bastard? For one thing, I have a heart. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, FUCK YOU Lugnuts! You're just taking advantage of my well-known admiration for Radiohead... That was a low blow, man, a low blow, and it leaves me INVOOOOOLVED and disarmed. BTW, you are a big boy, and I didn't remove that comment to protect your feelings, but rather to make a point to the other editor. You are of course welcome to reinstate it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I had no idea you liked Radiohead. Seriously! I had the joy of seeing Radiohead and Leonard Cohen live within the space of a few days a couple of years back. Happy days. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

[edit]

If Mitchell is not going to retract his blatant personal attack (not to mention BMK's endorsement of such) and no admin is going to take any action, I will be forced to take this to Arbcom. I dont particularly want to, however the sheer arrogance and brazenness of ignoring wikipedia's core policies regarding civil interaction is... staggering. Administrators are supposed to set a positive example, not wield an axe and then lash out when people complain they have chopped the wrong heads. Granted I know that arbcom will either do nothing or endorse the status quo that civility and NPA are no longer required, but for the moment its still a pillar Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I know what you're talking about, but I don't know what you're doing here (what is my role here?), and I don't think anyone is forcing you to do anything. There was some commentary by HJ Mitchell about your contributions to the project--I'll ping him since I don't believe he's a regular here anymore, having had the gall to disagree with me on something, I can't remember what--and I tried to check into that, but the tool server was down again. A perusal of your last 500 edits, however, suggested that, well, you make more edits to non-article space than to article space, to put it mildly. I assume that's what you're referring to? So I guess my question is, what are you taking issue with, the wording or the content of Harry's remark?

    The other question is, you've been here for some time--do you really expect someone to get blocked over the word "trolling"? (Harry used the verb, if I remember correctly.) And do you think I agree that this is "the sheer arrogance and brazenness of ignoring wikipedia's core policies regarding civil interaction" when we have editors making bitchy remarks about autistic people and about gays and about women? Cause I don't, and I do not believe that you believe this. And you know as well as I do that ArbCom isn't simply endorsing anything that disregards incivility. If you're going to be the gadfly, the outsider who calls out injustice and keeps us admins and content editors honest, you'll have to do a lot better than this. And while I'm on my talking chair, as the Dutch would say, I disagree with Harry about Ent: I don't believe that Ent is a troll, and I like him just fine though I'd like him better if he made more article edits. And he knows this. And he thinks, I think, that I'm a straight shooter but that I take shortcuts and sometimes turn a blind eye, and he's probably right about that. But Ent and I can look each other in the eye, and we can look in the mirror as well, because I believe that Ent does not suffer from the type of false consciousness that I sense underlies your rhetoric. Feel free to go to ArbCom; your complaint will go nowhere and I can live with your conclusion: that it was the corruption of the system, not the validity of your complaint. I hope you can live with that. My apologies for my verbosity. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Doctor Who

[edit]
Doctor's, 32 Teviot Place Edinburgh

The fourth episode of sixth series of Doctor Who was written by Neil Gaiman, entitled the "The Doctor's Wife" ... Hafspajen (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Hafspajen (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman

[edit]

Hey Drmies, hope all is well. Just wanted to loop you in on the new Zimmerman edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing and frightening

[edit]

Regarding all of this [29], I'm amazed at how your edits were so similar to my own (that ended up being reverted). And for the same reasons you stated in the edit summaries. You and I think alike? I think I'm frightened. ;-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe. The only edits of yours I looked at were the ones I signaled, since I didn't want to come to the article with a predisposition. But if they really are alike, that may just mean that you're growing as an editor. :) Seriously, I did not expect to find so many problems there, and I'm going to do something about it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you find time to take a look?

[edit]

This ANi has been dragging on and on, and I noticed you commented on it without passing judgement.[30] Could you find time to evaluate his claims and close it up? You should also look at the related threads at Boko Haram talk and close them in the process. Literally his last 100+ edits or four days have been either on this ANI or the talk page and the edits are all complaining about me or my edits. I believe you are uninvolved with the article in question, and our only significant interaction was me getting annoyed with you in April 2013, and a little cross over at Landmark Worldwide recently, so you are not partial to me. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Legacypac, as much as I'd love to trim ANI (which is huge right now), and as much as I appreciate your words (Landmark, that's all water under the bridge with no hard feelings), I don't think I should. For starters, I'm in too many messes at once, and my involvement in that thread was, as you saw, limited to the edit warring bit. I'll have a look again, but I don't know. Maybe this episode of Top Gear I'm watching will cheer me up significantly. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your note, was not watching your talk page.You've been mentioned.He prefers the Jan 8 version. Legacypac (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Lips Are Movin, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MaRAno FAN 05:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: [31] Don't know if it will get through, though. [32] One post and banned from the talk page. Wheee. --NeilN talk to me 05:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How come no one ever templates me? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done --NeilN talk to me 06:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, a deleted userpage. That is... unconventional. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I don't mind User:MaranoFan templating me. After the prose I saw in that article I'm happy to read a pre-recorded and carefully edited message. Hey, please don't all go and tag the hell out of that user; I'm sure they already felt violated enough when they saw the history of that article. The only thing--as far as I'm concerned--that really matters is that article, which has a GA stamp on it which, in my opinion, is undeserved. I've asked Eric and his talk page readers to have a look. Perhaps the article can be quickly improved to GA status. So far I've looked mostly at prose, though there are other problems--I have no reason to believe that RyanSeacrest.com is a reliable source (it's a celebrity's website, for crying out loud), and I think the criticism of that song is grossly underplayed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

