Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 85

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm hanging out with the fancy ass.

Arbitration case request withdrawn

[edit]

The WPPilot arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts

[edit]

Drmies, I've been thinking about throwing my hat in the ring for a RfA. I've been here nine years, it's clear I'll meet the qualifications. On the other hand, I've made some enemies, though for the most part they are all blocked. You and I have crossed paths many times over the years, so I thought I'd ask you what you think? Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez Montana, you're one brave girl even thinking about it. I'm no expert, but I think you've made far too many enemies, who will all come crawling out of the woodwork, and who are probably rousing themselves to crawl out even now as we speak. All I can say from experience is that it's a bit of a kick in the guts to be told that you're unfit for anything other than the relatively unimportant and menial tasks of writing articles and suchlike. Eric Corbett 02:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want to be an admin. I've been an admin, and I've been a not-admin, and being a not-admin is better. You lose the ability to see some juicy gossip that have been revdel'd or whatever but nothing that matters. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the stuff that gets revision deleted is nasty crap nobody wants to read. The only funny stuff tends to be in deleted hoax articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think you'd pass unless enough people decided to go with the usual bullshit excuse of "not enough experience in admin areas" or the even dumber excuse of "doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools". I die a little on the inside whenever I read that one.... I don't know which cliques you've supposedly pissed off, but it largely depends upon how many friends they can canvass to the opposition. After a spot-check review of your last thousand edits or so, I'd say that you look like an excellent content editor, one who I'd be glad to see join the admin group. Again, all I can do is speak in hypotheticals, but I think you'd be a shoe-in.
If someone really wants to see you fail, be prepared to have something taken out of context and twisted to the point that you won't even be able to recognize it. In this case, the best thing to do is to let someone else call them on their shit—or find someone privately to do it for you before too many mindless drones read it, don't check it, and parrot it ;). If you reply and tell them they just spewed a bunch of crap, you'll likely get more ridiculous opposes citing your "badgering". Good luck if you do try, and I hope you'll succeed! Let me know if you want anything from me—a nomination, co-nom, or whatever. (Not that my nomination means much, and it might get you more opposes just because it's me and I'm seen as too much of a radical maverick at best.) Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support you, but I'm afraid Eric may be right. In any event, you are exactly the type of person we need to be an Admin. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think Eric and Greg make valid points. The longer you're here the more enemies you make, and you've been here long enough. I would support you, since I think you have good sense and know what needs to be known. Of course you don't know until you try, but I think one of the things to ask yourself is how many old feuds you have, how many of those editors are still alive (let me know who I need to block two weeks beforehand, so it won't arouse suspicion), how you're doing on Wikipediocracy... Drmies (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked Wikipediocracy, other than a indef blocked user over there calling me an "utter berk" with ownership issues, I've gotten off pretty light. I think it's almost a badge of honor! Montanabw(talk) 03:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well. You asked the question on the talk page of someone I consider a friend and have watchlisted, and I am not blocked, so ...

When people mention GGTF issues about how women are treated in here, I am always reminded that some of those who have consistently behaved the worst in here have been women.

And then your name is one of the three or four that comes to mind.

Should you launch an RFA, I won't be "crawling out of the woodwork to oppose you", but I don't think you have the temperament or the self-awareness, and I am aware of any number of diffs that any number of people could post that show how you routinely treat other people. That you have been able to get away with it the many times those diffs have come to ANI doesn't mean they will pass at RFA-- it's a very different mindset there. I suspect that some of this behavior is so habitual for you that you don't even realize you do it, but diffs are likely to surface in an RFA.

