User talk:Drmies/Archive 81

Cheers...

...for the recent ANI closure, although I am beginning to notice a serious issue over the direct personal attacks. I can be abrasive, sure, and I don't really care about that to an extent, it's life's rich tapestry, but directly referring to someone as an "asshole" usually don't go uncensured. Allowing it to do so is an unhealthy precedent. I would challenge anyone to find a diff where I have been so directly and inappropriately offensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but you know I can't block someone over the mere word "asshole", especially not after the problems editors signaled with what they call your incivility. I like life's rich tapestry fine, and sure, I don't know of examples where you resort to direct namecalling, but we all know that it doesn't take a bad word to insult someone, and I think that belittling other editors, not showing them good faith, pigeonholing them as this or that kind of editor because of their background, etc. are much worse than calling someone something bad. Mind you, I'm not saying you did those thing, not at all--it's a general point of a kind of behavior that I see all over the place (though mostly at ANI, of course).
Or, to put it another way, BMK calling you something is not likely to keep you away from ANI if you have business there, and some variety of "sticks and stones" (or, "I like the gift as I like the giver") is appropriate: I am certainly not going to think better of him for having said that (if you like: Beyond My Ken, you can be blocked for such comments, and they do not improve the atmosphere or help the discussion along--no need to respond). But if NYB is halfway truthful in his remark, and I have no reason to doubt him, then in my opinion we have a problem. Just saying, TRM. You can put this in your pipe and smoke it, or shrug it off. You and I have had our disagreements and we will probably continue having them, but I am telling you this as a colleague who appreciates your good work: that tone does not help you or us. Thanks, thanks for your good work, and thanks for coming by. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your temperance. Brad is one of those guys who upset the apple cart by swinging by ITN with his super vote and ignoring things, especially article quality, and it pissed me off. He knows that and so do many others, but there you go. BMK uses every possibility to declare me to be the worst person in humanity, and has exceeded his remit this time, by directly calling me an asshole. I would appreciate a quiet word in his ear please, or else this sorry story will roll on as I take him back to ANI, we both get blocked etc etc. I will not and have never resorted to such pathetic and directly offensive name-calling exercises and I will not and will never tolerate it. If you're not prepared to at least nudge BMK in the right direction then I guess we'll just keep this rolling and we'll see the whole sorry shitstorm go through ANI for yet another round. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Rambling Man, the ANI thread was about you, not about Beyond My Ken or Newyorkbrad. You are assuming bad faith among everyone who said something about you that didn't smell of roses--at the very least you seem to deny that their points, and by extension the points that everyone else raised, have any validity. In other words, you are shrugging it off. That's fine, that's your choice--but don't turn this into "you should reprimand or block BMK and have a word with NYB or this conversation is over". The thread was about you. Not NYB, not BMK, not me. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day Drmies!

(Last chance please accept now) Yihaaaaaaoohooo!!! Hafspajen (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously sincerely - almost haunted. Blasted Herman doesn't have an article either. ARRR, not Georg either..... Please, do you think guy I have thousand hands? Hafspajen (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Günther Gensler ...Desire Thomassin in German and Hans Bachmann too. Hafspajen (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Told you this is fishy. Hafspajen (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What BORING GENRE PAINTERS?

You know EXACTLY who I mean. The lady with the oxen, that was much more exciting. How many are left? And then the Hamburg art colony, and the Hamburg art society... Drmies (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am innocent. And I can't nominate a pic without an article ... but you are making a fine progress. Hafspajen (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Werke von ihm befinden in der Hamburger Kunsthalle und in Museen in Darmstadt, Hannover und Leipzig. Ein Gemälde von großen Hamburger Brand hängt im Hamburgischen Rathaus.' -means... Works of him are on display in Hamburg and in the museums at Darmstadt, Hannover und Leipzig? Hafspajen (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

…and his painting of the Great Fire of Hamburg is hanging in the Hamburg Rathaus. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rathaus = "town hall". :-) —George8211 / T 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Dearden

Perhaps someone more deft than I can get through to the IP who is editing this article. I paid them the deserved compliment for finding a reliable source, but my other comments, which were partly critical and partly in disagreement with what the IP wanted to include, have ticked them off. Putting aside the issue of place of death (accident site or hospital), it's easy enough to fix all this, but I can't revert anymore as I don't feel like invoking the copyright exemption. Reword the way he died (avoid the copying of the text from the book), lose the unrelilable ancestry/primary source (not needed anyway with the book), keep my template for the book instead of the bare ugly URL, and change whatever US term the IP is claiming I added (automobile??)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile? Pinging Ritchie333 since that is customary whenever Alexei Sayle's name comes up. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the source; he was driving a car, he had an accident in which he suffered multiple injuries, at some point he died and was then declared dead at the hospital. What's that Dutch detective's name? The one who stands beside a dead body waiting for a doctor to tell him it's dead (not Van de Valk). Still haven't done my verdammt tax return. Alexi Sayle's story about the man in the white Fiat in a tunnel in Paris is pretty good. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the matter is we don't know where he died. He could have been dead at the scene but not declared officially dead until some doctor said so. Personally, I hate putting in hospitals for death locations unless the person is clearly admitted to the hospital alive. At the same time, I don't really care one way or the other, and my guess is that neither does he.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and anything else about the accident other than he was driving a car on the M4 heading to London, and he had more than one injury. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important to include the number of the roadway he was on? That's the kind of precise information that is recorded on police reports, but does it matter in terms of his biography?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, probably not. On the other hand, maybe "He died driving" is a bit too brief Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from unreliable sources- the film involves a crash on the A4/M4 (?) Dearden was driving on the M4 when his car left the road and burst into flames (Montreal Gazette). According to Roger Moore, speaking in 2012, Dearden was decapitated in the accident, which happened on the exact spot used in the film. (Basingstoke Gazette) Spooooky Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! No doubt we'll find out that, in hindsight, the accident also predicted my own death in every single detail, once read allegorically of course. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One car crash in the film happened on Richmond Bridge, London, with the car crashing through a polystyrene balustrade into the Thames. Whether there's another one I don't know. So you're going to die crashing through the false barrier of ignorance into the ever-flowing river of truth? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @User:Xanthomelanoussprog The dutch name of that detective is an expletive in english, de Cock and for that reason was changed to Dekok (thecook) in the english translations. His contacts with the british police must have been fun though.

Thanks! And now I've found the writer- A. C. Baantjer. It seems about 40 of his DeKok stories have been translated into English- if the TV series Baantjer has 123 episodes, there must be plenty more untranslated. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Baantjer--I never watched that: it was on the TROS, and my religious convictions got in the way. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly had a religious conviction, but I managed to outrun the religious police. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's a deletion category for this but...

Can someone more experienced than me take a look at this page (Miss Supertalent of the World) and see what deletion criteria it might fall under? Be sure to look at the name of the user who created the page. Thank you. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion as promotional spam (G11), with a free block thrown in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, thank YOU. :P Shinyang-i (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Drmies, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
Hafspajen (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Likewise Hafspajen! Tell you what, I'll try not to block anyone tonight. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

Regarding the Randykitty/IP nonsense, this might qualify as a threat. 70.60.119.199 seems inclined to cause more trouble in the future. There was plenty of support in the ANI discussion for a block of the IPs and I think enough is enough. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, and it's unsavory, but I don't see much use in blocking an IP which is most likely dynamic anyway. Whether the comment is enough for a block in its own right is somewhat questionable, but plenty of users think I'm way too lenient. Further disruption will most likely lead to a block, by me or someone else, but that comment, on their own talk page, is not serious enough in my opinion. If you are correct about their trollish nature, then don't feed them. BTW, I 'preciate you sticking up for ole Randykitty. Lord knows he needs all the help he can get. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suppose it is better for an admin to be too lenient as opposed to too trigger-happy. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. Unfortunately I couldn't stay on my best lenient behavior very long. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is not for behaviour?

Hi Drmies, I happened to be browsing ANI, and noticed your recent comment, "ANI is for incidents, not behavior". You previously made a similar policy statement in a discussion I was involved with. I wrote a general observation about some confusion over this policy, which you may not have seen. My reading of current policy is that ANI is precisely the right place to make reports of user behaviour. If you know different, I would appreciate a pointer to the policy that says otherwise. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Dan56 is about longterm behavior. Maybe I should have spoken Bradspeak. I see that you said "If a user feels conduct is the overriding issue, they are entitled to have their concerns about conduct heard" (my apologies for having missed your post at AN)--well, I don't really care for much for what one feels; I care much more for what someone can argue. This is not group time where we can open up about our feelings: you're talking about a board where, at heart, editors go to get other editors blocked. I don't understand what you see in the J Doug McLean closure: there was nothing actionable there, at least the discussion didn't show that--it didn't even conclusively show highly problematic (read, blockable) behavior. What you seem to miss is that longterm conduct can become disruptive of course, highly disruptive even, but it rarely revolves around incidents, and in most cases the individual instances by themselves do not rise to a blockable level. And whether the accumulation of individual instances may well rise to a blockable level, an ANI discussion is often not the best place for such a discussion because of the nature of ANI.
Now, I'm not one for policy: I prefer to keep my eyes closed and be guided by my feelings. But the notifications on top of AN are quite clear: "Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead." We may quibble over what "specific issue or dispute" may mean, how "specific" it needs to get, but I am not sure it was ever clear what was desired in the Lift case. The most reasonable thing one can ask for in a case like that is a topic ban, and those typically are decided by consensus of some sort, on AN ("ban proposals"). If one wants an admin to step in (into what?) and say something--well, it greatly depends on what someone wants to say, but ANI is just not a great forum for that either. Policy has little to do with that: it's a matter of strategy. Or strategery, if you will. Was an individual administrator, with some content knowledge, ever asked to look into it? That could have been a much faster and much less cumbersome way to go. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. What I wanted I suppose was relief from the time and effort spent unpicking arguments in order to defend myself, others, and the article. I didn't care what the remaining disputed sentences said (provided they were correct), but I did care about the way we were being treated. I thought it would be irresponsible to the community if I just walked away without at least informing you all what had happened.

Of course hurt feelings are irrelevant to any investigation, which can only look at behaviour. I agree that admins need a feel for what's right, in exercising good judgement; they are also required to follow policy. Requesting a conduct evaluation is advised by WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, and WP:CIV#Dealing with incivility step 8. Admins "are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence." Having seen some more discussions at WP:ANI, I see it's common for users to propose a specific admin action, but I haven't seen any guideline which says that is required.

You ask about others becoming involved. Originally there was a dispute between two users, which I joined to try and assist. Specialist help was sought from project noticeboards which brought extensive help from an experienced and knowledgeable editor. There was also a close by an admin which silenced discussion for a while, but it flared up again. For reasons I think I've explained, I was uneasy about discussing strategy with other users. As things progressed, I felt that ANI was the only option.