[edit]
lazy admin
Just because you do not seem to have ever been welcomed. Hafspajen (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin, Le panier des fraises des bois
My classical education that included sentence diagraming says... smultrois --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardo article

[edit]

Hi there. I used the talk page of Pardo to discuss the issue and I was ignored by User:BEARtruth89, who insists on posting pictures of celebrities claiming their race as "pardo" without any source! I already opened a block request against him many days ago, and I was ignored. The other user should be blocked for vandalism. Anyway, please watch this page because I am sure he will return with those unsourced pictures when the article is unlocked again. Xuxo (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • First things first: stop referring to edits you disagree with as "vandalism". Second, you did indeed write two sentences on that talk page, but I think you can and should do better than that--start by correcting "original resource" to "original research", link to the relevant policy (WP:OR), and explain what you all seem to have missed, that this is also a matter that involves WP:BLP. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Lips Are Movin

[edit]

What should I do at the Lips DYK? MaRAno FAN 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's up to you. The nomination actually hasn't been reviewed yet; you could sit back and do nothing. My suggestion would be to beef up that hook for the song, the eight minutes hook, since that has great potential. While I'm not the ultimate expert, I've written a handful of DYKs and have some experience. The GA bit, that I don't know, but if the GA status is revoked I don't mind arguing that we can let the DYK ride nonetheless--but that won't be my call. Right now the GA status is a bit more important, in my book, and I have not yet decided which way to go. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Odd couple of ANI

[edit]
"Are my nails dry yet"

Any chance you can close the discussion or get some merciful Admin to do it? Its devolved into him making threats[33] and become little more than the conversations I attempt to have privately with HW on his Talk page that he consistently deletes. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I'm kind of enjoying feeling able to just do things again without waiting to make sure an entire committee agrees with me first... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just came here to say "You probably don't want me to close it; after a brief read-thru, I'd likely unilaterally topic ban Scalhotrod from all BLPs for not giving a flying fuck about BLP. Perhaps Beeb will be more nuanced." Now I get to go back to ANI again and see if Beeb was, indeed, more nuanced. And yes, Beeb, I completely 100% understand and agree about feeling unencumbered. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not inappropriate to ask, what did I do, not do, or say to give Flo the impression that I don't give a "flying f#&% about BLP"? I care greatly and don't want to see inaccurate or undue information in any BLP. I admitted to and apologized for the mis-link I made and pledged to be more diligent about checking BLP Wikilinks. I wouldn't spend so much reviewing the Special:PendingChanges list if I didn't care about BLPs, that's the majority of review items. I've deleted more BLP vandalism than I can remember. Doesn't matter and I'm an idiot for asking. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of inserting head into sand...

[edit]
Bury your head in the sand
Bury your head in the sand

That's it, I'm crawling under a table and covering my ears. I'm done sticking my neck for any issue other than what the WP community tells me is OK. This being bold stuff is for the birds. I'm back on ANI again days after the last one, I've already capitulated on that issue, and I'm denuding my Watch list of most of its contents. Maybe I'll just go back to editing car related stuff, no one (male or female) seems to get offended by that... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what to tell you, Scalhotrod. I do not think it was a great idea to continue to get that note into those articles. Whether they were violations of this or that I don't know, whether there were 3R or EW violations I don't know either. But I looked at two AfDs and some other diffs and I can quite easily see consensus to keep that material out of those articles, so moving on to that movie, well, the result was somewhat predictable. Don't let it grind you down. I've been wrong more often than most people here, and I just have a tasty zebra and try to move on. You can always create a sock and go slumming! Drmies (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you may have missed...

[edit]

I was on about this diff, which was added to the article with no explanation and has precisely nothing to do with the subject. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't put it here; this is ANI 2.0. Put it in your report, and explain. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done, I just didn't know if you saw it. Do people watch ANI? That must be really inconvenient, as it is edited so much.