In fact, you are the reason I no longer frequent Eric's talk page; I found the way you speak about and deal with others too hard to be around, and I didn't want others to think I was part of that. Good luck should you launch; you know where I stand, but I won't participate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I'm sorry Sandy--but I can't block you for that. I appreciate your comments. BTW, Montana, whatever you may think of Sandy's comment, the dramah surrounding the GGTF (I had totally forgotten about it) may indeed continue, if indeed you were that outspoken. (I've not been on Eric's talk page much recently, to my own detriment.) Drmies (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, candid comments are why I'm asking publicly. Nothing like a test drive. I guess one is judged not only on the qualities of their friends but also of their detractors. Bring on the diffs! (though before posting, may want to note how many are from now-blocked users and sockpuppets! ) LOL! Montanabw(talk) 04:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've locked horns on one or two infobox wars Montana, but I'd still support you. I think you'd make a good admin and that's what it's about at the end of the day. CassiantoTalk 07:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go for it and find out, and if it doesn't work listen to Short Brigade Harvester Boris, it's not the last judgment, if it is judgment at all. - I often need an admin and have to molest poor Drmies, - missing some others greatly. ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you are inviting comments, I will have to sadly echo this comment above by SandyGeorgia, who I do not know, but the sentiment is painfully true nevertheless: When people mention GGTF issues about how women are treated in here, I am always reminded that some of those who have consistently behaved the worst in here have been women. yes, yes, yes. I shall spare this page the details but I do type from profound personal grief and pain...In addition you have created some vective with your "Duck box" (which I favour, incidentally). Just envision a certain someone currently writing music articles that you targetted and who can rise to lash out and bring all their canvassed friends. You would make a good admin but you should weigh the personal cost to you. Fylbecatulous talk 13:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would advise against, because you definitely have enemies and they would come out. And to be honest, you probably would find being an admin to be not a good experience - you too often want to call out behavior that will get you in trouble as an admin. Snark and calling things like you see them will not make being an admin pleasant. The best admins are not easily ruffled and take things as they see them. Karanacs as opposed to say .. myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am listening to what folks are saying. That said, you haven't discouraged me yet; in fact, I am using this opportunity to see if and how I can respond to fair criticism.  ;-) The admin hat and the user hat are different things. On one hand, WP:INVOLVED exists for a reason and I have already decided that if I do file a RfA, I agree I'll need to be very quick to recuse if a request to do so indicates a possible conflict with a person or topic (lucky for me that 90% of my edits have been to horse articles!) On another hand, it's a very different "me" when I am neutral and not involved, and even when involved, I think my actions at my FAC articles demonstrate how I can keep a much cooler head when I need to. On the (looking around for a third hand...), I think there is a need for admins to call it like it is, I particularly respected the no-nonsense candor that characterized the now-gone grownup admins like User:Lar and User:Dreadstar. Many current people with the mop - like Drmies - and others are also good models. My basic position is that RfA tempts me because I want to support GOOD content editors: Tendentious editors, POV-warriors, bullies and trolls interfere with good content editing. I also dislike dishonesty aimed at gaming the project and making more work for others, rather than improving it; this is a characteristic of the returned users with undisclosed accounts that I have looked at for sockpuppetry - Copyvio and other RL legal issues are things that WP has to be grown-up about. Montanabw(talk) 16:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Just so long as you're prepared for the psychological battering that you'll inevitably receive at RfA, justified or not. I speak from experience when I say that having editors you've never even heard of lining up to say what an immature piece of shit you are can be a little bit difficult to stomach. In my opinion nobody who's been around as long as you can ever hope to get through RfA, but maybe you can prove me wrong. Eric Corbett 17:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe there is definitely a need for admins who have a good grasp on the issues that plague editors who focus on content (which makes my comments somewhat hypocritical since I don't use my bit that much). I think RFA could be a good test for you - if you can keep your cool surrounded by the wave of negative comments, then maybe it's good for you (and if you can't keep calm, best to withdraw). I am pretty difficult to offend, which helps...and I was raised in the South, so I've had significant training in reframing criticism in the most polite manner possible (bless your heart ;) ). But still, I don't operate in a lot of the more difficult areas, because I suspect at some point I'd get fed up and say something stupid. Have a good idea of what you want to do with the bit, which areas you'll work in regularly (if any) or whether you'll just step in occasionally when something needs done. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Karanacs: I do admire your style - and I am impressed with you at the LB case. Brave soul! I admit I'm more prone to engage in cowboy diplomacy and administer justice with a wiki-Smith & Wesson. But I was raised out west. We tell it like it is, then go actually get together and have the beer... (OK, so I don't really like beer, but a good Merlot works too). Montanabw(talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear, do I (unfortunately, now, as opposed to when I was younger) understand that Southern "bless your heart" thingie! It goes along with "We should get together sometime", and then the invite never comes.

OK, well, Montana, since you are still contemplating it, be aware that I really was not at all referring to that big blowup with Nikki and whoever that other editor was. I tend to forget such things, and agree with you that those big sorts of "explosions" often blow over (reminded of the time I called someone a ... <gulp> name ... and we seem to be little worse for the wear today). I was referring to a constant low-level snark and talking about other editors as if they are insignificant or invisible, that undermines work worse than the infrequent frank and straight-up blowup blowout ... you will find out at RFA if others have registered that. Maybe they haven't. I was just pointing out that because editors excuse it at ANI doesn't mean they will excuse the same at RFA: it can be one diff that craters an RFA. Coupled with a tendency that I see for you to set aside principles when Wikifriends are involved ... But again, we do need content admins, and I won't stand in your way. I would ask you to reflect (we all should), and realize that it may not only be people you characterize as "enemies" who show up with diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Sandy. I appreciate your candor and that you are willing to point out what I could run into at RfA. I think it's interesting that you don't see my assorted worst moments as a huge barrier. There have been times here I've damn near wanted to put up the "retired" banner myself because of the cruelty, trolling and other quite horrible behavior I have seen and been subjected to. But there have always been those people - most of them with a mop and usually a good bullwhip to boot, who are able to see the situation with clear eyes and deliver an appropriate blend of justice and mercy. I like those people and I get tempted to seek the mop because I want to be one of those people. But it takes rhino hide and I'm trying to decide if I've grown a thick enough layer. Montanabw(talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've had any adverse encounters with you Montanabw but I've seen you let loose on some new editors that you quickly judged to be socks or troublesome without waiting for much evidence to emerge. While admins have to be decisive, I am a great believer in WP:ROPE, second chances and not biting newbies despite your gut feelings that they might be bad for the project. While there is a dearth of good admins, there are also decreasing number of new editors and I don't like to see new editors discouraged because veteran editors have early on diagnosed them as possible socks and left lots of templates or ominous warnings on their talk page. Admins have to WP:AGF all of the time, be even-tempered and not reactive. I just raise this observation because I think others will in an RfA. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: You might want to work on your AfD participation, especially if you intend to work in that area. 112 votes with a 63% hit rate might not be enough to satisfy some people's RfA criteria. p.s. Am I the only one who sometimes listens to the Twin Peaks soundtrack while reading Drmies' talk page? I find it heightens the sense of melodrama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who sometimes listens to the Twin Peaks soundtrack while reading Drmies' talk page? In the absence of Haffy's decorating, that sounds like an excellent idea. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ninja, could you add the appropriate emoticon to your comment? (grin) I too am a fan of "Twin Peaks" and suddenly I am wondering if I stepped into a surrealistic alternative universe? ("Diane, I'm holding in my hand a small box of chocolate bunnies") Montanabw(talk) 15:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what about when he directly reverts my edits?