I notice you also raised the question of what replaces WP:RFC/U now it's gone. Yes, we need a venue to discuss longterm behaviour issues. The advice given at the time was, "Other components of the dispute resolution process should be used, such as ANI and ArbCom." If you think that ANI is not the best place for such a discussion, where is? Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC); edited 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a specific administrative action is not required (it doesn't have to be a block, I suppose--it could be a slap on the wrist, or a revdel, or whatever) then there is no point in bringing it to ANI. ANI is for administrative action. I am clearly less concerned with finding guidelines for everything than you are. As for the close of the RfC/U discussion, well, you'd have to ask Cenarium. I do not know if that comment, "bring it to ANI or ArbCom" followed from the comments in the discussion or whether it was their own comment. We obviously can't go to ArbCom every time an editor farts in a packed room, and the atmosphere of ANI is simply not conducive to discussions that require lots of evidence of patterns etc. and don't necessarily end with a ban or a block. I participated in that discussion, though briefly; Floquenbeam's comment in that thread has the right tone of despair. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Bresch

You previously thanked me for not pinging you about this page; I didn't know if that meant I was becoming too much of a pest? I was trying to get advice here on how to proceed productively with two editors with strong negative opinions about COI participation, but just got a "no comment" type of response and was wondering if you could take a look; maybe give some advice on how an editor in my position can proceed productively to bring it up to GA CorporateM (Talk) 02:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: Here's what I don't understand about paid editing on Wikipedia; maybe you, or Drmies, or someone else can explain it to me. How is it ethical, or appropriate, for an encyclopedia to present material written by paid PR people without disclosure to the reader? The average reader, coming upon Bresch's biography, will have no idea that large parts of it may have been drafted by a PR person under her employ, just as they would have no idea that significant parts of our coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill were written by BP's PR department.

It seems to me that any serious publisher would be ethically obligated to disclose that to the reader. Certainly no academic or scholarly publisher would find the lack of disclosure acceptable. I don't think any other reputable encyclopedia would accept it. If we aspire to be a serious, reputable reference work, then why do we accept this? Isn't there some ethical duty to inform the reader that significant parts of a given article were written by paid PR people? MastCell ^Talk 05:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, if I may intervene real quick: I have no answer for any of these questions, not having been involved on the policy side and not having a good opinion on what underlies this: the question of identity disclosure in the first place. I don't disagree with you, but in the meantime, absent clear policy and since I myself am not even getting paid by the WMF, I'm trying to help this nice Corporate Minion out by helping make stuff as neutral as it should be. (The flipside is, "if it's neutral and well-verified it doesn't matter who wrote it"--but I think the 1960s did away with that idea of neutrality.) Drmies (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: The reason this is not a good analogy is because most serious publishers provide a clear and unambiguous disclosure of who the author is and content is discretely authored by a single person. Whereas on Wikipedia, we do not clearly identify any information about who wrote the article and lack the concept of authorship entirely.

However, regardless of the analogy's shortcomings, I think there is a compelling argument to provide such a disclosure to readers. You seem to presume that the lack of such disclosure is due to unethical paid editing, and not because of lethargy and a lack of consensus among the community. On the contrary, I actually proposed a disclosure template at Village Pump a while back and no meaningful discussion ensued. I am supportive of providing a disclosure to readers. I think a large part of why prior proposals along these lines have failed is because they were often raised in an attack-style and proposed distasteful, over-sized templates.

A major contributor to this page was sponsored by _______.

CorporateM (Talk) 07:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that we "lack the concept of authorship entirely". Individual editors take great pride in their authorship of specific articles, and some people (ahem) even receive well-deserved real-life credit for their authorial work here. And of course we provide information about who writes our articles, through the "History" tab attached to each page. In fact, we provide a great deal more authorship information than any conventional published work, since it is literally possible to identify which author wrote any given word in any given article.

However, if a PR person (following our guidelines) provides text on the talkpage which is then incorporated into the article by other editors, then they've effectively ghost-written the article without leaving a direct trail of accountability or transparency, even for readers astute enough to review the official authorship record of the article (via the page history).

I didn't intend to place blame entirely on paid editors. I have never failed to be amazed by the lethargy (as you put it) and the ineffectual cluelessness (as I would put it) of the Wikipedia community when it comes to addressing serious, nuanced, grown-up issues. I think we both recognize that this issue isn't going to resolved by "community consensus". It's the role of the Foundation to develop a coherent conflict of interest policy, but in the meantime I think the best option is to talk directly to people who seem sensible and ethical and to try to understand why they don't see a problem here, when it seems blindingly obvious to me that a problem exists. MastCell ^Talk 07:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell:Regarding transparency in the edit-history, this can actually be achieved through an edit-summary from the merging editor or by using the Request Edit | G template to give the editor permission to make the edit themselves. Allowing corporate accounts would also aid in this purpose. However, I still see that as disclosure to editors, not readers.

What the community has been able to achieve consensus for is how to handle individual paid editors, even if not for an over-arching policy. Naturally it is not WMF's role to create and enforce policies, but what I personally would like to see them do is enforce the Terms of Use against paid editors that have already been banned via community consensus, but continue to astroturf the site persistently. It is these cases where the community needs legal resources to go after the source of these accounts, rather than chasing them down individually. Also, it has always been WMF's role to handle certain limited, extreme cases.

Certainly there are shortcomings to what I do, but I can think of no better way to handle it. The difficulty with such issues is that there is no solution that is without its drawbacks. CorporateM (Talk) 09:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" the lethargy (as you put it) and the ineffectual cluelessness (as I would put it) of the Wikipedia community": someone pinged me? Drmies (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confessing to something Drmies? Har har. Personally, I'm looking to expand out of Wikipedia; I've been looking into starting a deck-building business and/or a similar service on Yelp, which I feel is generally more advanced in its feature set and dealings with businesses represented on the site than Wikipedia is. (might be a bit awkward as they are also a client). CorporateM (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarplaninac

I understand your concerns about the copyright, but you removed correct information about the breed, and returned incorrect. For example, the correct size of Sarplaninac is one from FCI Standard - not the information you returned to the site. In addition, you removed picture of purebred dog and returned the one that does not properly represent the breed. Also, some links that I corrected are broken again. If you want to describe physical appearance of the breed in detail - the only relevant description is the one from FCI standard. On dog shows, it is not open for interpretation. The other option is to reduce that section to one paragraph (as description of German Shepherd). But what you returned back to that page will disqualify dog from dog shows and for breeding. I'm sure that was not your intention. Please let's work together to improve this article.--N Jordan (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is totally not my job. I have a dog, it has very short hair. You can improve to your heart's content but you cannot just copy and past. By the way, we are not here to describe what this or that dog ought to look like according to this or that organization lest it be disqualified from something; I assume there's a link to the organization's site in the EL section. As a personal opinion I'll add that I dislike racism when it comes to dogs as well as people. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be to harsh on standards and purebred dogs, their original idea was to help people and dogs. If you decide to to buy a puppy, it would be a good idea to know what is the size and character you may expect. The idea of dog shows is to select best dogs for breeding purposes. Some details are not part of standard just for esthetic reasons. For example, the size of dogs is very often limited in order to maintain working capabilities and health. Short hair is perfect for apartments, but not for snowy mountains. My first dog was Sharplaninac, it was disqualified from breeding (missing tooth, too big, too long, short hair). I didn't stop to like him, he was my pet. There is no need for a pet dog to be purebred at all. You can find a great mixed-breed companion in SPCA shelter. But if you decide to breed that dog, you wouldn't be sure about the size, appearance, and character of her offsprings. BTW, do you have Sharplaninac? --N Jordan (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie is a mutt. The best dog in the world. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sjaak Troost

Hi there MIES, all well? Hopefully so.

How do I solve this conundrum? With the help of the mighty Google Translator, I found out that "commissaris" in Dutch is also similar to "director". Thus, how to translate the reference in this guy's article properly?

Happy Carnival (here I am, disguised as a man of "not half-measures"), kind regards --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--you asking me about a Feijenoorder? I'm sorry, but I have some convictions. Randykitty, I think you hail from a bit closer to Rotterdam, don't you? I lived a million miles away. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that link is going nowhere. In all honesty I'm not exactly sure, as a liberal arts kind of person, what a commisaris is. I know what they do: they collect a paycheck, drive a Mercedes, and live in Het Gooi. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cracked me up, as always my friend, keep it up. Here's worse (about a PSVer), can you pitch in in Andrés Guardado's reference #30? Please forgive me for this unspeakable action :( --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man. Come ON! Drmies (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ruckman

Hello Drmies,

There is a discussion at WP:BLPN about long-term editing patterns at Peter Ruckman. Attention from an administrator is needed. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My ban appeal discussion

Hi,

I noticed that Nick-D selected Peacemaker67 to invite to discussion about my ban appeal (diff). Was that canvassing?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that, given I reported you in the first place, it was quite reasonable that I be advised that you were appealing your TBan. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. It was Joy who reported me (link).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. my mistake. In that case, did you inform Joy that you were appealing? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Is that relevant for possible canvassing issue?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid any suggestion that a TBanned editor "slipped one past" editors with an interest in the outcome by not advising them of their appeal, I would expect that procedural fairness would see that those most likely to be affected by a decision should be advised of an appeal. I am one of the editors most likely to be affected, and it is only reasonable that I be aware of your appeal and have the opportunity to comment on it. While there may be no requirement for you to do so under WP policies or guidelines, I consider Nick-D's action in alerting me to your appeal was in accordance with principles of procedural fairness, and does not in any way constitute canvassing. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have Nick-D explain. I can see some sense in Peacemaker's words (though I wish they would strike a friendlier tone). Drmies (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of history, Drmies. It's not reasonable to expect me to erase my memory, is it? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do it every week--I erase my Wiki hard drive. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Peacemaker67 as they had been significantly involved in the thread which lead to the ban being enacted, and were likely to have an interest in the appeal but not likely to have been aware that it had been made they're not an admin and are unlikely to follow WP:AN (I am an admin, and do follow that page and ping people who might be interested in discussions there from time to time). It's perfectly standard stuff, and I agree that Antidiskriminator should have notified the editors involved in the ban anyway to demonstrate good faith. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "standard stuff" would be "to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate" or members of relevant wikiproject (WikiProject Serbia) not "by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". Taking in consideration that editor Nick-D selected only one editor (Peacemaker67) who was their fellow coordinator at WikiProject Military History and presented their !vote based precisely on !vote of Peacemaker67 I am concerned that this was canvassing. The basis for my opinion is WP:CAN behavioral guideline.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Standard" wikilawyering from Antid. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Peacemaker67's comments in this discussion probably can additionally justify my concerns that any editor who would select only Peacemaker67 to invite to discussion about my ban appeal would violate WP:CAN behavioral guideline. Especially if that editor would have presented their oppose !vote (diff) almost immediatelly after the oppose !vote of Peacemaker67 using also Peacemaker67's !vote to justify their !vote (diff).
I might be wrong here and in that case I would sincerely apologize. I accept suggestion to invite "the editors involved in the ban" to ban appeal discussion. If this advice was followed by all involved parties here there would be no violation of WP:CAN guideline. If I decide to appeal again I intend to follow this advice and to invite all involved editors to eventual future topic ban discussion.
In the meantime I hope that now, after all editors involved in this issue presented their explanations, Drmies can reply to my question if Nick-D followed WP:CAN when they selected only Peacemaker67 to invite to discussion about my ban appeal (diff)? With hand on the heart.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have nothing to add here, except this signature: Drmies (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You! Imagemaker!