Whatever. I don't care what the result is. If Wikipedia wants to let one of their most prolific truther trolls (honestly, just look at her talk page...) return to volatile pages again, so be it. I'll just return to the low-brow subjects again. Have a nice day '''tAD''' (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong, YET

[edit]

But a few extra eyes on the edits on PLK Vicwood KT Chong Sixth Form College won't hurt. I will start the new Olympic sport: 10 km snoring. Good night.The Banner talk 22:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

?

[edit]
Poe

Did you really had cat-burning ceremonies in the Low-countries? Cat-burning. Sounds weird. What articles we have. Hafspajen (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OH; yes you did. There is a tradition from the Middle Ages in which cats were thrown from the belfry tower of the Cloth Hall to the town square below. Ok, didn't burned them, you killed the cats by trowing them thom the tower. Same thing basically. Hafspajen (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Hafspajen (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ We in Sweden never burn animals.
Drmies, what do you think about this edit? [34] Hafspajen (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that got radically reverted. Hafspajen (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Louis Sebagh Page

[edit]

Hi, I saw you just removed the product section I added to the Jean Louis Sebagh page. Your note says "not neutral enough." Can you provide some suggestions as to what I should do? I thought I wrote it correctly and in a neutral tone. Thank you! Alvb — Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Andrea (my edit is here)--sorry, but I don't read that as neutral at all; it reads like it's from the brochure. I am not sure how those things can be rephrased since it seems to me that they're really essentially promotional. In Wikipedia's voice, I suppose you could say something like

    Sebagh created the "Meaningful Beauty" line of products with Cindy Crawford, with the antioxidant SOD (superoxide dismutase) as an important ingredient

    but I kind of wonder if this SOD thing is real in the first place. I read that article from the Evening Standard and I can't say it sounded very neutral to me. I don't read many British papers; John, do you read this one? and do you mind having a look at the diff which has the link to the article? Andrea, neutral really equates to factual, and sometimes dry. It means leaving out buzzwords like "super antioxidant" and "featured" and the specially grown melons--I mean, a bunch of scientists hanging out in the South of France growing melons?--and it means questioning the sources. That first one is to the company, and the last one, to Luxurious Magazine, well, I don't much stock in that, esp. since it just seems to repeat what the manufacturer might say--Precious and effective, 24K real gold and platinum nano particles are included with state-of-the-art ingredients to achieve the same tightening, firming and lifting effect previously only possible with the Nefertiti Lift technique. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I skim-read one of the ES articles, and it looks like a decent enough piece of journalism for a source (considering the paper's owned by two Russians and Lord Rothermere) The article on Superoxide dismutase says the main commercial source is "bovine liver, though it is also found in yeast, spinach, and chicken liver". There seems to be a connection between levels of SOD in a plant and the degree of stress it's subjected to, so that farm of scientists in the South of France is probably a Gitmo for melons. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your feedback. I think I better understand my issue now. When I am citing a source, I thought it was best to use it word for word and not paraphrase. It sounds like it is better to paraphrase when it seems appropriate. Am I understanding that correctly? I read that site from time to time - I like to troll lots of different news sites - but I would not say it is a site I would read daily. Thank you for the help! Alvb — Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckoo's and stuf

[edit]

Omdat je vast niet dagelijks nieuwsgierig op mijn talk page kijkt of er nog nieuws is: mijn vraag om feedback over de vertaling van Cloud Cuckoo Land, leverde helaas niet veel op. Eén gebruiker kwam nog met "fantasieland", een tamelijk fantasieloze vertaling. Een ander noemde het wat interessantere fenomeen van alles door een roze bril bekijken, omdat mijn suggestie van roze wolk misschien iets teveel in de sfeer van verliefdheden zou hangen. Ik vrees dat je hiervoor toch bij de professionele vertalers te rade zult moeten gaan. Ga ik nu weer even een hond verbranden, maar dit geheel terzijde.  Wikiklaas  02:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS, as discussed

[edit]

I've been working on a kpop MOS in my sandbox. It's very, very rough and I haven't even started the troublesome "notability" issue yet. It's really just relevant restatements and clarifications of things that seem to give kpop editors trouble with some examples. Do you want to look at it? Can sandboxes have talk pages for other editors to give feedback on items in the sandbox? Thank you very much! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with a made up article?

[edit]

I'm not sure what to do with Advanced Practice Provider Executives. I've already removed some refs that were published by the group and some made-up refs. I'm finding more made-up refs. I'm unable to find the following anywhere via Google, WorldCat or the publisher's own website.