[edit]

A few weeks before my IBAN with Catflap08, I removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were attached to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[1][2] Catflap08 the other day reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely directly reverting me is? (He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • My dear Hijiri, I have so little interest in policing anyone's iBan that I couldn't even see that interest if it were on my desk and I had my reading glasses on. It is a shitty job, and not one that necessarily needs to be done on an admin's talk page. Bring this to AN, if it's a big enough issue to bring there (a matter of judgment). Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread review

[edit]

Can you, or any of your page-watchers, review this thread at ANI that I started? It has been languishing at the board with minimal input from "uninvolved" editors/admin. Abecedare (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

l8r,g8r edits

[edit]

Greetings, I saw your commentary about the l8r, g8r page and I have made substantial revisions to the page to make it more neutral in tonality. If you still find it to be biased, feel free to talk to me via my talk page. If it's not too much trouble, please be specific as to the line, phrase or terminology you feel isn't neutral. I'll be happy to find more neutral words. Additionally, you claim that some of my sources aren't reliable. Is there any specific source or sources that you don't find credible? I can check to see if there is a more credible source with the same information. I look forward to your response. Have a great day drmies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadetv1 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cadet, I think you have made great strides with that article. This is good work, and the sources added are quality. This, even if it were alive, doesn't seem to be reliable--scrap that (and tweak the text accordingly) and the "reliable sources" tag can go. But the "background" section still has no relation to this specific book and is thus redundant, and the second part of the "style" section--well, "cultural references" really aren't by themselves a stylistic element, and they are really not worthwhile mentioning, esp. not since they're referenced to the novel, not to a secondary source. (In other words, things matter if reliable sources say they matter.) I've removed a few of the tags: the article is much better than it was, and making it even better shouldn't be too difficult. It's not easy to remove stuff you wrote (or to see it being removed), but if the end result is a better article then it was worth it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

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

I think you already got them, but just in case you haven't. Kurtis (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

l8r,g8r edits

[edit]

I've removed the unreliable source you indicated and added a source that had useful information. I also scrapped the whole background and writing section. Thank you for letting me know how to improve the page! I really appreciate your help!Cadetv1 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spam editing?

[edit]

Hey, could you look at Seculert?--v/r - TP 17:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed site ban for User:MaranoFan. Thank you. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused?

[edit]

Hello, I'm a bit confused as to why you think the "Radio plays and readings of books" section on Andrew Scott's page is irrelevant, and also why you disregarded my linking to his agency? If you scroll down on it there's all of the plays/book readings in the lineup...Am I missing anything? StardustIsEloquent (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I don't know why. WP:RS is an easy answer, as is WP:PROMOTION. Come on. This is an encyclopedia. You can't link to someone's agency, and this is not a depository for resumes. Your actor has done a lot of things, and not all of them need to be listed here. Simple. They're relevant if they're discussed in reliable secondary sources, that's a good rule of thumb. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, you speak as though I should know this, while truthfully I've never edited a Wikipedia page before, so I'm new to all of the rules. Second, that seems a bit of a silly guideline for deciding relevant sources, but that's just me. Also, I wasn't the one to create the section, I simply added the rest. That section has been there for quite a while now, so clearly someone else besides me thought it a good idea to list them. But well, if you're the expert... StardustIsEloquent (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I don't see why anyone would think that an agent's website is a good thing to cite as evidence. Yes, unfortunately there are a lot of bad articles here. If you want to make this one a better article, it's easy: find reliable sources and use those to improve the text of the article. The rest, really, is ancillary and leans on the text. If those reliable sources are found and added they can be used to create a list of "notable" works, the ones that are deemed notable by writers and critics. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Random question

[edit]

I've seen your good admin work for years when I edited anonymously, and I'm sure you earn big money for the job. :) My random question: Is your user name pronounced "Doctor Meez"? Just curious. :) Best. Sundayclose (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Stool Scale, situated at the end of There and Back Again Lane. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've nailed it! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put money on the proposition that knowing the term Bristol Stool Scale is a good proxy for determining gender. OK, so I stuck it in my userbox so I'd remember it in the future. Now, the problem of finding the funny conversation where Drmies brought it up is that he used a piped link, so I still don't know what to search on. I do know I frequently hear things like, "sausage-shaped but lumpy" coming from the euphemism at the other end of the house, and I'm sure the bears in the woods are hearing more than that this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it my civic duty to find the discussion for you Sandy. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now we know you're a guy, because no self-respecting woman would go to such effort to find poop info !!! But that was part 2-- not the original funny-- keep digging. Now here's the really relevant question: since this discussion is decidedly gender-related, what happens if Eric Corbett starts weighing in with his Bristol productions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, my daughter likes a good poop joke. I will dig deeper, if you'll pardon the expression. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
…who's the doctor who travelled through Ireland and Algeria (?) in the late nineteenth century photographing and measuring roadside boluses? I think the record was 12 inches, in Algeria (or Morroco). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That gives me very bad memories of a group project at university where the (asshole) professor paired me (one of only three women in the department) with four Algerians ...and of course, they expected me to go to their house to work on the project. Not. So, found it. I'm reminded I may have never given that barnstar of creativity to Alexbrn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that was a nice trip down memory lane. And I should have thanked Fluffernutter for her kind comment and usual common sense. I'm surprised that so few people were aware of the Bristol chart... Drmies (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Few people realize the significance it, but there was a major movement in the field when that piece was pushed out. Nowadays of course, thousands of that sort of analysis can be done by computer and there are many ways to test for constipation, but at the time, each one had to be worked out with a pencil. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost as puntastic as Dr. Poop! [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big mess at colon clensing? Did you hear the one about the cannibal who passed his brother in the jungle? --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move beyond the Bristol and take this to an entirely different level (sorry Drmies; maybe it's time to archive). Is there a smell scale? That one would separate the men from the boys. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'ave a look at Michelle Hine's artwork "Peristaltic Action". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it <pout>. I see we wasted no time in moving right on to the smelliest fart part. [4] [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I heard they were going to do the fart-detection research at a different Ivy League school, but after realizing all the political wrangling they might have to do in Providence, they pretty much washed their hands of Brown. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Cornell fan and a Stanford fan are standing next to each other at the urinal and finish at about the same time. The Stanford fan walks out while the Cornell fan washes his hands. The Cornell fan yells at the Stanford fan, "Hey, they teach us at Cornell to wash our hands after going to the bathroom." The Stanford fan says, "At The Farm, they teach us not to pee on our hands." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GUNLOVERS and HATERS unite

[edit]