Whoever you are, if you're good with images and can tweak one for a valued contributor, please mosey on over to User_talk:Rosiestep#Kate_Brown and do a good deed. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I lack the requisite skills. BTW, are they really holding Women's History Month on Mars? EEng (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Please don't send me to ANI for that. Please don't send me to ANI for that. Please don't send me to ANI for that. Please don't send me to ANI for that. Please don't send me to ANI for that. [reply]

It'ld take me about 15 minutes to replace the text and put the background to black, but then you'd have something which said "8 March" next to an image of a ~~female~~ trepanner, with a symbol on her sleeve somewhat reminiscent of this lot. Did someone think "Hmm… drill down!". I've got to spend 3 hours at a funeral tomorrow with a professional designer; I'll print the Swedish banner out and show it to her. Stating the bleedin' obvious, San Francisco's a leading centre of graphic design; maybe they should ask Alexandra Fischer. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Female trepanner"? What, only men are allowed to put holes in heads? EEng (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trepanning is boring. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the trepannee, I would think. EEng (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the trepannee, by definition, is bored. --Dweller (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Oh. I get it now. EEng (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or ...

Hafspajen (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't get it. EEng (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:SMirC-ass.svg Hafspajen (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The asshole of a sentient orange??? It's at time like this I realise I'm not alone in the world Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I still don't get it. EEng (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Engie, in that case I better will not enlighten you. I prefer you in your innocent ways. |Hafspajen (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How come we don't have any user yet called User:Octopus The Verdict 1899 ... ? Hafspajen (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafs is just saying I'm a bit of an ass for not thinking of Californian orange crate labels. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{No, it was more pornographic.} Hafspajen (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I don't get half of what's going on on this page. Perhaps we should discuss this on the meta talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you and I back slowly away and when we get to the door TURN AND RUN FOR IT! EEng (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a right eejit now, for mistaking Ariel for Baskerville. I've done the banner in Old Baskerville. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

emotional tone or general attitude: right eejit now, Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

emotional tone or kind of rictus: door's locked, can't run Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are tucked here left to discuss the sexual severances of the oranges. Hafspajen (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it about time some Herr Doktor showed up to tell us all our edits-by-dummies place unnecessary load on WP's servers? EEng (talk) This page is an insane asylum. And Dr. M, I really am serious in my request for comment here (just in case you didn't see it).

Engie, even if you know nothing about sexuality, you are the worst popinjay + flibbertigibbet that filled Wikipedias talks - so behave.

Hafspajen (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call names, you lumpish fat-kidneyed varlot!

You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the Shakespeare Insult Generator! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click here. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you cockered rough-hewn giglet.

Please note, also, that I prefer to be addressed by the more formal E Engie. EEng (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC) EEEEEEEEEEEEEEngie, kiss me. (secretly, so Martinevans123 wont notice, Hafspajen (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say

Even though you annoyed me a bit during my last trip to ANI before this one (or was it the one before that? -- no, wait -- there have been so many recently...) I must compliment you on you evenhandedness. EEng (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, the feeling is mutual. I should have checked, though, before I closed that thread: Edokter is an admin so he's always right. Anyway, all the best to you. Hey, you're a bit technical, aren't you? Perhaps you can have a look at the section above and see if you can give Rosiestep a hand? I'd appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which feeling is mutual -- the annoyance, or impulse to compliment? EEng (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. :) Drmies (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see I should have typed faster. Thanks for checking it out, though. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whooaah! Edokter is an ADMIN??!! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standards were lower in the past. Presciently, given the origin of the contretemps, someone there complained that he seemed averse to edit summaries. EEng (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that comment was made at my RfA also. Hey y'all, nobody's perfect, and I should know. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a great relief we're not seeking perfection, really. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stoking fires

Actually wasn't really trying to stoke the fire. Should have just messaged you directly though about that NPA violation. Will do so next time. Thank you for handling this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought but maybe he was drunk or something at the time? I don't agree with his actions but haven't seen him go off like that before spouting non-sense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meltdown in progress

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Angels_on_the_head_of_a_pin EEng (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Super Talent of the World redux

Page is back, user is back. Somehow they managed to incorporate a source from a JYJ fansite, which has nothing at all to do with their little pageant. So weird. Anyway, do what you will. And thank you, as always. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Supertalent of the World 2015 Season 6. Same editor, but this time the AfD-template was removed... The Banner talk 22:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, congrats on your new magic wand; can I give you some advice? Don't do what I just did--speedily delete that article (even if for all the right reasons). Better: go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supertalent of the World 2015 Season 6 and close it there, speedily--that saves at least two or three mouse clicks. Most likely cause of injury for admins: RSI. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have made some New Admin Mistakes, but speedy-deleting something that could have been speedy-deleted more efficiently hasn't been one of them. Or if it was, I was too New-Admin to realize it. I have been careful to avoid injury so far - for example, putting on gloves so that I can hygienically delete a sandbox (see User talk:Dennis Brown#Chicken shit). --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was stinky. Hey, welcome aboard, Melanie. I hope you enjoy. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Doktor Mies!

As a lover of the German language in all its glorious verbaciousness, I thank you for coming to its defense, and to the defense of German-speaking people. Vielen Dank. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verbaciousness??? Surely you mean verbaciouschnellzertutmirleidverlorenungkeitnisness. EEng (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Presumably you've seen this but occasionally I run into someone who hasn't.[reply]

Well, I didn't mean to be too hard on anyone and I'm sorry if I was. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohferchrissakes don't take it back now. <frownieface>. Vee haf vays off dealing mit people like you, und zey're not very pretty. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, EEng, I didn't just crawl out from under a rock.[reply]

You mean Not-Pretty Fairy? EEng (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting EEng (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't realize until afterward that I closed an ANI on a fellow Dutchman. Doesn't change the underlying facts of course. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was the grand irony of it all. Dramatic irony -- it'll fuck you every time. As they say. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd pay some Dutchmen to set fire to Lord Snowdon. See also Talk:Prawn_cocktail#Degrees_of_irony. EEng (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I learned something: a prawn cocktail is what we call a shrimp cocktail. It comes with a lot of irony and a lot of water if you get them from Walmart, the big ones with ten dozen shrimps. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look! Mrs. Molesworth is on the case. (Might be one for the Museum.) Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whose Museum? EEng (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it, but this headline made me think of "Herr Doktor Klöbner!". De728631 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--Müller-Lüdenscheidt denies Klöbner the simple pleasure of a rubber duckie? That's mean. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record reflect that I did not add that disturbing photo to this thread, which I started in all sincerity. My faith in Hafspajen's unfailing good taste is starting to ... fail. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop at 4

Help me understand how this works: A couple of days ago, I redirected an article I nom'd for deletion (Parker Reck) as that article didn't meet notability guidelines. A sock of a currently blocked user (Kbabej) removed the template to contest its deletion (he had created the article). As a suggestion from an administrator, I redirected the article to Stop at 4 after rewriting it to focus on the campaign rather than the deceased child whose parents started the campaign. I'm not convinced the Stop at 4 article meets notability guidelines, either, and feel it will be of no loss to the encyclopedia if it's deleted. Once deleted, does that also mean the article it was redirected from will also be deleted? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: I only figured out you were involved when I saw the AfD notification. :) Yes, I did see the SPI, after I blocked a related account. I haven't looked at what was "under" the redirect, but in general such a move (to focus on the campaign) is right and proper. So yes, if the Stop at 4 article gets deleted, the redirect should be deleted as well. BTW, that's a fine mess, that SPI and all those accounts and the articles they're involved with. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, right? I'm amazed the blocked editor was allowed to operate in such a fashion for so long without anyone challenging the articles being created. I was also amazed that the SPI I filed yesterday was dismissed, but -- that's another story. Anyway, there are a bunch of those articles created by one editor that are - shall we say - "related". Yes, a fine mess, indeed. And thanks for the reply to my question. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD was nice enough to run CU and confirmed the sockness of that Kittykane account. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it! Just the result I expected. My thanks to DoRD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Baker (philosopher)

I noticed that you've nominated "Alan Baker (philosopher)" for deletion. As you probably saw, I nominated "Alan Baker (shogi)" for deletion almost a year ago, but the result was a "no consensus" keep. My nomination was based upon Baker's notability (or lack thereof) as a shogi player which was the primary focus of the version of the article I originally saw . Others, however, felt that Baker was notable for his academic record, so the article's name was changed and the focus shifted in that direction. While I think Baker's shogi achievements are commendable and such info is probably OK to be included in the article if properly sourced per WP:NNC, I personally do not feel that shogi contributes in any way to his Wikipedia notability. I guess I should post this on the new AfD page, but I'm not sure if it's really acceptable for me to do so since I have previously nominated a form of the article for deletion. My arguments then were solely based upon any notability derived from shogi and, in all likelihood, would probably be what I would argue this time around too. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know, but meanwhile another editor commented on the AfD about the subject's academics. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The article has actually been renamed a couple of times since the last AfD so it's kinda confusing. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZZIIPPRA accept

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labrador_Retriever&diff=647752880&oldid=647750993

Hafspajen (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where the welcome was coming from, I dunno. AGF squared, just givehim a Simplified Manual of Style. Hafspajen (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of GF (sorry Yngvadottir) but left an unblock condition on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that is slightly misleading - the so called good one - you know, it is a rather mixed editing. Because there are some good edits mixed with less intelligent ones. And some are just stupid, reverting to a previous version long time ago. And again some are just pure vandalism. Hafspajen (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Herr Dr. Habil. Mies. They made an unstellar edit without edit summary after my final warning. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it much; I'd rather this editor be brought into the fold, which is (perversely) why I made it such a long block. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed as much, and I see I was hopelessly confused yesterday after wrestling with Swedish sources and Laocoon-like prose - it was another editor who ignored my final warning. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE you go to your Bear-Ball - He's back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:B:AC80:7B6:C1A9:B209:AE1F:9748 - Hafspajen (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took care of the Labrador, but Yngvadottir was the big dog with the block. Well, medium to large dog~~, I'd say. I mean I say--sorry Floq.~~ I'm sorry, there's no point in saying "I say" when I'm already saying it, isn't there. Sorry Floq. Shit, I could have left the previous apology--sorry for the extra redundancy. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is back again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labrador_Retriever&curid=79280&diff=648091897&oldid=648086741 Hafspajen (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again ... Labrador. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start seriously ask myself the question if this is a) someone mentaly retarded - 0R - b) someone just teasing us, because they think it's fun. Hafspajen (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Wonder if they change IP adress this easy if not easier to just protect article. But then of course will find an other. Range- block, is that something that can be used - not that I really know how it works. Hafspajen (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A range block is needed for the IPv6s. Hopefully one of the stalkers who's looking will know how. If not, Drmies knows who to ask. For now, pending changes helps, except when untechnical clots like me try to disallow changes and get all tangled up. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Took care of that. :) Elockid ^(Talk) 21:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Praise the Lord" - Hafspajen (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, what a weird redirect... Hafspajen (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to cry soon ... ... yet another IP address. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twas in that place o' Scotland's isle,

That bears the name o' auld King Coil,

Upon a bonnie day in June,

When wearin' thro' the afternoon,

Twa dogs, that were na thrang at hame,

Forgather'd ance upon a time.

The first I'll name, they ca'd him Caesar,

Was keepit for His Honor's pleasure:

His hair, his size, his mouth, his lugs,

Shew'd he was nane o' Scotland's dogs;

But whalpit some place far abroad,

Whare sailors gang to fish for cod.