  1. Hall, Richard (2015). Nursing and Advanced Practice: Best practices. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  2. Brown, Peter (2014). Startups in Medicine: The new era. CRC Press.
  3. Rice, Brenda (2014). Modern Nursing. Cengage Learning.
  4. “Stanford Hospital & Clinic’s Center for Advanced Practice and Advanced Practice Leadership” (2013). Bay Area Non-Docs (BAND) meeting, Feb 2013; Menlo Park, CA

What's left is the company's own material or refs that don't source what is being said. The company is real. The pièce de résistance is [35]. Bgwhite (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, real but strangely absent from local Bay Area news too, although Bay Area Non-Docs is also real. Have you seen Appexecutives? Yngvadottir (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen it. The two are different articles. There are some sentences lifted in the newest one, but it doesn't reach deleting the article for copyright. Bgwhite (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest taking it to AfD. I was a member, decades ago, of various professional groups that existed and did good work, but were not notable as Wikipedia defines the term. I am not going to try to write articles about those groups based on photocopied internal documents in file folders in my storage unit. Same goes for self-published websites. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm with Cullen. Some of those clubs are notable--Modern Language Association is, International Marie de France Society is not. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit)

[edit]

Hi Drmies: Just an FYI in the event that you were not aware of this: almost all of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit) still have the Afd template atop them, and their talk pages are not tagged with the old afd full template denoting the AfD discussion. I have removed the AfD template and added the talk page template to Sarpler, Dimi (metric prefix) and Bag (unit), but I'm working on other matters at this time. NORTH AMERICA1000 21:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psst

[edit]


Some people really try (this was added to an article) :A Reynoldsian is an adherent to the Reynoldsianism Faith, which was Founded by The Glorious, The Inseme Duex Rex Patriarch Reverend and Dr. Robert Allen LaVey Reynolds. The Holy Book of the Reynoldsian Faith is The Reynoldsian Way. There are also three hymnbooks, a book of sermons and a book of prayers. In The Father Church of Personal of Personal Redemption, from whence Reynoldsianism emerged and all to Line of The Inseme Duex Rex, Patriarch Reverend and Dr. Robert Allen LaVey Reynolds, The Holy Inseme Duex Rex, Patriarch Reverend and Dr. Robert Allen LaVey is God and Father to All. all added to Joshua Reynolds. Removed, don't panic. Hafspajen (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's pretty interesting! "Holy Inseme Duex Rex"- that's a good name for a pedigree German Shepherd. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Maybe we should suggest it to Sagaciousphil. She can give the idea to some of the dogs she judges, that are worthy. Hafspajen (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Man takes dog to talent scout "This is an amazing dog- he's called Holy Inseme Duex Rex and he can talk". Talent scout says "Okay", points at the ceiling and says "What's that?" Holy Inseme Duex Rex goes "Ruff!" The scout shouts "That dog can't talk!" and throws them both out of his office. Man turns to dog and says "What did you do that for?". Dog says "Well it looked pretty ruff to me." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the sales pitch at Amazon.com, "The Reynoldsian Way: The Black Book of Personal Redemption is intended to aid others in fulfilling their deepest desires via the employment of Satanic Principles. In this Work You'll find The Requirements for joining the Church of Lucifer the Redeemer/the Rituals for Wedding/Baptism/Funeral/Last Rites/Divorce and even how to Take Over a Town in True Reynoldsian Satanism Style from One who actually has employed said Principles" Also known as the Creed of the Vandal, Troll and Sockpuppet. I like the old school capitalization. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still trying to figure out what "Inseme" means. It sounds like a cross between "insane" and "inseminated", but maybe that's not right. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)
  • Hafspajen, if you've been perusing my Facebook page, tell me what you think of those photos of my friend's dog's infected balls. (I guess there's still some privacy there: the search for "Sam's infected Scrotum" comes up empty.) Drmies (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to fulfill my inner desires according to Satanic priciples. I have other things to do. Step back, Satan! Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
You're a great admin, I see your name everywhere! And thanks for closing this monster, though the result wasn't the one I hoped for. Anyway, here you go! :) AmaryllisGardener talk 21:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ophelia