...in beefing up Iron Pipeline so we can get it up at DYK. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made a start on Arrowhead, but I'm out of my depth. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charliesdun

[edit]

Just bringing to your attention that while User:Charliesdun has been deleted, his talk page still remains. Pax 20:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Understood. (Surprised I haven't noticed that before now.) Pax 22:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shiatsu

[edit]

Is this the right place to post a reply? Thank you for your comments which are logical and helpful. However even the smallest changes were rejected - like a link to the Japanese law on shiatsu. I was also told to put the evidence on the Talk page by a Wikimedian I know to counter the fact that any changes were just being rejected outright while editing. Eikoku (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)eikoku[reply]

  • Well, you're responding to me, not to the rest of 'em--and they're the ones you have to deal with. I'm just a cat with a zebra. But sure, you're welcome. Jytdog gets a little gruff but he has to deal with a lot, including old age, which is sad for dogs. I saw that one edit, yes--what happened there is one of two things: either you fell victim to "revert them all", which happens frequently and can be quite unfortunate, or the reverter (was it Yobol?) thought that that source also was unreliable. The easiest way to settle that is to place a note on the talk page arguing for that one single edit. The BOLDer way to do it is to make that one single edit again, with a summary that says "hey this source is reliable" or something like that. In effect, you'd be daring them to revert--whether that's a good tactic right now is doubtful though. Besides, it will only stand if the source is in fact reliable; I can't judge that. I'd take it to the talk page--who knows, if the edit is in fact good, you might even get an apology out of it, or a barnstar with a donut. Good luck with, and be patient with that old dog please: he means well. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were multiple issues with the edit, including the addition of unsourced claim that there is "growing evidence" of the utility of Shiatsu, the removal of sourced information about the lack of existence of qi or meridians, and the addition of material that seems off topic to the article in question (accupressure vs shiatsu). If Eikoku has any specific questions about my objections, I can always elaborate more on the article talk page. Yobol (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yobol, the edit was this one--I don't think such an edit requires talk page consensus, necessarily. Give a little, take a little. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I clearly got overzealous in my reverting. I do not read Japanese, and so will assume Eikoku's reading of the source applies. Apologies for the overzealous revert, Eikoku. I have restored that particular edit. Yobol (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Yobol, it happens: thanks for setting the matter straight. I appreciate it and I'm sure Eikoku does too. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wp:an/i comment

[edit]

Since your comment matched your comment on Wikipediocracy I'm asking that you be investigated as the sockpuppet Henry Bellagnome. If you are you need to be desysoped.Camelbinky (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of The Kinks: "Paranoia, the destroya..." Carrite (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this the part where Bugs Bunny holds up a series of colorfully apt images on placards? Tarc (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From my old friend Camelbinky ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drco

[edit]

Well, I might have to file for a user name change. I got accepted into a PhD program. Drco is here! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty dismal, Drmies. When I was researching it, in the U.S. less than 50% of AbD students--those who had already gone through coursework, language exams, doctoral exams--ended up receiving a Ph.D. It varies a lot according to the discipline and the university. Some programs and institutions are very careful in selecting students and supporting them through the entire process, while others admit large classes and let many of them fall through the cracks or provide no financial support. Students over-borrow $$, have to get jobs, get married, life happens and the dissertation never gets completed. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is, quite frankly, terrifying to think about. And then there are those people whose advisers/promoters end up changing universities, and they get stuck, and... ick. No, I will not be a statistic! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Crisco 1492, because you were accepted, they believe you have the right stuff to get the work done. The most important factor I saw that made the difference between students who finished and those that didn't were having the right adviser, a professor whose students have successfully finished the program and are out teaching or researching.
I chose unwisely, someone I got along with, and that was less important than having a faculty member who was successful at getting grants, cowriting articles with their students, regularly publish books and articles and is willing to mentor you. Unless you are working on some scientific team project, doctoral work is very isolating and the more people you have on your side who a) believe in you and b) care enough to be honest and blunt enough to tell you when you are off the mark, the more likelihood you have of finishing. It's nice if you have a emotionally supportive relationship but I've seen grad students who continuously fought with their adviser finish their dissertation. It's the fact that they were both invested in getting the project completed, even through the rough spots, that allowed them to work out their differences and get the dissertation approved. And really, when comes down to your dissertation, it's not a matter of setting the world on fire but having three or four academics be satisfied that you've done a good enough job. Those are the people you are writing to. Once you graduate and go out in the world, you can then write the books that YOU want to write. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I'll probably contact a couple people I know who are active in the field (Ekky Imanjaya may help, and Krishna Sen from the University of Western Australia also comes to mind) and see if they'd be willing to have a look. One note, though: in Indonesia generally the doctoral students have to defend their dissertation not only in front of a panel of three or four academics, but also in a general seminar. Fortunately I'm kinda used to speaking in public, and I've already discussed my proposal in a forum once before. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You kinda sound like you already know what you wrote before you write it, haha. My director was very, very hands-off (but he has a WP article, so that's something). If he had been more hands-on I might have spent a lot less time drinking in grad school. I suppose I graduated despite a complete lack of involvement from my director, my committee, and my department. I think we handed out five Ph.D.s that year; all of us got jobs and the ones whose names I remember still have jobs (and tenure). Yes, Liz, 50% is what I've heard too, but I have little doubt that ole Crisco will start and finish. We all know already he can write. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The war on quality

[edit]