(Burns)

That makes complete sense to me except I don't get that bit at the end about gangs of sailors burning the cod. Also there are a lot of misspellings. EEng (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To fish for cod. Burns is the poet. Continues in next part of the poem. Hafspajen (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me you knew I was joking, else I'll be forced to cod you. EEng (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC) possibly with the Sacred Cod.[reply]

That was a joke, no need to spoil it, an old joke. But don'y yo ever come close with a damn fish like that. Hate trout slapping. Hafspajen (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This correction [1] is worth noting, I think. EEng (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXCESSALLCAPSWORDS

What does ZZIIPPRA mean? Christ, the number of weird all-caps "words" in thread titles on this page is getting irritating. <frown> Perhaps I'd best unwatch this page. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Zipra lip", obviously. EEng (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, if you'd been born some twenty years earlier you could have learned your Chaucer from John Hurt Fisher, whom I just wrote up. Who was your teacher there? David Aers? Drmies (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You admins -- always writing someone up. EEng (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please discuss the talk page in the proper forum: User talk:Drmies/talk. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ZZIIPPRA goes exactly NOWHERE. In terms of my alma mater, I never studied Chaucer there, having had good enough tutelage in highschool. I was there during the middle of the Reynolds Price era, but never studied with him, even though by my junior year I had moved into what I would quickly discover was the "gay dorm" (it was informally billed as the "non-frat" or "artsy" dorm -- the latter being why I moved in). James Applewhite was also a big name when I was there, but I didn't study with him either. I'm trying to remember my various English profs' names. I don't think any are on wiki. One was Victor (Hugo) Strandberg, who wrote an interesting thing on The Sound and the Fury and the Eroica Symphony. Wallace Jackson, who taught 18th C British lit but also wrote cool articles in the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. A Shakespeare prof whose name I have thankfully forgotten, as he had me come to his office so he could scope me out [to possibly proposition me] for S&M after I wrote a term paper on the grotesque in Shakespeare (I don't make this stuff up; and I only figured out his intentions years after the fact and after hearing reliable info that he was into that with students). I recall having a crush on my Victorian Novels prof my freshman year; his minor specialty was Thomas Hood but I don't recall his name. I was actually pre-med for 15 seconds, that is until I hit Organic Chemistry; I was in James Bonk's huge lecture class that fateful day when a pie was thrown at him (LOL it's even mentioned in his wiki article!). Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Which tire--that's brilliant. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, hadn't heard or read that story ... Bonk seems somewhat evasive in the Snopes article; I wonder exactly how much is true. :) Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonk: The Curious Coupling Of Sex And Science by Mary Roach. Must be Archy's daughter. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PEPOLE - (translate -people) kindly give up logic. Don't start looking for it. Look up creativity, dadaism, abstract - and freedom. Hafspajen (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)^{^{^{^{^{And don't autosign, if not signed it was meant to be so- this pages owner knows who's who.}}}}}[reply]

the anti-philosophy of spontaneous acrobatics. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record (apparently I like records), EEng did not sign, auto or otherwise, his addition of this subthread's title. Let that now be revealed. Softlavender (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia/We Will Block You

Buddy, you're a noob
This is a cube
Biting on Wiki
Gonna be a vandal some day
You got warned on your page
You big disgrace
Adding bad jokes all over the place

singin' We will, we will block you
We will, we will block you

Buddy you're a vandal
Scandal
Biting all the noobs
You're gonna be banned some day
You got warned on your page
You big disgrace
Posting nonsense all over the place

We will, we will block you
We will, we will block you

Buddy, you are banned
Give me a hand
Permanently banned from the Wiki now
You got warned on your page
You big disgrace
Doing nothing all over the place

We will, we will block you
We will, we will block you
We will, we will block you
We will, we will block you

Hey, I'm not one of those vandal fighters. I think I saw a proposal somewhere of making that a real user category, with some user rights or so--I think that's crazy. This is not poor rhyming, by the way--I have no doubt Ritchie333 knows how to play the tune. And that old man: good for him! Drmies (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's easy, you want to try something like Bicycle Race that has got time and key changes all over the place! I'd rush over to my Mac with GarageBand and knock off a recording, but Brian May hasn't released the music as CC-BY-SA, so that can't happen. (I suppose I could claim de minimis on "stamp stamp, clap .... stamp stamp, clap ... stamp stamp, clap") Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #13216

I'd like to speak you (privately, unless you insist otherwise) about an open UTRS ticket. It's a long-winded one, so do you prefer requesting an account on UTRS to read it first hand? Otherwise I could e-mail you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm--I don't know if a UTRS account is useful to me. Yeah, let me go ahead and do that. It's probably more exciting than MyActiveHealth.com or whatever. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I activated your account. Whenever you have time, it would be appreciated if you could read the appeal I linked to and let me know what your thoughts are (you can e-mail me or leave a "Quick Comment" in the appeal itself). Thanks in advance. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Can the Uterus tool be used to deal with editors blocked for being dicks? EEng (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Uterus tool deals with all kinds of blocked editors, regardless of what body part they act like. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it warm and inviting, or creepy and menacing? EEng (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Drmies (talk)

Precious again

reviewing eyes
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky, you did a lot to clarify! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. - You are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were the 32nd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize. (Remember the line you approved for DYK: "The calm already contains the catastrophe", and from Great Dismal Swamp maroons: "These groups are very inspirational. As details unfold, we are increasingly able to show how people have the ability, as individuals and communities, to take control of their lives, even under oppressive conditions."?) - If I had to praise you today, the size of the sapphire would outgrow the words, so I single out the edit that impressed me as most constructive (ever). Seek joy, boy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda! I appreciate your kind words, and your many contributions to the project. I like the gift as I like the giver, and I like this gift. The boy in question, by the way, needs to start peeing properly--in the pot. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I just came across a remark by Rosie (then aged 5): "Men can't even MAKE children". Drmies (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wise little person! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please let Rosie know that men trigger the process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Cullen! Obviously all the coolest people hang out here. EEng (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree only if you agree...

...to change such unnecessary verbosity as "unnecessary modal verbosity" to "unnecessary verbosity". Otherwise, what you are requesting would seem unfair. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an arb anymore so I can speak my mind: it's the modality of the verbosity that brings out the mother-in-law in me. Answer me this, Professor Floq, do you really want to sound like an ESPN commentator? "He will catch the ball" when the guy actually already is catching it? Surjuzly. Also, we're going out to a fancy beer bar tonight: you are happy to join. The place is so loud that any verbosity is lost immediately. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you're the professional English expert, so maybe you're right. But I was describing a conditional occurance - someone meaner than me *might* do something, but *if* they did, it would seem pointless. Isn't that what "would" is for? I assume that's what "modal" means? Of everything that's ever been said about me on WP, "talks like an ESPN commentator" hurts the most. Even more than "seems to work for the Santorum presidential campaign", which up until now I thought would never be equalled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - (*warms to subject in righteous indignation*) In fact, isn't what you're suggesting i should have said the thing that sports guys usually do? "If he catches that ball, he scores a touchdown" - the problem with ESPN is a lack of modality, isn't it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenballs? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Floquenbeam, I'm talking about modality used in a situation devoid of it. "She will score"--at the very same time the gal is running it in. (OK, there's no girls' football on ESPN, nor Floquenballs, but hey.) There's a fine example in here in the preterite--or what should have been the preterite all along. BTW, I didn't mean to insult you, and I had no idea I could have topped my Sanctorum remark. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Jackson was married to a woman named Ruth until divorce." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, by that time I was a bit out of energy. It needs fixing. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read the relevant part of the source, and it's probably libellous- I don't think anything more could be added other than "Jackson was married", and even that might not be notable. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Jackson (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Houghton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done- there's no article for Dave Houghton, drummer. Runs the Drum Shop at Southsea apparently, according to his fan, who asked if there were any other Houghton fans out there. The conversation quickly veered to a discussion on how great Graham Maby was as a bass player (and this was on Drumforum, for the Vintage and Modern Drumming Community). List of collectibles. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for looking over my shoulder. "Was"? I had to look Maby up, to make sure he wasn't dead--this was Farinata's mistake too, of course. Yeah, they can't all be Neil Peart or Simon Phillips, but I would have thought this guy could pay the bills, working for The Man. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

translation

Hi DrMies, have you had a chance to look at the draft of my article in my sandbox yet? here. If you are too busy or if this is beyond your expertise, I can submit it for review? What would you advice me? Best wishes, Pigmentkleur (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry, it totally slipped my mind. I'll get to it, I promise. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK Pigmentkleur, I had a quick look. I think you can move it to mainspace, though it's not perfect yet. If I were you, I'd ask Mandarax if he could have a look at it--he is not only a top-quality editor, but also one of the most generous and goodlooking human beings I've ever known. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I changed some more things, but I'm not sure what you mean with the reference template... I also contacted Mandarax. Regards, Pigmentkleur (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Pigmentkleur, see WP:Citation templates. They're nice and clean and come with standard punctuation so consistency is easy. (Sorry I didn't see this earlier--guess I need to archive this talk page again.) Good luck with it! Drmies (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. The page is up already, but I'll have a look at your template later. Pigmentkleur (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaygan_Kheradpir

Any interest in taking a look here before it gets archived without response? Or have you reached your CorporateM limit for the month? It is unfortunately a byproduct of following WP:COI that I end up begging editors endlessly to spend time on effected articles and I very much doubt anyone at COIN is going to have an interest in moderating between two paid editors. You'll see on Talk that @MelanieN: chimed in, but didn't want to be a decision maker and told us to work it out between ourselves, but the ed is just repeating the same arguments over again and I am not allowed to edit the article (though the other ed is not following the same rules). CorporateM (Talk) 00:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, but can't think of anything useful to say- except that I get a good idea of his working style from the article (not meant to be a perjorative remark). Small teams, rapid development process, tight deadlines, squeezing the suppliers. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your check just cleared, so I'll do this one for you. You'll be pleased to know that you outbid Intchar by $50. Xantyphant, this is quite the racket: you should run for admin. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, you have this special charm in making frustrating situations hilarious...

@Xanthomelanoussprog: That is quite dead-on and a genuinely neutral article reflects quite positively on him. But every tech executive page has this annoying habit of a conflicted editor adding stuff about patents and awards with either poor or no sourcing. A few excerpts from the article:

"He holds several patents in networking, media, and payment technology.^{[citation needed]}"
"In 2007 he was named to CIO Magazine’s Hall of Fame"
"In 2014 Kheradpir was awarded the Ellis Island Medal of Honor^{[citation needed]}".

Of course, if there are secondary sources on these items, than it's all fair game, but without strong sources, it's just promotion and WP:BLP requires unsourced content be removed immediately anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 03:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corp, I just had a look at the discussion on RTI International, which is also listed as an open RfC, and it's fascinating. I think I'm going to close that as "eh...there's no discussion" since there's no discussion and no one is picking a, b, or c. Note my edit to the article, for which I'll charge you $200. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I thought the RfC was already closed. I gave up, when it was clear I wasn't going to get my way. I saw the "it's reliable for the author's point of view" argument and uuuugggghhh. That source claims RTI tried to spread mormon values to Iraqis, bragged they would build a statue in their honor for bringing democracy to the nation, and blocked democratic elections. I really thought it would just be obvious that it was political riff-raff. CorporateM (Talk) 03:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the stuff I missed- Ellis Island Medal of Honor eh? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse

Hello Drmies,

It is always nice to see respected administrators like Drmies stop by the Teahouse. We even had an arb, DGG, drop by a day or so ago. But we have a developing problem that may require use of the administrative toolkit. Yeah, I know I could undergo an RfA myself. All in good time. Now is now. So, I would be deeply grateful if you would take a close look at Frogger48. I know this editor is on your radar screen. I am very pleased about that. Thanking you in advance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, "respected"? You make me feel even older than I am. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very much a troll, likely a sockpuppet from what I've seen. At the least I'd remove both sections. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the activity at WT:Child protection; that led to the user's contribs/talk which led to the Teahouse. The irrationally pleasant responses there led me to not my mention my conviction that the user is trolling, but what is actually needed is an indef. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have chastised the editor, both at the Teahouse and on their talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have, and so have I. Look, I wouldn't block necessarily for that kind of stuff at the Teahouse, but that was too many questions in too many places. Now, I sampled an edit or two they made in article space, and they weren't good, although they weren't indicative of trolling-only. If it turns out, on further investigation, that their article edits are either crap or disruptive (or both), then a block for incompetence is a possibility as well. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And tea and beer

Hafspajen (talk) has asked you to join them for a nice cup of tea and sit down here.