[edit]
File:Pascal Adolphe Dagnan-Bouveret Ophelia.jpg
Tigerjagd

She got mad for less. How am I suposed to know if this is correct? Hafspajen (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I I didn't get reverted. The translations are there because it is fun to know just how a nonsensical text is translated in other languages, so please do not remove them. The question was HOW am I supposed to know the new version was correct in Polish. Hafspajen (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ask them. I don't know. My Polish is worse than my Czech. And I sort of get the point of the translations, but giving a bunch of translations without much commentary on the English wiki is kind of useless--and because it's all unverified, unlinked (except for that brief paragraph) disagreements or misunderstandings like the one you had are par for the course. Maybe Poland needs a teddy bear drop too? Drmies (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh. Polish Teddy bear air drop? My- Czech is ever worse. It is like my Tamil. Hafspajen (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Xanthomelanoussprog is showing strong Serbophilia lately. Maybe all this Sighnpost is not entirely good for him. --00:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Hafspajen (talk)[reply]
Ha! Who was that American general who said Benzedrine got him up plenty of hills? Can't find the quote, so I used Smick instead. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually found plenty of refs, translatios in all languages, even Klingon. Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find the Welsh particularely enjoyable. Those guys are great. No doubt a Welsh Bards were comming from a long tradition of professional poets. Hafspajen (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Siaberwoci
by Selyf Roberts
Mae'n brydgell ac mae'r brochgim stwd
Yn gimblo a gyrian yn y mhello:
Pob cólomrws yn féddabwd,
A'r hoch oma'n chwibruo.


'Gwylia'r hen Siaberwoc, fy mab!
Y brathiad llym a'r crafanc tynn!
A rhed pan weli'r Gwbigab
A'r ofnynllyd Barllyn!'

catch me up

[edit]

wow ... I look at pages and my admin. highlighter shows me names I don't even know. RandyKitty kinda rings a bell, and in a positive way ... good for them. (in the double-edged sword kind of way). I know it's been a while, but was glad to see Klapstick having the tools too. Hafspajen and Xanthowhatever I'm not familiar with - trust they are good eggs though. What about the "Lady" LoS, ... and Bbb ... they still around? Haven't seen Dennis Brown anywhere ... what's up with that?

Eric? ... oh shit. Where do I even start. I saw "cuntgate" at Arbcom, it had closed with really odd statements ... I'm amazed Eric still tries. I used to wonder why he was so bitter - long LONG ago (but now I see why). Is he still writing? Is he still helping other writers? I disagree with him about many things .. but there's damn few people I respect as much as him.

Ughhhh .... so much I've missed. — Ched :  ?  04:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Ched. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Cullen .. good to see ya.! — Ched :  ?  04:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And oh WAIT ... HJ lost his cool? .... I have GOT to see that. Link please. — Ched :  ?  04:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Not my tp, but is it really necessary to talk about when somebody "lost their cool" a while ago? --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sigh .. ok ... whatever. — Ched :  ?  05:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Harry's a big boy. I think it was on ArbCom or one of those places, no, ANI, where he referred to someone's work here as trolling. That's a naughty word, of course, and technically a personal attack, I suppose, of some sort, and nothing came of it, which was a good thing. I think there's plenty of people with different opinions on what the HERE in NOTHERE means. Eric's preponderance of article edits is a mark of HEREness for people like me, but that doesn't automatically mean I discredit those whose balance is heavily on the side of...well, other namespace edits. There are those who make few article edits and contribute to the project nonetheless, and those who don't. Ent, as far as I'm concerned, is a Valued Contributor and can grab one of my highly-coveted Honorary Zebras any time he likes one. (I think he's a he.) I wish he'd do some more article work (might as well ping him since I'm talking about him--I think him's a him) just to prove the nay-sayers wrong, and because I'm kind of interested to see what would come out of that pen of his (I think his is a his). Anyway, Harry knows that I have almost nothing but respect for him, and I also have a fiver in my pocket for when I run into him and we're near a pub that accepts whatever currency that fiver represents. (Do five pounds buy a person a decent beer? Where Bishzilla lives a beer costs at least a pound of flesh.) Cheers! Drmies (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was thinking of something else having to do with Harry... awwwkward... --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha yes, there was more. He called Fram a bad word too; I don't remember if if was justified or not (oh no bad words are never alright you naughty boy!), I forgot. But Harry IS a big boy. What else? Didn't Jimbo yell at him? ArbCom? Ah what's it matter. His block log is cleaner than mine. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a group of RfA opposers f-ing morons was what I was referring to... of course he apologized later. P.S., you know you've been around when you've been accidentally blocked twice! --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I ever saw that. Ah well. Few people looked good in that RfA, and we lost Thomas.W in the process. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ched, yes, I'm around - not as much, but I am. LadyofShalott 17:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh - great to see you Lady. I hope you and yours are doing well.
Accidental blocks? ... Ummm - Panyd may be able to point you in the desired direction. — Ched :  ?  17:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For info

[edit]

Hi Drmies. Thought I'd bring this to your attention. Told to fuck off, offered an "apology" (not for the fuck off bit...), user warned by another editor. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And then continues to post on my talkpage, despite being told not to.... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, ha, I saw all that before I saw this note. Hey, have a zebra on me. I'm going to fuck off from this issue, but my final warning is there in the talk page history and I won't forget that I placed it there. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Action review

[edit]