Hello Drmies. Trust you are well. I realise you've long since washed your hands of me and the business of people reverting for no reason. This is just a question borne of curiosity. What would you do if someone undid an edit of yours that corrected numerous serious factual errors, and said previous version is correct? What about if someone restored spelling mistakes, grammar errors and obviously unencyclopaedic material, and said "rvt to last clean version"? I think that's extremely dishonest, immature and destructive, nothing more than a deliberate and provocative attempt to compromise the quality of the encyclopaedia. I wonder if you agree, and what action you'd take if it happened to you? 186.9.132.118 (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, real quick, I did not wash my hands of you. Perhaps more later--it's Clitoris Awareness Week and lunchtime. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page stalker speaking here. In a situation like this, I would explain my concerns and make my case on the article's talk page. I see no discussion there since August 9, 2011. Why not try that route first? By the way, are you editing as an IP to evade a block, or as a matter of principle? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: They're evading [9] --NeilN talk to me 04:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that I could say that I am shocked, NeilN, but somehow I am not. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I edit from an IP because that's what I've always done. Turns out people hate that really quite a lot. Any ideas why? 186.9.133.234 (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hate is a very strong word and I might substitute "distrust". Maybe it is because one specific IP editor (namely you) does not discuss matters on the article's talk page. Maybe it is because a couple of IP accounts (probably both you) engage in vigorous edit warring. Perhaps it is because IP editing makes it very difficult to keep track of the contributions of a single person. Possibly it is because experienced editors observe massive amounts of disruption and block evasion by IP editors. On the other hand, a certain percentage of IP edits are benign and productive, so we should always try to assume good faith. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

next

[edit]

Sorry for the delay, I will try to finish up the Loes article this coming week. My book arrived for the Dexter church, and I'll work on that next ... as time permits. I got infected by a terrible disease ... " reallifeicus interuptus". I am seeking meds to help with that. Feel free to roll out the Loes article without me if you wish. I'll catch up down the road. Best — Ched :  ?  05:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weeeeell, Cullen, isn't that special. Did they let you run a tab? Hey, I got a fun DYK factoid for you: Did You Know that Drmies and the Hitachi Magic Wand were born in the same year, and ... ? Feel free to finish that line; I know I shouldn't. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

←Oh and one more ... have warranties that only apply to manufacturer defects. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they always expected either cash or a credit card, Drmies. (Don't the rest of you have something better to do on Mother's Day?) That was before the days of debit cards. As for your factoid, I could now figure out how old you are if I wanted to. However, I already know that you are old, but nowhere near as old as me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now I notice that "the rest of you" is just one joker. You know, kelapstick, late night talk show hosts pay good money for that kind of stuff. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the comedy scouts don't surf Wikipedia talk pages, which is unfortunate, because... wait for it, ...are not dishwasher safe? --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K-pop members section, again

[edit]

So sorry to bring this up again, but I've run into another potential problem on Oh My Girl. As a result of all our previous discussions on this topic, K-pop group members sections have been in two formats: a simple list of names and positions (e.g. Infinite (band)#Members) and short biographies (e.g. Apink#Members). I thought this was a good compromise. The problem is, if I remove the birth dates from the list on Oh My Girl I can almost guarantee there will be an edit war. I don't think it makes sense to allow birth dates in some members lists, and not in others. Any advice/thoughts? Random86 (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a thought--I see no reason whatsoever to include birthdates in any such lists. These people are supposed to be artists/musicians/whatever. An instrument, a vocal range, that's acceptable, but birthdate/favorite pet/color are simply not acceptable. Good luck with it, though--it's an uphill battle. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see what you mean: it was Moscow Connection again. Funny, I thought a year ago that they were making progress, away from fan page and toward encyclopedia. You should look at Z no Chikai, for the hell of it: it actually has no information besides alternate tracks and what image is on the back cover and where it charted. No text, no nothing, except for this one funny note--the band members couldn't sing the English words so they got them in katakana (and this is sourced to...drum roll... Anime News Network). Drmies (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A) It's not just me [10]. You see, I don't want to get into any fights. Why wouldn't you allow the K-pop articles to list birth dates? (And in the forelinked article, there are positions, too. Everything is sourced. And in the Oh My Girl article, everything is sourced too. These are, like, perfect articles where everything is sourced. Why can't we just leave them as they are now and be happy? No rules are broken.)
      I really, really don't know what to do. If it were a real world, I would just ask you and Dr.K. to allow this. Cause you see, it's important information. Wikipedia articles would lose a lot without it... We need to make the articles useful.
      B) I wasn't the one who wrote the article "Z no Chikai". And there's enough info available. I can easily add some stuff about the music video, I actually have it ready in Japanese, but I'm currently thinking about something else. (And I really have other articles to worry about when I return. I can't do everything for everybody.) (And I actually think that even if I never touch the article again, someone will expand it sooner or later. I didn't even touch it [except for the charts], and it's already a nice stub.)
      Here. Some quotes from reliable sources about the music video.
      1. [11] ("このたび解禁となったミュージックビデオは「ドラゴンボール」の世界観をモチーフとして制作されており、フリーザ衣装とは別の、それぞれZ戦士バージョンの衣装やヘアメイクにメンバーが身を包んでいる「ももクロ」の姿が。衣装だけでなく、「ドラゴンボール」の決め技を髣髴とさせるメンバーの動きや、バックのセットなどにも注目してみてほしい。ショートバージョンではワンコーラス分のミュージックビデオを見ることができる。")
      2. [12] ("トレーラーには『ドラゴンボール』の世界観を表現した場面や衣装がふんだんに使われた。先日公開されて話題となったフリーザの衣装とは違い、孫悟空やベジータ―、ピッコロ、トランクスに鶴仙人といったキャラクターの衣装がモチーフとなっている。しかしメンバーの個性もよく出たファッションやメイクとなった。ヘアメイクは『ジョジョの奇妙な冒険』や『テラフォーマーズ』のメイクで話題となった原田忠さんが担当している。")
      What they are wearing in the video, who worked on their makeup, etc., it all can be easily added to the article.
      C) I think that we have a similar situation with some K-pop singles that have been redirected to albums. They are easily expandable by people why speak a bit of Korean and who actually care enough to spend a few hours on each. And instead, they were redirected. And now they will never be expanded. How can someone be happy about this? --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a website [13]. (By the way, it is considered reliable in the Russian Wikipedia. Since it's not a blog, they have paid editors AFAIK, and they mostly just translate/retell articles from reliable Japanese sources and put a link to the original. (A latest example [14].) I guess people use it as a source cause they can't read Japanese and can't find the same info in Japanese. I remember at least one time when I used it here in the English Wikipedia as well.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to look at the Anime News Network references in "Z no Chikai" that Drmies mentioned. Here: 1, 2, 3. All three link to the original news articles in Japanese. (Eiga.com (ja), Natalie, and Mantan Web.) The sources are reliable, no problem here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anime News Network (ANN) is an anime industry news website that..." ← I somehow forgot I could just link the Wikipedia article about it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that cruft is very entertaining to some people. Please have fun with it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, Moscow, what is Economy Today, which you think is a reliable source for that Crayon Pop article? It presents a video clip, on Autoplay, with minute single-sentence paragraphs underneath (like a typical K-pop portal page), and at the bottom of the page I see ads for pages like this--my untrained eye would call that porn, and my novice brain would say that's not typically what reliable sources/decent print media would link to. But perhaps you young people think that's OK. Now, your Oh My Girl article (OMG! how clever!), those birthdates were sourced to their own website. In which Wikipedian universe does that count as a reliable source? (I'll link it for your benefit: WP:RS. It even lists their fucking blood types-- you want to add that? No, in a business where youth is marketable, the company website is not an acceptable source for really any kind of information.