.

Hafspajen (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hafspajen has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

!

Oh Hafspajen, thanks but I've already made Dutch pancakes today, then flaxseed crackers, and then meat pasties. I'm a bit full now. I was going to offer you a bite but you weren't answering your phone. Hey, our chicken laid its first egg! Drmies (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What chicken? You mean it was a REAL chicken not a joke? Hafspajen (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What chicken? Poppy! The only survivor of a group of three little chicks. She's quite big and feisty now (she beats up on the dog) and laid her first egg today. Woohoo! Drmies (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How original. Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Atsme. Atsme I am. Do you like black eggs and bacon?

I do not like Black eggs. Bacon I do. Better than ham, if that suits you. Had a talk with my chicken. Eggs she won't lay. I gave her a scolding. She still wants to play.

Sent my grandson to the barn to gather eggs. He brought one back and set it on the kitchen table. (see photo) I went on and on, took a picture, quizzed him where he got it. He told me I had to identify it myself because he had no clue. Atsme☯^Consult 22:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I don't believe it for a moment. A black egg? From anthracite, no doubt! Drmies (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it might be a zebra egg. Atsme☯^Consult 21:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just brought home the bacon. You need to have a talk with your hen. Atsme☯^Consult 20:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, Atsme--nothing again today. I think she's maybe a bit affected by this terrible weather, and can't just sit down for a while to pop an eggie out. Maybe. She's a funny chicken--I think I love her a little bit. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you have a broody hen. [2] Or...it could be it's too cold in your neck of the woods. It could also be that she's stressed out over seeing an unidentified black egg on WP. You didn't show her that picture, did you? --Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Reformation (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) 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/The Reformation (band) (2nd nomination) 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. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbes Goodyear, where do I come in? Drmies (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in one of the previous Afd's on one of the related album articles that are also nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (album) (2nd nomination). I participate in plenty of Afd's and MfD's, but almost never nominate, and didn't realize there was as much history here when I got involved with this one--sorry if I over-notified. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now--thanks. Your diligence is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, some people take this Star Wars role play stuff a little too seriously...! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More k-pop lists! oh yay~

Hola, Drmies! Long time, no chat. I'm trying to fix up some old and dilapidated articles about my favorite group, whose new album comes out at the end of the month. It's so much work I want to collapse. :P So, now to my gripe. (I know you're excited.) I don't "get" lists like 2014 in South Korean music because they are 100% about idol-centered k-pop. (Believe it or not, "K-pop" is pretty broad, and "Korean music" is even broader.) I don't think there's even a vague attempt to look at the debuts and disbandments of other types of artists, or even of solo idol singers. Additionally, it looks like we're back to the "list every single non-notable group on the planet" again. This irks me also because articles only exist for the last few years and I think we all know none will ever exist for years before that because all these people care about is stuff that is brand new and from a tiny sliver of the musical spectrum of Korea. All the Korean music articles are like this, and when I mentioned it on the still-a-mess K-Pop article, I was told "well go write some new content yourself on non-idol-group stuff then". I'm trying to clean up tons of other messes these people made, now I have to write all the non-idol-group material too? :P Yet more and more "music of Korea" type articles keep coming along and they're all narrowly-focused. It's like making more articles to say the same things over and over, in slightly different ways. Isn't there some way of saying "if you're not going to cover a broad subject in a broad way, then you can't cover it at all"? I don't even get the point of these articles to begin with... sigh. Any guidance? (If not, thank you for letting me vent. :D) Cheers! Shinyang-i (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...wait...before I read all this, let me just say that I thought we wuz done? That we had fixed K-pop like Colbert fixed race? Drmies (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well tell Colbert to get his ass over here and help us! Shinyang-i (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have big problems with such articles, if only because they are self-serving. They are supposed to list notable things, but by listing them they make things notable--and "notable" of course means nothing more than "sourced", no matter what the source. K-pop being K-pop, it has to have table porn all over the place, which makes it difficult to edit. I can't believe someone actually took offense at my using the term "table porn".
Well, my dear Shinyang, I don't know what to tell you. If I were you I'd leave such articles alone: they are essentially crap, from the get-to, no matter whether they're on K-pop or something else. I mean, if 2014 in American music is to be believed, some album by someone called Calvin Harris was hugely important, as was And I'll Scratch Yours by "various artists". Your energy is better spent elsewhere... Drmies (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you hit the nail on the head totally. I guess I will just ignore them, but I wish they'd quit multiplying like freaking bunnies. Only less cute. And I wish these people'd spend less time making new lists and more time making some actual article content to fill the hordes of lame-ass articles laying around here. Or editing. Or really, anything. Nice(?) to know other lists of this sort are problematic, too. The ones I looked at were pretty tidy IMO, but then again I'm not up on that ball-scratching song so perhaps I'm a poor judge... Thanks for the perspective, as always. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question to help me understand...

You said it wasn't helpful for the closer who was involved in a "request for review of RfC close" to not participate in the AN review that was initiated. Question - is the closer still obligated to participate even if he responded to questions at the article TP, and on the TP of the OP? [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] I can readily understand the closer's position, but I can't seem to wrap my head around any reason that would justify writing contentious material in Wiki voice knowing it is partisan opinion and not statement of fact, especially when such statements cannot be cited using RS. I have no problem saying, "he has been referred to as [whatever], and so and so stated [yada yada]..." with inline citation and text attribution, but I take issue saying "he is [whatever] and then not cite a source to verify it. Perhaps you can explain it to me so I'll understand. Atsme☯^Consult 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's somewhat loaded. You are advocating the non-fringe reading of the subject's position, but I thought you were asking me about my comment: I am well aware that Nyttend responded in other venues, but I had hoped to see a concise comment on the matter, long after the heat of the moment had subsided. As for the other comments, though I am no expert, I thought there was reliable sourcing about his claims that the UN and the US Supreme Court was run by Communists, and that an article in the American Journal of Public Health saying that there is no scientific evidence that Laetrile causes cancer should count as evidence of a certain fringeness. But that in itself was not a part of the RfC. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if local discussion concludes that a label is derogatory, it absolutely must be excised, and related forms (in this case, calling his ideas "conspiracy theories") too. If the discussion determines that the guy's supporters reject the term, using it in Wikipedia's voice is outright favor toward his opponents. People can agree on statements such as "his opponents have called him a conspiracy theorist" and "studies have rejected this use of laetrile" [although I thought the claims were that it fought cancer, not that it caused it?], but if it's demonstrated that the sides differ on calling him and his ideas conspiracy theorist/theories, adopting the term is necessarily a non-neutral point of view. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right--I'm sorry, I read that wrong, or typed it wrong. Laetrile fights cancer, and they're keeping it from us so we'll die--this is what his side says, so it must be valid and calling it otherwise is not neutral, assuming that all sides are equal, which is what underlies your proposition, I believe. Sorry Nyttend, but I'm not with you. At any rate, that wasn't the issue anyway--at least it wasn't what this started with; I simply wanted you to have responded at AN. But I really don't want this happy place to be a battleground, so I'll take an extra shot of laetrile and let's all call it a day. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL* Drmies, I'll wrap-up my question with a succinct close before you OD on cyanide. Your overall close of the review opened new doors of communication at Griffin, for which I am very appreciative. Sometimes we get too wrapped up in the technicalities of life and forget to enjoy the free spirit of it...like eating black eggs and ham. Atsme☯^Consult 21:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other news: no egg today. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations and co-nominations

Hi, Drmies. What are the expectations for RfA nominations and co-nominations? I am not sure you meant by "rookie", meaning that I have not done any nominating or co-nominating in the past? Is it preferred that admins co-nominate? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant "rookie", in quotation marks, since you've been here only since 2005, which is longer than most people I know. No, having you as a nominator is probably better than just some random admin since you seem to know Sock pretty good and speak knowledgeably on their work here. We're looking for things like knowledge of policy, common sense, reasonable temperament, stuff like that, and that's best done by someone who's worked with an editor. I think one expectation for a nominator (and a candidate) is that they're not an asshole, and neither of you seem to be one; moreover, you are eminently qualified to judge content contributions since you wrote so much of it yourself. Honestly, it makes me wonder why you haven't thrown your hat in the ring, but that's up to you. Anyway, have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate; what you could do is write up just the text for the nomination, as a draft, and maybe Kudpung or someone else can give you some feedback on it--I can do that as well, of course, if you like. See, I would co-nominate but I've never actually ran into Sock until today; I could consider doing it after perusing some of their work. Either way, a co-nomination isn't even necessary. But maybe that note on Sock's talk page attracts more colleagues. So if you're serious, go ahead and draft a statement; look at a couple of old ones. Recent examples are Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fenix down, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MelanieN, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Titodutta. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO nominators should at least be familiar with all the advice pages for admin candidates. See: WP:Advice for RfA candidates and user:Kudpung/RfA criteria. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the feedback! I've bookmarked these links. Kudpung, I am not familiar with these pages, so I will refrain. As an editor familiar with the process, do you think Sock should be nominated at this point? Drmies posed the question to you on Sock's page, and I don't mean to distract from that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock for Admin, cool! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Fisher

Turns out the professor you did the article on, John Hurt Fisher, is very often billed as John H. Fisher (in his writings and so forth). Since that article name is already coopted by a John Harvey Fisher (per that person's Find-A-Grave tombstone image), it my be good to re-title the soldier's article to that and make John H. Fisher a dab page (or even a redirect to whichever is most notable). I think if so, you should do the honors. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Edit: NB: There's also a John Henry Fisher article; plus one on a John H. N. Fisher, who doesn't seem particularly notable. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, I'll be glad to look into it, but please see my recent contributions: I've done so many closes, deletions, and blocks that I can't see straight. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatevsies. I'm sure it's fine to let it lie. I put a hatnote on the soldier's article re: the professor, to cover at least one base for now. I just don't feel like getting further into it for now, either. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you've done, on John Fisher (disambiguation) as well, and that looks good to me--thanks! My scholar goes by both, but I noticed that many of his colleagues (on the Chaucer listserv) did use his middle (?) name, so let's just keep it this way. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for this, I got the info from an obit written by one of his colleagues (he's listed in the article, actually); it is entirely possible that in those days the designations were as such. That's not to say I want to change them back, but just so you know I wasn't throwing a British English curve ball. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that might be the case; I still personally think American style is more universally understandable these days -- even Brits use it. In re: the hatnote, the prof doesn't need one, because his fully spelled out middle name in the article title means no one is going to land on his page looking for one of the other John H. Fishers. OK, if I remove that? If I don't hear from you here in the next 24 hours, I'll take that as a yes. Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it--I'm about to throw in the towel. Too many blocks and deletions; I think I earned my check from the WMF. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your work for the Wurttembergische Metallwarenfabrik can't be beaten! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How well do they pay? Softlavender (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just coppers… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK this is totally freaking dumb and I am going to be dinged for dredging up a subject we thought we were done with, but the name of the company made me flash on the Deutsche Emailwarenfabrik. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look later- there s a sentence describing the leasing of the factory which I can't make any sense of. There must be online sources. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, I can think of only one reason you'd mention a German enamel factory, and that's to call someone a Nazi. Also, it's amazing that Schindler was using email back then. EEng (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I knew that would go over like a lead Zeppelin. Hahaha I crack myself up. I'm here all week, folks. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling people Nazis! And speaking of Zeppelins... Oh, the huge manatee! EEng (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sial Jhang