I need a suggestion. Please see this. Two users have violated 3RR. If I block the first user, I have to take the same action for the second user too. So, I have warned both of them. Was it okay or should I have blocked them directly? Feel free to go ahead and take administrative action if necessary. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Titodutta, you don't have to block Bentogoa for reverting disruption; I'd sooner give them a barnstar. After looking at the contributions of Canhistoryeditor, I've blocked them indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. But you did right to ask. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks Bish! And thanks Tito. In general, not all edit warriors are the same. As Bish suggests, you need to investigate whether it's good-faith edits that are being reverted or not. BLP violations are an obvious exemption as well. If all things are equal on both sides, you can choose to block, yes--and you can choose to block someone longer if they have a prior record. But you don't have to block. Article protection is an option, and the old "come to Jesus" speech is another (the Urban Dictionary definition doesn't really carry the weight I want it too; perhaps someone has a better one).

    3RR and edit warring in general are among the trickiest of infractions for us admins, in my opinion, which is why I leave the ANEW board in the capable mittens of Bbb23 and EdJohnston, both of whom are nice folks and will be happy, no doubt, to advise you if the matter comes up again. I think one of the things they'll tell you is to take it slow, that investigation is important. Oh, and you can always lock the article for three hours or whatever "pending investigation", if you need time to look into it. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Dr.M. @Tito: The RFPP board is one of the safer places to get started as an admin. If you are looking at a protection request and find yourself thinking about a block rather than protection, you can always punt to ANI if the situation is not 100% clear. (Or you can ask Drmies, obviously :-). For practice in doing blocks, usually WP:AIV is the place for simple cases, though not always. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, thanks, but I'm sure Tito was here for the ANI 2.0 reason, not for me. Again, I find 3R and EW to be difficult--it is the one place where good-faith editors (or, you know, semi-good-faith editors) can butt heads in the most blockable of manners, and where admins are asked to judge content (as Bish did, clearly). I don't mind judging content, I think I'm capable, but it's the murkiest of all admin areas. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let me point you elsewhere: check out this edit, which proves a few things--a. that the now-blocked editor has been at it for quite some time and b. that they like to remove sources. That edit (the "dating" one) and this edit are the only two edits they've made, and they made it a number of times (I just looked at every single one of them). If I dream of horses had a block button they could have put a stop to this yesterday already (but I bet you that they're just too friendly to ever run for admin!)--in my book, two or three BLP violations warrants a block already, esp. if they come without any kind of explanation.

    Now, if they had argued that the source was not strong enough, etc., we could have had a conversation, sure. But without that kind of argument, it's just blanking/vandalism. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was hoping for an invigorating wheel war with Drmies. :-( Bishonen | talk 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry Bish. Can I invigorate you with an akvavit-assisted back rub? And that reminds me: it's lunch time. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I am much too kind to run for admin. ;-) I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Day

[edit]
A happy day for him
Happy 22 January
Happy Don`t worry be happy Day for you! Hafspajen (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Could you keep an eye on Seagate Technology please? An IP has added back in a section twice that is against a talk page consensus, both times without any explanation. It's possible these IPs may be linked to User:Abhilashkrishn, who appears to be the only autoconfirmed user who ever supported this inclusion (and indeed tried to keep adding it back in, despite being told it was against consensus), but there's no guarantee of that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watch list now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-Why don't we check it for sock-puppet and reveal the truth whether that is me? Accusing a person needs some proof.-  abhilashkrishn talk 09:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WEIRD

[edit]

Antonie Frederik Jan Floris Jacob van Omphal is still half Dutch half English, like Dr Mies himself. Hafspajen (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-OK, the man is maybe terribly boring but he is good looking with his uniform, hat and all those medals and stuff and surely he was brave and all the things that go with it.
Also Crisco 1492 has put him in his personal Que, and is thinking of nominating him as FP soon. But if that article is still half Dutch somebody will hit him on the head for sure at the nom. Hafspajen (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Met een stok met schroeven? Drmies (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmographies & Videographies

[edit]