That you say that such articles where "everything is sourced" are "like, perfect articles" means you haven't looked at any decent articles. You want a perfect article? California_State_Route_57 is on the front page today, and I don't even care for highways. The articles you mention here are nothing but lists of factoids, and they are as informative as the company websites. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, the birthdates on Crayon Pop used to be sourced to their own website. The Economy Today thing was my attempt (not MC's) at finding an alternate source, and I know it's doesn't look very good. Setting aside whether birth dates should be in group articles or not, if company websites are actually unreliable for this info, even the members who are independently notable with their own articles possibly couldn't have birthdates in their biography. By the way, I brought this up at WP:RSN before and it didn't get much response but several people there thought the official websites could be used. Everyone at WikiProject Korea thought it was fine as well, not that means anything to you but I thought I'd mention it. I personally think birthdates clutter up a simple list, but are fine in short biographies like at Apink, which you were fine with when Shinyang-i asked you about it. Random86 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, nothing personal, Random (about the Economy Today thing)--but at least you try. I don't think that the company website is ever acceptable for something like this. Now, if a whole bunch of stuff gets condensed to a name and a date of birth, I suppose I could live with that more easily than I could with a bunch of stuff--but it's a compromise. One of the articles linked above had short paragraphs. I guess that's OK--they weren't terribly written and seemed to have some decent content and sources to them. Yeah, where is good old Shinyang... Drmies (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shinyang-i hasn't been seen since this happened. One reason I like the short biographies format is it eliminates some of the tables people like to add (e.g. filmography/discography tables with things the members did individually, not as part of the group). It's kind of like List of One Direction members, which used to be part of the One Direction article before it got too long. The prose format also provides a way for the member's acting roles and whatnot to be mentioned without creating a new article for someone who isn't quite notable enough for that. That reminds me, there are more articles on non-notable K-pop members that I haven't gotten around to AFD'ing. Random86 (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am replying here due to Moscow's ping just to let you know I'm on vacation. I'll drop in and out but not for long. Regarding this topic I support Drmies's position but I will also follow any new consensus that may arise. Best regards to all. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

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

— Confession0791 talk

  • Confession0791, they're not the most polite editor around--they may be worse than me--but I don't see anything that warrants action--though I do remember having taken issue with them before, maybe on ANI or so. If it really gets out of hand, warn them or take it to ANI... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That stupid pingie thingie

[edit]

It has been brought to my attention that the pings here did not work. Somewhere, sometime, I saw you mention something about not having evidence about one or the other current editors of dubious distinction being Mattisse, so I pinged you to the evidence. Next time, you could ask Laser or me :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe for the ping to work, the ping has to be in an edit that also contains your signature. For example, adding in a ping to an editor to an already written paragraph won't notify them that they have been mentioned. This has happened to me more than once, SandyGeorgia. Liz Read! Talk! 15:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in this case, the problem was that the sig is automatically added by the stupid SPI-making-page. Just for others to be aware. I would have needed to file the SPI first, let it autosign for me, and then separately add a post to ping people in. But I didn't want to bring undue attention to the matter, and waited for it to close to ask if the pingie thingies had worked. Thanks, Liz ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

[edit]

I saw that you thanked me for my edit in February! Anyways, I'm back for a bit, hope you, the wife, the dog, and the kids have all been doing good and you aren't sulking about the performance of your football team yet. —SpacemanSpiff 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chauntry Cup

[edit]

Thank you for indeffing User:Dartman1001- their previous account User:LichfieldCC was softblocked for username violation a week ago, and at that point I'd ecpected them to be indeffed- they're clearly here to promote their non-notable cup, and have spent all week not listening to anyone else and using hundreds of annoying, wrong arguments like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "This is interesting, so shouldn't be deleted". Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff said...

[edit]