My error. Thank you for catching it. I apologized to the user and pointed them in the right direction. JBH (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--I appreciate it. Listen, you probably felt the same way I did, tagging/deleting promotional articles. When one is being a hammer a lot of things look like nails. When it gets depressing, take a break. I yelled at the kids to get my mind on other things. :) Drmies (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I definitely understand. I wanted to take a break from dealing with little 'collaborations' (that seem to take a lot of time... 9 days 1 word... sure it was Eastern Europe but really??!!??) and try dealing with junk and spam. Sort of jumping from particular to existential frustration. I see my Wikipedia fueled procrastination drawing to a close for a bit. The real world beckons and it is nearly time to swap my encyclopedic brain for my analytical brain and start writing... Thanks for snapping me out of it. :) Cheers. JBH (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the wrong redirect got in when you closed the afd

Yeah for Min Yoongi it went to Bangtan boys, I just uppercased it on her page though, just wanted to point this out really quick, anyway good job. Wgolf (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--there was another one, I hope I got that right. Those AfDs are real easy, of course--unverified BLPs for non-notable people and a clear consensus. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome-I figured I had to do something before someone else put a broken redirect tag or a bot deleted it as a broken redirect. (Of course there also is the thing of having alternate spellings of the name being a redirect to the redirect) Wgolf (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corning (train station)

You used a supervote to close this AFD early citing problems with the previous AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may count your accusation as "having discussed it with the closer" and take it to DR. And you are wrong: pointing out problematic supports in an AfD is precisely what our job is. Also, it wasn't a train station, apparently--which was pointed out to you. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today's RSI Trophy

	The RSI Trophy
	Technically this is yesterday's trophy, but hey, you earned it! Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, Yunshui. Glad to see you've not retired. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to cheapen your accomplishment, Drmies, but when I was in school and injured my wrist, I had to wear one of those. It wasn't excessive typing the boys accused me of... Ah, college. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was it tying? You were tying too many shoelaces? EEng (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah that's the ticket! Shinyang-i (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing RfC close

Hi Drmies. I think maybe you forgot to save this one? :-) Sunrise (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just add it to the list, Sunrise--thanks. Hey, nothing compares to Tenedos and its fallout. I still get hatemail over that. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked that up, and I'm glad you were willing to close it! Anyways, Technical 13 archived that entry along with the rest, so I guess I'll restore it. (Let me know if I'm missing anything.) Sunrise (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the barnstar! I really appreciate it. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure backlog

How did you not know that "opening poster" means OP? Bad admin! You should have known that. Had I known you didn't know that, I would have opposed your RfA because admins should know everything.

Wow, this was a very ridiculous discussion. Drmies, are you absolutely omnipotent or near omnipotent? I'd say absolutely omnipotent since you basically cut the WP:ANRFC backlog in half. Thank you so much for your hard work! Cunard (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Sunrise (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your TfD close formatting. Here's the format from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions to close the discussion:

{{subst:Tfd top|'''Result'''. Reasoning.}} ~~~~
{{subst:Tfd bottom}}

And then tag the talk page of the template like this:

{{tfd end|Template:Infobox university|date=2015 January 22|merge=Template:Infobox institute|result=no consensus to merge}}

Thank you for closing TfDs even though you don't know the exact formatting or them. The huge CfD and TfD backlog is probably because most admins are weary of venturing outside their comfort zone to close something that isn't automated. I or another editor will be your janitor, cleaning up after you if you mess up. ;) Cunard (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have sheep in my hair??

Hafspajen (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sheer" luck. Atsme☯^Consult 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, H, I've been taking some pages from your book. EEng (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OH, I did noticed it ..three days ago..?

Hafspajen (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, it's Brian May. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, wow, you were updating it seriously. Soon you should be placed in the: Category:Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen Category:Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen ... Hafspajen (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing in Morisco

Hi Drmies, thanks for your intervention in the article. Despite the ongoing discussion awaiting conclusion, recently created one-purpose user accounts are editing, and altering the excerpts subject to discussion. I urge you, if that is in your hands, to investigate sockpupettry or at least undo as administrator all last three (four?) edits. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Klein (CNN)

Hi Drmies. A serious question here: I'm not sure what you think of this? I had reverted it within two minutes after the look of it and questionable sources (I regretfully said nothing in the ES, although I should have). DivineAlpha (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think the revert was fine, and the article needs an extraordinary amount of work. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexually provocative images in user pages

The is a WP:ANI about sexually provocative images in user pages that violate WP:Userpages and could use an experienced administrator to look at. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is a canvassing troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bunch of pretty ladies. All with clothes on. Some more - some less. Hafspajen (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the stuff was rightly removed. I don't know why the IP sought me, but I went ahead and closed the discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bugs. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ar you sure the result of the related Mfd was 'RESULT'? and not 'KEEP'? GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was "RESULT: Matter is handled by Sladen--this is a SNOWY kind of close, where the right editorial decision was reached, with thanks to the nominator, the IP, and the executor of policy. Let us not be too critical of the nomination: the page deserved attention, though deletion is not deemed necessary." I am not responsible for the convoluted syntax of the page or its manual. :) Drmies (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add me to the list of people that think the consensus was misread. That was a clear keep, more discussion may have changed that but why reward shady behavior. A lot more was happening here then meets the eye. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that there is a list, nor that the page was not kept. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstood which page we were talking about I see User:Joe1234 which was deleted by you and I also see at lest 2 or 3 other editors in this thread stating it was a non issue and that the consesnsus looked like keep. Did I muck something up in analysis? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth fighting over, HiaB. You could presumably take it to DRV to get a pre-Drmies version reinstated but, really, is it worth it? I'd be more concerned about (yet again) the behavioural issues that arose because of the discussions, eg: yet another accusation of socking and yet more selective notifying that arguably runs afoul of WP:CANVAS. Just add it to some metaphorical list for the day of reckoning, which surely cannot be long off now. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Drmies is pretty reasonable really I was just voicing a concern. I'd be a lot more clear if I thought it needed more attention. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hell in a Bucket, I deleted that as a purely administrative decision: we're not a webhost, and that was the only purpose for that page: for some teenager to don't have to browse around too much while jacking off. Personally I don't care so much for the KEEPs in that discussion, since they (many of them) missed the obvious point of NOTWEBHOST (which I think the nominator missed as well) and since the user in question was clearly just a vandal. (Did you look at their edits?) In other words, what's the big deal? A vandal puts some dirty pixies on a page, we delete: there is nothing special about it. All in a day's work for bicycle repairman.
What I think got everyone's panties in a twist, to use a nice, oldfashioned sexist expression that I think can be applied across the genders, is the nominator and that IP. If you want to have a problem with that, that's fine (Sitush, I'm not trying to be dismissive of your feelings, believe me), but it doesn't affect the issue of the user page: that user page was just wrong and had to go. What else you want to do about Lightbreather, that's your business: my deletion does not validate her behavior, nor does it criticize it. And if it's your business, one way or another, it shouldn't be dealt with in an MfD discussion, but in the right forum where, I believe, discussion was already taking place. BTW, how that IP got here, I have no idea--but those who know me know that I'm pretty impervious to canvassing and that asking me to look into something can be a dangerous thing to do. And being a prude, perhaps, in deleting that--well, if that aligns me with Lightbreather, that doesn't mean a lot. We also breathe air, walk on two legs (I suppose), and don't like people toting guns. And now...Carry On and Translate An Article For Hafsterix? Drmies (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I had no feelings regarding the user page(s) in question. I didn't even look at the things. I had issues regarding general behavioural matters but nothing more. Doubtless, as the UK general election approaches (May), there will be a shed-load of politicising going on in another sphere. I suspect that the electioneering abuse of WP will be done and dusted long before the gender gap one is resolved.
I'm actually running scared of the gg stuff: I say a bit here and there, then walk away because I know that I will explode in the face of well-intentioned irrationality: good points, poorly executed. It is generally a "do more harm than good" scenario and some good people (from both perspectives) are going to be lost because of it. Make haste slowly is my motto but it seems not to be shared. Someone should inform Ladbrokes. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, are we talking about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jbc01? Because if we are, I disagree that the KEEPs missed the point of NOTWEBHOST. Calling a spade a spade, the images were removed because they were perceived as offensive, not because they were part of a personal web page. As I said, we have lots of photographers here who show off their uploads on their user pages and no one pays them any attention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, I thought we were talking about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joe1234--or rather, about User:Joe1234. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I have no idea so enough wasted electrons from me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I see now that NOTBLOG was mentioned, which goes to the same place. Also, alles klar--moving on. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I think this [[8]] and the addition [[9]] was a ample solution that fairly addressed both concerns. Are we talking about the same user page one with a handful of bdsm images that showed some nudity but nothing hardcore and then stated which articles they uploaded the images for use on? My solution raised concerns about the IP but it also cowtows to the more sensitive or prudes as you put it. Win Win for both sides and the fact that you agreed with Lightbreather hardly disqualifies you or makes you a subject of ridicule, even a broken clock is right twice a day and I think you've proven you don't use the same methods or you wouldn't have the bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs)

HiaB, that's not about Joe1234, that's about Jbc01--speaking of broken clocks, I can cite one of the contributors there, "Just remove the pictures if they are bothersome, no need to delete the whole page"--that's what my close is, really, and isn't that what you're saying as well? I didn't remove the pictures, but I certainly agree with their removal--that discussion was headed for SNOW, and if my close is an endorsement of the removal, that is jes fine with me. Now, I hadn't looked at that ANI conversation, only at one or two diffs from it, and I'm not sure if you're asking me to look at the IP, cause I kind of don't want to. :) Drmies (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No no, no ned to do that ;) I think it's a mountain of a molehill at this point. Thank you for clarifying. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the towing of the cows. [10] EEng (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: What about cow toeing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. Maybe they mean cow tiptoeing? EEng (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just watching the All in the Family episode "Archie, the Donor". Ol' Arch accidently signed up as a donor & latter had a nightmare about it. He dreamed his former body parts were breaking laws. Arch told Edith his "Feet, were running away from a holdup", his "Hands, were picking pockets" and his "Eyes, were looking at hard pore cornography" :) GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, and good day to you! I watched that show, overseas, over 30 years ago, and I never "got" it--part of what I didn't get was the racism, since our racism was so much different. After a couple years in Alabama, yeah, I get it. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh

Now this is very nice. But no idea who he is, or what the description say. Henri Voordecker, Jagerswoning , −

Description, Date 1826, Nederlands: Jagerswoning. Een familie voor de deur van de woning. Moeder met kind zittend in de deuropening, achter haar een jonge man in jagerskleding. Op de trappen voor het huis lopen kippen en duiven, links van de deur nog meer duiven bij een duiventil. Links staat een meid bij een put, rechts een hond aan een ketting... Hafspajen (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It's a long description of what you see in the picture. The title is "Hunter's home". Description (more or less, I don't really read Dutch): "A family in front of the door of their home. Mother with a child, sitting in the doorway, behind her a young man in hunting clothes. On the steps in front of the house, chickens and doves are running about, to the left of the door yet more doves around a dovecote. On the left a young woman stands at a churn, on the right a dog on a chain."