Do you know of any guidance for filmographies/videographies for musicians? I have looked and looked and can't figure out what they fall under. I think many such articles in kpop may have gone over the edge into WP:PROMO, but can't find any standards to compare to. For instance, take this one: VIXX filmography. First, every single music video they've made is linked. That's a bit much, isn't it? The page is essentially a directory for anyone who wants to watch all their videos. Second, scroll down to the "VIXX TV" heading and expand the two lists. Over a hundred episodes of their variety show are linked. All are legal and violate no copyrights but ... ? Is this really what these lists are for? Nearly all the new & trendy kpop groups are like this (usually minus the hella-long variety show link list) or are in the process of becoming like this. Can you point me anywhere for guidance? Shinyang-i (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you write, "I think many such articles in kpop may have gone over the edge", then you have answered your own question. Count on Drmies for wise firmness. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, Cullen. I'm microfasting to I'm anything but firm. Or wise. Let me just say, as a quick cop-out, that I typically agree with you, wise man. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIXX filmography. I think that filmography is the worst I've ever seen. Cullen, you should have a look-see, just for fun. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the f(x) one was even worse, in terms of listing & linking ephemera. Guhhhh. The creator just copy-and-pasted everything from SM Ent's Youtube channel. Anyway, all the filmographies/videographies are like this, essentially music video link directories - what do we cite to get them back under control, other than "What WP is not"? I'm so tired of fighting and wish additional experienced editors would get involved in some of these never-ending discussions over member tables and whatnot. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need some advice, since things are getting hot and steamy

[edit]

Well... Proverbially, at least.
I got a request to look at the contributions of Hazelares (talk · contribs) in Sauna culture in The Netherlands and Flanders and Sauna. I did and found a plethora of non-RS sources (links to sites of commercial saunas and spas), which I removed. This has landed me in a 3RR situation, which I do not want. I have left a message on the users talk-page, pointing out WP:VER, but the user seems to think NL.WP-rules (i.e. none at all) apply. At the moment, the material in question has been restored and i'm not at all sure how to proceed. Revert once more (3rr), leave it to some other editor (When?). Can you take a peek at it? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Did some article work by reverting edit from the sauna [36]. Kleuske, it's not a good idea to go to 3rr intentionally; I suggest following the advice at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and limiting yourself to a single revert. Use Talk:Sauna and talk your time. NE Ent 11:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, be sure to leave warnings for the tendentious editor. That may be sufficient, but if it isn't a block can soon follow, putting and end to the problem. Join the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club. Jehochman Talk 12:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all. Kleuske, it's not a good idea to restore a once-removed prod--that no reliable sources were added applies only to a BLP prod, AFAIK. Having said that, yeah, the sourcing was really bad; I've looked at some other edits and they have a habit of inserting unverified claims (in Zwarte Piet, for instance). Given the sourcing AfD is a good place to go--but then again, there is a sort-of culture of sauna-ing in the motherland...whether the sources are there or not is another matter. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind and not do it again. I'm still getting used to the mores around here and coming from the Dutch wiki, it does take some getting used to. I've made a start here and checked out some of the sources used. Thanks (all) for the advice given, I'll be sure to heed it.
P.S. I still "owe you" an article on the WA. That will take some time, i'm afraid. Borne, Overijssel comes first. Tjuus, Kleuske (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Thanks for hanging out here. I just did a quick copy and paste, with minor edits, of Oud Eik en Duinen--just to give an indication of how much there is to be done. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you advised Kleuske on this AfD issue. I added my own comment. One added "complication", see the article the author created with the same content but a slightly different title Sauna in the Netherlands and Flanders. Does one place the same AfD on that? --VanBuren (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Computer Engineer Barbie

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel please

[edit]

Any chance of a revdel and possibly a block, please? - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Tetra quark

[edit]

Gooi avond mijnheer. I wonder, if you've nothing better to do with your Friday night, if you would review my interactions with this user over the last week or so. They're relatively new and very keen to help out, but have run into problems with understanding consensus. I blocked them twice in quick succession for edit-warring, and they are saying that they feel a bit stalked when I come in with friendly advice. Our admin colleague User:I JethroBT remitted their last block as they said they wouldn't edit-war any more, which was and is fine with me. As I said to the user I feel some faith in them and have face invested in their success, so I am loath to see them getting into more situations where they will run into problems. It's a steep learning curve and all that. Anyway, I quite understand if you have better things to do. Take care, --John (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I don't know, John. I see nothing bad there--they're probably just tired of you, so to speak. (In this case I use "so to speak" as a roundabout way of saying that I don't mean it metaphorically...just trying to spare your feelings. Anyway, it's nice that you're trying to help and I think they're saying "no thanks" nicely. But JethroBot and a few other trusty editors have made the user's acquaintance, so I suppose they're in good hands. Enjoy your Friday night, John. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our mother has had our father neutered, and now he ploughs the fields with untold sorrow. Please ring after midnight

[edit]
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ploegen_in_de_Nivernais