Thank you , mysterious stranger. Hafspajen (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This almost looks like a scene from a Wordsworth poem. Sorry, got class. (I got style too!) Drmies (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a woman to make you smile! Hafspajen (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no article on him and he is Dutch. Hafspajen (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fotnot

Archived RfC at Slavic Speakers of Greek Macedonia

Hi, I saw that you recently archived an RfC at Talk:Slavic_speakers_of_Greek_Macedonia. However, I think your summary does not completely accurately reflect the outcome of the RfC, in particular by giving what I think is undue weight to concerns that have been addressed: verification and lack of clarity. (In fact, since verifiability is a core content policy, it should go without saying that anything we wish to write should be reliably verifiable, so this can hardly be a serious objection.) Also note that 6 out of the 7 people who responded to the RfC think that at least in some cases (e.g. national activists, or when ethnic/linguistic affiliation is part of a person's notability) it would be permissible to specify the ethnic/linguistic affiliation. Furthermore, one of the people who raised a partial objection, User:Pmanderson, did not fully explain his position (perhaps he didn't see the question I directed at him). Could you reopen the archived RfC to let PMAnderson clarify what he meant (if he desires to do so, which I think would be nice). Also, in any case, I think your summary would benefit from a bit of adjusting. Thanks! Tropcho (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I read PManderson's point loud and clear, and I also saw a "bad idea" in bold print and a "in general no". In other words, I do not agree with your synopsis of that discussion. No, I'm not going to reopen that discussion; you had a month to ask or re-ask that question. That they chose not to answer probably means they didn't want to.
In general, you should have noted that the question in the RfC was problematic--it's not signed, of course, so I don't know who it was, and that the nay-sayers address the ambiguity which in the Balkan and in many other places is a matter of contention. On the other hand (and this is editorial advice; feel free to ignore it), if there are individual cases where such an identification is absolutely important, you can always bring it up on the talk page for consensus; the conclusion of the RfC is not no never never never. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A point may seem loud and clear and still fail to stand up to scrutiny. In fact, the somewhat rushed manner in which PMAnderson decided to drop that discussion is for me another good reason to think his position is not well-justified (not well-explained, in any case, which should probably affect the weight we assign to it).
  More importantly, bold text can be misleading. If you read the "bad idea" and "in general no" comments until the end, you'll see that my summary (six out of seven participants saying that in some (if not all) cases it's permissible to make a specification) is accurate.
  Being the person who initiated the RfC, I can say that the motivation had nothing to do with questions of ambiguity/difficulty of verification; the problem was another editor's claim that specifying ethnic/linguistic affiliation is absolutely no-no at this article, even for cases where it's reliably and verifiably crystal clear how a person self-identified (e.g. Lyubka Rondova, who has given numerous interviews explaining her views on her own nationality). A side-effect of this was concealment of the fact that quite a few of the people in the notable persons list identified as Bulgarian. That, taken together with other aspects of the article (currently also under discussion), led to a somewhat biased presentation.
  You're absolutely right that your current summary does not exclude completely the possibility to make a specification, but as it stands, it is likely to generate some unnecessary discussions of a point that has already been discussed enough. Therefore, in my opinion it's important to state explicitly in the summary that in unambiguous and reliably verifiable cases where ethnic/language affiliation is part of the notability (e.g. national activists, ethnicity researchers, etc.) a specification is permissible.
  Six out of the seven participants in the RfC agree on that. Tropcho (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

just wanted to drop a "thank you" for your work today on all that user page/porn stuff. Good work. — Ched : ? 01:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ched! You may have seen the section above--but I really don't see the big deal. User page abuse is user page abuse, simple as that. Nice to see you again. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta be honest, it never ceases to amaze me how much fuss can be made over such little things. It would be different if these folks were still around (as those particular user names) and were claiming some sort of "artistic expression". Me? Well, being the AGF guy I am - I figure a couple kids from years ago finally had their sack drop, they outgrew the 9th grade locker-room stuff, matured, and moved on to other things. But hey, what do I know? All I know is that I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. You did great, and don't let anyone tell you any different. And always good to get the chance to chat with you too buddy. — Ched : ? 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debate Champions

Recently you deleted a page entitled 2015 Colorado Festival Public Forum Champions. I know that technically Max and Jake are not notable people, but they have made a huge impact on every one associated with them and are some of the greatest people I have ever had the privilege to work with. Could you please leave the page up for 24 hours? It is a going away gift from the team. Thank you. 71.237.68.83 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Like I said, humor sure, but in article space no. That's what Wikia is for, and Facebook, and MySpace, and whatnot. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Account

Is it ok to have an alternate account when dealing with controversial areas subject to much abuse from predators that go after you with extremely harassing comments. This is to protect my regular account from abusive comments and threats. If not delete this new account or explain the limits/policies on my talk page. Thanks. LTBROT (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC) P.S. It will be used in limited areas that I do not want use my regular account and will not use my regular account. LTBROT (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LTBROT, WP:VALIDALT covers this well enough, I think, and it seems to me that what you describe could fall under item #2. It would be much better, of course, if this kind of disruption were dealt with rather than avoided--please feel free to clue me in on what's going on where. My zebra is equipped with various weaponry and is not afraid to get its hooves dirty. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I made my first small correction in article and I was surprised by your fast and friendly response. Thanks. SlawomirAdamczak (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No SlawomirAdamczak, thank you. Good edit, good explanation. What a seasoned editor might have added was something like "unreliable sources: nothing but blogs". Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ?

Hi, I'm not good in Wiki hierarchy, so please let me know if I can just cancel this your Result, or you had some authority to sum it, and I have to apply somewhere (?) else to re-open this RfC.
IMHO, your "Opponents agree that the language and its extra detail is unnecessary and confusing" Result is not correct, as opinions were divided equally (4:4). Moreover, those who were "against", did not respond to my questions and clarifications. So there is yet option: you may cancel it by yourself.
Regards, --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New questionable kpop articles

Are there alternatives to AFD for these? I run into this stuff while monitoring the new articles bot for Korean content. I don't mean to just shove things at you, but it seems other have some speedier routes to dealing with this stuff than I do.

Prince Mak - Possibly self-created article with probably copyright-violating photo (that the article creator claims to own) about non-notable k-pop boyband member. Was tagged for PROD because of no sources; now has one source. Edited to add: I just got told by the article creator not to edit the article anymore (I removed some serious external link porn). Editor claims to be acting on behalf of Prince Mak. Oh goodie. I just can't deal with these kinds of situations right now, my patience is just too thin. Help, please. (see User talk:Intlprincemak#Prince Mak, if you like.)
Chamsonyeo - one-off collab by notable kpop girls; user has a history of creating articles that shouldn't exist.
2014–15 Big Bang Japan Dome Tour X - I think this was already AFD'd and deleted, but I don't know how to find such records? And if it was, I'm not sure what to do about it?

Many thanks. If you have tips for me dealing with these on my own other than AFD, I'm happy to do it. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikirooms, Petrovich

My acknowledgement

Was going to post this at Jytdog's TP, but the topic was already archived. Anyway, out of respect for you and the time you took for an analysis, I will acknowledge that some of my remarks were out of character and I apologize. I have always tried to be polite but there are times when the PAs become overwhelming, and cause me to venture too close to the edge. I should have taken the high road. Just so you'll know, your assumption about my Breitbart quip (hyperbole of sorts) is not what happened. I was simply poking a little fun at Guy for his gaffe when he confused the American Media company (National Enquirer) with the same American Media company that published Griffin. I quipped about a similar gaffe made by Breitbart (website) when they confused two people with the same name and wrote a story about the wrong person. End of story. I never imagined it would be misconstrued as a PA which is basically part of what that whole thread was about. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 23:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Atsme, I appreciate it, but you don't owe me an explanation. Or, to put it another way, you don't owe me an explanation. :) I only looked at what I was offered, of course, without context. But thanks for the note. As you can see below (sorry, I don't eat popcorn) there's plenty of drama to go around, and the less we make the better. Also, I'm drinking a Lagunitas Imperial Stout--not bad. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just who's doing the feeding is debatable

Per your recent comment, I wonder if you've ever considered the possibility that enablers like you are the ones feeding EC's dysfunction? To suggest that it's always the fault of mean people who aren't nice enough to him is quite frankly absurd. Imagine if I called you a "militant misogynist" and admins suggested that, because you were mean to me, I was baited and not really all that accountable for my actions? I know from experience that rebels like to defy authority, but when their friends get sick of it and stop glorifying the destructive behavior they often stop. But why would he ever stop with so much positive reinforcement from people like you?