ARRRRR https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dalmatian_%28dog%29&diff=643868150&oldid=643867736 Hafspajen (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen, always warn them. I've given a final warning - handwritten note rather than template. If they continue to edit war and sling personal attacks, find an admin who is not asleep, as I will shortly be. G'night all. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am just tired of them. It is always a new IP and it went on for month. Always the same edirtsummary, and always bitch. I warned the first five but nowadays I only revert them, I guess they never read them anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
just felt that there's no point in putting warnings on the IP talk page as they use so many different IP addresses - and changing heights, weights and this monomania with large-medium and small. Hafspajen (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies entertaining page
Free circus
  • Let me know next time. I'll be happy to block. Better yet, report at AIV and ask for a range block, if you have an overview of the IPs that have been used. Semi-protection is really not the right way, since the problem here is less the article edits than the dumb language.Drmies (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago I thought I'd stalk your talk page, now I'm unwatching because of all the inside jokes and other things that make no sense to me. :P --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Hafspajen (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)But I feel an untold sorrow about this user. Hafspajen (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HURRAYYYYY!!!!! Hafspajen (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved Holiday to Holyday- it appears from the Tate website that that was the title given to it at its first exhibition (although this may not have been Tissot's title). The name "A Summer Holiday" derives from a sneering review by the Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer- now just known as the Yorkshire Post as the task of intelligencing Leeds was just too Sisyphean. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stunning! And by odd coincidence I was reading "Popular Antiques Yearbook 1987" (authoritative, accurate, impartial and up to date), chapter "Bad Picture" page 208 last night. Regarding a painting of Highland cattle, standing in water: "This subject was done to death at the end of the 19th century, most notably by one Louis Bosworth Hurt, who was a jobbing painter, but obviously a shrewd judge of his market. Hurt hardly ever painted the hooves of his Highland cattle, since they are difficult, and his imitator here has used the same trick." Naughty Rosa's done the same thing, but using soil to hide the hooves. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the "Garden of England"

Just saying that if that section title were intended to be inconspicuous, it didn't work. Even knowing how the doctors around here get asked for medical advice, this one got the WTF response faster than just about anything else I've seen on my watchlist. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--someone seriously has an issue with the title of a section on my talk page? John, I get this WTF kind of feeling often enough, but usually from shit that happens in article space... Drmies (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wouldn't have been surprised by this craziness if I had looked in your tp archive. BTW, I changed my mind, I'll keep watching this, pretty entertaining nonsense! --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said Xanty was sane ... in that modern sane way. He is an old fashioned excentric. Imagine Lord Peter Wimsey - and you got Xanty in a nutshell. Hafspajen (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Xanty cleans up after me, frequently, and I appreciate that very much. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:7157.118.25a

[edit]

Hi Drmies. 7157.118.25a was also editing from 71.57.118.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cheers - MrX 14:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the IP's talk page so if they come back, there will be clues. Jehochman Talk 15:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned you

[edit]

User_talk:Ihardlythinkso#Telling_it_like_it_is. NE Ent 15:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Buttram and Prince Mishaal

[edit]

Are you deliberately reediting all that I edit. Prince Mishaal of Saudi Arabia has his birthday on his Arabic page. As for Pat Buttram, there are siblings and some genealogical history for many notable actors.16:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Miloradovan (talk)

  • No, I'm not, and I would hope you edit more than two articles--it would be kind of boring. I don't quite understand what you're doing on Mishaal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. If you'd left a decent edit summary on 23 January you might not have been reverted, and if you had added that reference with an inline note in the the right place I don't think anyone would have argued with you. As for Pat Buttram, well, that stuff is found in other articles doesn't mean we have to have it in this one. Sorry, but why would surviving relatives have to be listed in the first place? They're not notable--why do their names matter? Where does it end? Cousins? Second cousins? Drmies (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

[edit]
Don't drink and drive
  • ... and it's one of those rare occasions I advocate hasty. NE Ent 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just had this. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't trust beeradvocate for totally wiki-inappropriate WP:OR reasons -- I once tried to post a highly negative review about this bottle of junk and found they're not into the whole NPOV thing. Incidentally, that brewery went out of business. I do agree with their top rating: Heady Topper. NE Ent 03:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. I've never posted anything bad; I just added one on that beer I had, which was deserving of a good one. I really only use Beeradvocate as a notebook, to remember what I had--I'm not surprised that their neutrality is somewhat questionable. Is that beer really that good? I've never heard of it--but then, there's a million American breweries and many good ones. I keep hearing about this beer...it's called...what...Dead Rasputin or something like that...can't remember. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between beer and wine is that you can make a high-class beer at home- I don't know how commercially someone can make a really bad beer, unless they're brewing it from rice and cardboard and maturing it over sawdust. As I turned the bottle the right way up after pouring its contents down the sink, I noticed the wording "WE KNOW OF NO BRAND PRODUCED BY ANY OTHER BREWER WHICH COSTS SO MUCH TO BREW AND AGE". Yes, that's because you're using rice and sawdust, and it costs a lot to make something out of those ingredients that doesn't poison people. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_78&oldid=1160945279"