I.e., if you truly care about Eric you would do what was best for him, but further fueling the persecution complex is the exact opposite of what would actually help him. Think of an intervention. The people there stop making excuses for their buddy and demand the problematic behaviors are addressed, not because they harbor ill-will towards the subject or want to cause them distress. It's quite the opposite actually, and it's surprisingly effective in many cases. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may speak for a moment: are you aware of our policy on personal attacks? Do you know that "enablers like you" is a personal attack? Don't you think that such continued incivility and harassment creates a hostile atmosphere that might make a poor oppressed editor like me want to run away from the project? That I might need medication after your what you did to me? Should this be a matter for ArbCom? Help, I'm being oppressed? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, all I'm trying to say is that EC continues to attack and insult people because people like you continue to defend him whenever he does. If you stopped, he might stop, and we could all spend more time on the encyclopedia and less on the bullshit politics. But every time you blame the person he attacked for the attack you continue the cycle of dysfunction and verbal abuse. Try a different approach for once, you can always go back to blind support if it doesn't work. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RO - you've been given some pretty good advice. Whether or not Eric's words are mean is immaterial to the advice you were given which was to not be pointy about how you approach other articles. Your efforts with Victoriaearle and then with the Donner Party article come across as an exercise in making a point for whatever. You may not mean to, but it is beginning to be hard to AGF that you don't mean to be pointy. (And now .. I'm getting a tingling that we've all been through this sort of "i just wanted to know better... everyone's mean to me when I ask for help in understanding things" thing before. @SandyGeorgia:, am I totally off base thinking this is someone we've dealt with before? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I asked for help at ECs talk page, he said no but look at Donner Party to see how it's done. So I did, and I noticed that the NYT described one of the main sources as "novelistic mode", which raised red flags. You guys aren't the best at explaining stuff sometimes, and I admit that I have been difficult to teach at times, but I am here in good-faith, so this off-topic attack is unprovoked and mean-spirited. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, you are off-base, Ealdgyth. I wanted to discuss this with Drmies, and you attacked me personally. You remind of someone too, but I'd get blocked if I said who. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not discussing anything with me. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I attacked you exactly how? I'm trying to give you some advice ... I just tried to explain how your actions in the last few days appear to someone who isn't involved in the situation. If you choose to think of that as an attack, i'm not sure what else to do. It was not meant as an attack - merely as advice. Take it as you will. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You attacked me by implying I was a sock. I'm not a fucking sock, but I am fucking sick of it! Stop trying to discredit everyone who disagree with you. You guys fight dirt around here. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for help at ECs talk page, he said no but look at Donner Party to see how it's done. This seems like a gross over-simplification of what has gone on? - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply an explanation of how I came to see Donner Party, where they call them migrants in the first paragraph and emigrants in the second, but I can't just fix it without first convincing everyone, which is impossible. In the US, a migrant is someone who works in Minnesota all summer an d southern California all winter. But with this crew even the simplest of corrections are passionately rejected. Like the stupid comma dispute that there was never any doubt of who was right. You and Giano followed me around for a week after I got into with EC, so you've punished me enough already. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I dislike people who proclaim their righteousness but ignore their failings. LB does the same by announcing her successes accumulated from various dramaboards but ignoring her failures. We are none of us perfect. Live with it. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not prefect, but I'm also not being held up as "untouchable", so what's your point? You bully and harass and talk about people at talk pages like this is a social networking site, and we are in grammar school, and you think you can take the moral high-ground? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rant: I've pretty much hit the "pox on all two dozen of your houses" limit on this. Lightbreather should probably be sitebanned for being interested primarily in disruption to advance a cause, and for being so good at playing the victim (which is an annoying skill). But it isn't going to happen as a result of an ANI thread. HellinaBucket is often right, but he's so obnoxious about it that it's hard to defend him. Knowledgekid has never met an argument he couldn't resist making worse by participating in it. RationalObserver is obviously a returning editor with a previous history of conflict with Eric, and (if they are who I think they are) a lot of other FA editors, and who is constantly trying to get it to boil over again. I so often look like I'm "defending" Eric because the people who are constantly trying to trip him up and manufacture a crisis are so hypocritical and loathsome. But God, he makes it so hard. I don't think Eric's comment is a technical violation of the restriction as worded (If nothing else, the phrase "militant feminist" is so 1970's. I don't see how someone can take offense at the phrase; they should be too busy laughing at it). But damn it, he claims to be avoiding editing all articles about women because he doesn't want to accidentally violate the Arbcom restriction, and then he says something like this that is obviously two orders of magnitude closer to a violation, even if it still isn't one. There, I've made unsubstantiated personal attacks on like 5 or 6 editors. Can I please be blocked now and put out of my misery? I won't request an unblock if it's less than a week, I promise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You people are waaaaay too confident in your inherently fallacious duck test. I have Italian Greyhounds, but people always think they are Whippets. I never had a previous conflict with EC. I just made the mistake of taking sides when episode 4,589 of the "Eric Corbett" showed aired late last year. That's all. I have no grudge on him, nor do I care about civility anymore.Rationalobserver (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many people have been driven away under the duck test? And who the hell thought that was solid logic in the first place? You've completely ignored the fact that the complete opposite is equally true. Did you ever consider that you might be identifying personality types rather than actual individuals? Why would a sock put as much effort into this place as I have? Can anybody answer that? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric and I got into it a few years ago so we just avoid each other. It's a big pedia so that shouldn't be hard for you to do. Eric is one of the best writers we have but my take on your request to have him check out a page you're working on was a lot less about seeking his excellent suggestions and a lot more about baiting him. Just leave the man alone.--MONGO 00:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will stay away from him, I promise. But I was honestly giving him a chance to disprove his detractors and to do something selfless for someone he had had conflicts with, and I wanted to show him that I'm not a bad writer like so many have said. I sincerely wanted his help; it wasn't a bait, it was a shot in the dark that we could be friendly, but when he and his friends started talking trash after he said no I stood up for myself and spoke my mind. Did the thread stop after he said no and I went away? Look at it again, and you'll see the natural break was actually quite graceful, but then they tore into me like you shouldn't be allowed to do on talk pages. I'd link the policy, but what difference would it make? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simples. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RO: Please save stuff like "I was honestly giving him a chance to disprove his detractors" for a noticeboard where a few of the gullible might be found. Everyone on this page knows you are a returned user who is here to needle Eric, and the discussion you started on his talk demonstrates that he did disprove his detractors by responding very pleasantly; unsurprisingly, you persisted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to say nowadays:
fucking sock and even who the hell thought that was solid logic
without somebody gets punished? Wonder what would happened if Eric would have said that one. Hafspajen (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the deliberate transposition to focking suck make it any less of a problem? Indubitably, Eric would cop it with either version. It is a pathetic situation and it is being repeated at WP:AE right now, with all the usual culprits, such as Ironholds. Eric has written about witches; his existence here is challenged by a continuous witch-hunt. He oversteps the mark sometimes but who wouldn't if they were faced with this crap? - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalobserver is either Mattisse (talk · contribs), or a performance artist doing a remarkably precise impression of Mattisse's pathological online personality. Or are we not supposed to mention the elephant in the room? MastCell ^Talk 01:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- MastCell, I don't really know Matisse, but I do know that this person is not here to contribute to this encyclopedia. They're just fucking around, and I like to kiss before I get fucked. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wanted to show him that I'm not a bad writer like so many have said. Off-wiki, perhaps. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think this page was like an insane asylum, but now I'd say more like a Fellini film. EEng (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pop the popcorn. You bring the beer. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 03:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Well I eat popcorn, even if Drmies doesn't. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Drmies, perhaps you'd be willing to settle for a reach around? — Ched : ? 09:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he brought some Vaseline. He might want to ride the zebra. Run Forest Run! He He He!!! Sorry I could not resist, it reminds me of trying to argue with my sisters when they were teenagers. Pointless 208.54.38.130 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in

How's it going, Drmies? Did you receive my email? Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 15:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock, I'm slowly going through the pile... :) Drmies (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No sweat! I didn't realize you got so much mail! Haha. Sorry about that. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 21:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying (or trying to)

Hi Drmies. I can see how you might see it as an insult. But to paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, nobody can insult you without your consent. I can also see that the meaning of the "carcinogen" bit may have got lost in the brevity. (I never seem to have enough time to do full justice to brevity.) It's my view that petty officialdom, when coupled with excessive power and its abuse, plus prejudice, rank stupidity, and injustice, constitutes a cancer in WP, much as it does in society at large. And btw, it's a waste of time trying to reason with a carcinogen. I'd write more, but I have to get back to Myspace :~) Writegeist (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Writegeist:, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your creativity - noting that I have no opinion re: content, just style. It left me wanting to read more. Also, a heads-up - discounting the other TP stalkers here, some of whom have sheep in their hair, or hilarious user pages, or a collection of black eggs, or worse yet, non-laying hens - any mention of carcinogens and cancer may subject you to sanctimonious sanctions - WP:SS, I believe - but I'm pretty sure BLP-AdminTP restrictions may apply here as well considering Drmies is a living person who may need restricting from time to time (according to some of the comments I've read).

Seriously - I especially like "never seem to have enough time to do full justice to brevity".

Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 22:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writegeist, where I'm from, jokes and insults based on all kinds of diseases, from TB to polio to cancer, were common. As I got older I quit enjoying them, long before my own father died of cancer. As much as I disagree with Coffee's decision (and it's a lot of much), I do not wish them to be put in a sentence with cancery words. Sorry--I do not find that funny at all, even if it was just a throwaway remark. Wait, particularly in a throwaway remark. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! Question for you... (legal threat and I messed up and posted to AIV)

Hi Dmries,

Finally getting some free time to come back here, and realizing I am really rusty. I cannot, for the life of me, find where to report threats. I erroneously reported it to [11] using Twinkle, which I am sure is a mistake. If you have time to help point me in the right direction so I can clean up my mess, I would appreciate it.

Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir found it and took care of it... I'll dig some more to learn what's changed and what hasn't during my sporadic editing. Hope things are going well with you! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPA

Hi Drmies. I noticed that Robert Walker/Inventor is doing my homework for checking my edits on close paraphrasing User:Robertinventor/JJ Copyrights. That's very kind of him, but his only topic seems to be me; his latest 2,000+ edits are mainly concerned with me, except for an interval for Mars. It seems he's turned into a peculiar sort of SPA. I've posted the same message at User talk:Robert McClenon#FYI, and left a message at Robert Walker/Inventor's talkpage [12]. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women neuroscientists

Someone is adding this category to a lot of scientist bios (including Lynn Nadel, who most certainly is masculine). Am I being oversensitive in finding this mildly offensive? All male scientists go into the "neuroscientists" cat and women go into a separate cat? To me that suggests that we (that is, WP) apparently think that being male is the "natural state" of a neuroscientist, so that we need to draw people's attention with a separate category if there's actually a woman daring to become a neuroscientist... I faintly remember some brouhaha some time ago about "women writers" or something like that. Do you remember how that ended? Do you think I should take this to CfD or would a more central forum be more appropriate (because I guess the issue is much wider than just neuroscientists...) --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That ended in blocks and articles in the NYT and Salon, yes. Judging from Category:American women novelists, it seems to have ended with the creation of Category:American men novelists--note how there's no Category:American transgender novelists, or any of the other options. That's something the Gender Gap Task Force should occupy itself with. I don't know Randy--perhaps it's a good idea to place a note on AN. I do not know what our current consensus is on this differentiation (a/k/a "ghettoization")--there's plenty of reading on the internets, like this. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admiration

I would send wikilove but I believe that both you and I hate that nonsense.

However, got to admit my admiration for your patience in dealing with our friend in Chile. W C M_email 16:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WCM, I like Wikilove fine, and I appreciate the note. I understand that this matter has come to a head, with the IP giving just enough reason to an administrator to escalate. The net result of this will be nothing productive at all--the IP has poor manners but usually good judgment; the admin in question, well, never mind. The IP is going to continue to edit (and thus to evade), and the admin is going to continue to block and roll back. I was tired of it already; Yngvadottir stuck it out longer than I could. I do appreciate your apparent reticence, your staying out of the matter; I hope you still enjoy editing here. All the best, Drmies (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: linking pre- and post-nominals

Greetings! I just noticed your closure on an RfC at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Linking]. I was just wondering if you saw the previous discussion on the Talk Page that took place only a few weeks before the first discussion, Post-nominals?

User StAnselm asked on my Talk Page[13] on 11th February whether the discussion is over, and said that it looks to him that "the consensus is to exclude". I answered him though and pointed out that in the past two threads over the same topic, there were five editors in favour of exclude, and three editors in favour of include.

Considering that the previous consensus had been around ever since November 2012, I don't think that miniature RfC, if you may, really could establish a "clear consensus". I am not sure if you were aware of the previous discussion before the RfC, but could you please have another look? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaguru-Shishya, the nature of an RfC is that it's small, "mini", if you will. So no, that was not part of the "clear consensus", which takes into account only the comments in between the lines, so to speak. In other words, I'm not sure what to tell you--you are of course free to start a new one, and if the problem was a lack of participation (in general or for "your" side), then notify more editors (but make sure you read WP:CANVAS...) and projects and stuff. If you are indeed correct, then it's a shame that the RfC did not reflect prior opinions, but that's the nature of the game. I mean, you can ask for the conclusion to be overturned but I doubt you'll hear something different. Perhaps Cunard has something to offer? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]