Wow, never expected that, but wow... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, does that mean there's something juicy at ANI.... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, hardly--but there is "stuff"... Are you saying you didn't expect that wealth of evidence? Drmies (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Amount", yes, but not your participation. I wasn't sure I should present anything until the answer to my Clerk request on the Evidence Talk page was effectively, "You can present this as evidence". Plus, going by the email I have received, if it was sent for no other reason than to vent about LB, is any indication of the backlash, there will be more entries on the Evidence page unless people feel that it's already been said. I just hope that I don't go down in the annals of Wikipedia history as LBs sidekick.... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to think of the whole thing. Why does this have to be an ArbCom case? Back in the good old days...*belch*...insert comment containing "hell" and "handbasket"... Drmies (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've learned that whether its a conscious one or not, people choose what they want to be upset about based on their lives and how they feel they've been treated. We're seeing the effect of that play out in yet another formal proceeding. Like several of the Arbitrators said, this was inevitable, and the effects will likely ripple out afterwards as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone on the arb case creation page commented that it would be nicer to LB to just ban her outright, since that decision could be more easily appealed than something from arbcom. I fear that any result other than LBs vindication though is going to end up getting blogged around as another example of how sexist wikipedia is. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to poke my nose in...one of the reasons that I chose to bring the case was because I knew it was going to get brought soon, one way or the other (the events of the last 24 hours are, IMO, the death knell to her editing career) and I'm female. I think it would have been much easier all around if an indef block had been handed out, but the thought of taking this to AN instead made my stomach hurt. Given what we're seeing here, I can only imagine the levels of accusations that would have been spewn there. As painful as this is, I think it's much less so than what would have become a free-for-all. I am seriously shaking my head over all of this - I never imagined she'd reach for the rope in quite that enthusiastic a fashion. Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary. So, you're a woman too??? What is this world coming to...I clearly need to rethink my gender. In fact, I found the right word for it, but none of my students (except for the transgendered one) had any idea what I was talking about. Karanacs, you probably have a point about procedure. This is always going to be messy, I suppose. I don't know what happened the last 24 hours and I really don't want to look into it. But I did shorten my statement, which logically means she'll have to shorten hers, which means that at some point we all get to take a nap. Oh if I could go back in time four years and take a nap with little Rosie, in the sunny bedroom in our old house... (she's all grown up and got another 100% on an AR test, for the book Frog on a Log.) Drmies (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy this stage too - in four more years she'll be scoring perfectly on AR tests for Dork Diaries (where she'll learn all about Truth or Dare) and need a training bra and you'll wonder where the cute little girl went... Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Drmies (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is "spewn" a word? Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Past participle? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Five centuries ago, maybe :-) .... Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
Beer is the world's most widely consumed and probably oldest alcoholic beverage. It is the third most popular drink after water and tea. Nobody (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our dogs

[edit]
Dogs at Halloween
 Our dogs last Halloween
Waiting for their Halloween treats! Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

User:Dougweller like your dogs. I love animals but dogs and horses have to be my favorites. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bark, sing, - I received a rose, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lion126

[edit]

I've been working hard on this user's talk page as I am sure you will see. You blocked them yesterday for making legal threats. They have one failed unblock request, but may be getting towards understanding the issues concerned. They have tried to attract your attention in order to determine better what they did wrong. I'm not sure if it was a successful attempt, so I am making a request on their behalf that you visit their talk page and consider their question. Fiddle Faddle 20:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I may have missed something. I'll get on it after I get the kids and all that. Thanks, and thanks for your advocacy. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is still some progress to be made before a resolution is in prospect, but I am seeing a willingness to move towards it. I hate to lose an editor this early in their career when they infringe the rules for what might be termed 'the wrong reasons'. I think you will need a sensitive touch. You might begin by looking at the talk page history, much of it blanked, to determine the progress he and I have made together. Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atta boy !!!

[edit]

Taking on my most unfavorite steaming pile of Bristol, are ya? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you know. Edits such as this one with its dismissive edit summary, yeah. You have a lot of edits in that article. Ms. GA. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All in my early naive years ... I gave up on it YEARS ago. It is well and seriously owned, nothing sticks, no desire for real improvement, and although it has been massively POV since, forever, you can't even make a POV tag stick because of the ownership. And then Midnight somebody or another bloated it up even further with bad writing and more POV about three years ago. The whole thing is a steaming pile of puke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little help?

[edit]

Hey, Doc. I've got a vandalism-only IP who is inserting intentionally false information into college sports articles: [15]. I'll leave a warning on his talk page. Can you deal with this? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • ANI 2.0, eh? Perhaps it's just bad timing, but whenever I have listed something at WP:AIV, my report has languished for days while the malefactors have continued their steak of vandalism. I'll take the Doctor's ANI 2.0 talk page stalkers over that sort of response any time. Of course, the most effective way to deal with on-wiki vandalism is to respond to it quickly, whether with a warning or otherwise. Inaction only emboldens the miscreants to do further damage. A lot of this seems to be about testing the system. No response? Then up the ante until someone does respond. Unfortunately, there are whole swathes of wiki backwater that are rarely patrolled and constitute the Devil's playground for the "humorous" insertion of false information. If the automated systems don't detect it, it may be months or even years before someone notices and corrects it. Heck, I recently discovered a BLP article for a Canadian Olympic swimmer who did not exist, where the vandal/prankster had changed various world record and medals table articles to link to the BLP hoax article, and over a month elapsed before I wandered by working on Canadian Olympic swimmer infoboxes. If I had not been checking infobox data against Sports-Reference.com, the hoax article would still be there two months after its creation. Our automated anti-vandalism systems are not even close to 100% effective, and I'm left to wonder if anyone still does New Page Patrol. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, there's plenty of patrolling being done, both good and bad--just edit as an IP for a while and you'll see. Lots of stuff flies under the radar, though, and I accidentally (sort of) ran into this--a total puff piece which had been up for years. BTW, I really, really appreciate all the help these good people are giving me and the visitors to this happy place: you all are great. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karla F.C. Holloway

[edit]

Hi. I took the opportunity to restore some of the text you deleted, albeit with some caveats and tweaks. Please take to the talk page for discussion. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

[edit]

in case you don't notice it. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Grundmann

[edit]

I won't pick bones, but ask for some help to get out of the terrible territory. OK, if I am not being blocked indefinitely. Serten 01:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Álvaro Morata

[edit]

Can you please unprotect (or at least semi-protect) this article? I'd like to make some minor adjustments. If it's not possible, I totally understand, I'm as thick as they come as far as guidelines are concerned.

Cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No can do; it is in fact semi-protected for what appears to be a very good reason--the usual footy assholery. Gilliam is the one who protected it and I can't disagree. You could always log in, VASCO... Drmies (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydokey, i'll wait. Respect for Gilliam :) --84.90.219.128 (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Prieto

[edit]

This article on a Venezuelan singer/rapper is exactly one sentence long plus a lengthy redlink discography. The discography has been vandalized so many times I can't even tell what's correct and what's vandalism (especially since my Spanish is modest at best). Can you or someone else figure out what to do with the article? If it is to be kept, and the full discography kept as well, someone should probably check the discography against a reliable source and then institute some major protection from the continued vandalism. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can do what I typically do... There's a few things we can do. Find some Spanish speaking editors (Kelapstick got a C in ESP 102), put it up at AfD, place a note on BLPN... but last time I made three hundred edits on your behalf you said "ah don't bother I'd rather play with the cat" (or the dog?), so I'll leave the forum posts to you. :) Drmies (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, watch those aspersions! I had to shampoo my hair that day, not play with a pet! Plus I never axed you to do all that. I'm inclined to AfD the article. That would at least get some eyes on it and possibly clear up (some of) the vandalism. Although the cat has a goodly number of followers on Twitter [17] and Facebook [18], his official site is long defunct [19]. Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, then change it--EL allows for one, and I personally don't care which one: I always leave the top link. I'll give you my haircut and you'll never have to shampoo again... Drmies (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
High gloss carnuba wax polish job required. On some days, outdoors, you can see sunspots in the reflections. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Murphy

[edit]

Hi,

There's plenty stuff out there in the point that Mr Murphy is chameleon in his political views. I was about to add this as a source but you appear to feel differently (going by the edit you have removed).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/alancochrane/11372609/Will-the-real-Jim-Murphy-please-stand-up.html

How do you recommend the point is made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.202.7.138 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a opinion piece, from the Telegraph, claiming that Murphy used to be a Blairite, but is now trying to appear left-wing. It was written pre-election, in a rightwing newspaper. The Murphy article's not very good, and given his current reputation, not likely to get any better until he fades from view. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. You just can't treat Wikipedia as if it were an editorial page. Besides, is it that important to record every single thing in the world? Drmies (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got this toenail problem. It has to do with accidentally kicking the wire cage of an electric fan during a trip to the toilet in the middle of a very hot night, 25 years ago. I can upload photos to Commons, proving the whole thing. Can I write an article about it? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being from the country concerned, what 121.202.7.13 writes about Murphy trying to wash his hands of his Blairite past is essentially true. But to use the Telegraph as a source is not acceptable. There will be better and neutral sources that state the same. And it IS an important piece of content, his claimed and actual political identity and allegiance was a crucial part of the Scottish electorate's response to his leadership and to the Scottish Labour Party. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel and assorted fun

[edit]
Enough already. I'm being oppressed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My use of R5 in cases of block evasion has been upheld no fewer than four times now. Persistent and unrepentant block evasion is most certainly a valid reason for revision deletion. What was your policy-based motivation of undoing it?—Kww(talk) 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would love to see a link to that discussion/consensus, Kww. I suspect you're going with Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#REASON item 1, and then point to G5, and I'd point out that we are not mandated to revdelete such material, and that we should have some common sense, some judgment. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen at least two discussions at AN in as many months. Don't recall the outcome, but there have been discussions. --kelapstick(on the run) 20:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly G5 isn't mandatory, but the deletion is certainly permissible under G5. I am using judgment: in my judgement, this user will not stop evading his block in response to the standard procedure of reverting all of his edits. I would ask you not to interfere.
There's not widespread excited endorsement, but anyone that analyzes the policy comes to the conclusion that my revision deletes are within bounds. Please don't undo them in the future.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd how that "anyone" does not seem to include me. Your revdels are silly, vindictive, petty, ... shall I go on? Yes, I think you are abusing the policy and I think you got lucky. I note that there's plenty of editors and admins who have problems with your "overkill", Mike V and Yunshui among them. "Permissible" is a stretch already and by going above and beyond your call of duty you're not doing anything helpful to improve the project. Tell you what, next time I would (that's your grammar I'm borrowing) just copy and paste the improved text after you did your knight in shining armor thing by revdeleting decent prose, and paste it back in. In which case you can always claim I'm editing by proxy, I suppose--well, go for my bit then. In the meantime, I would hope you have something better to do, but that's a vain hope, I know. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know the case being discussed here, but have seem similar issues. There is no good procedure—deleting edits removes the incentive for banned users to persist but meets opposition from those who value edits over editors. The problem with keeping edits is that it is then impossible to ban known troublemakers who are capable of making some good edits. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a middle ground, though--reverting edits without revdeleting them, and blocking/protecting as necessary. After all, the banned person knows what they wrote, and can always retype it; revdel is simply an inconvenience to them, at the cost of dropping the edit down the proverbial memory hole for everyone else. Blanket reversion is one thing, but I don't really see what purpose revdel serves; it would seem to be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that despite objecting, you've proposed no alternative that shows any promise of getting this editor to actually stop evading his blocks. Use all the adjectives you want, but ignoring his block evasion certainly doesn't seem to encourage him to stop.—Kww(talk) 05:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er... just to make my position clear, Drmies, I'm pretty sure I said I thought Kww's edits were not an abuse of the RevDel policy. I think they're unnecessary, sure, but I don't "have problems" with them as such. Yunshui 雲水 06:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yunshui, it seems to me that unnecessary use of revdel is problematic in the first place, but apparently we differ on when "unnecessary" becomes "problematic". I was taught to be very reticent in the use of revdel. I didn't say you thought it was an abuse, but to read that (first) discussion and say "all is swell", well, that's impossible. Kww, if you really think that your use of revdel is discouraging the IP editor from editing here, well, you're mistaken, as the facts seem to prove. Also, I do believe that TPG allows me to tweak a heading on my own talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very reticent in my use of it: I only apply it to block evaders that persist in evading their blocks after extensive periods of RBI. No one has yet proposed an alternative aside from simply tolerating the evasion.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin, there may not be an alternative, but revdeleting, whether it's proper or not, is clearly not helping. We had a similar case a few years ago, can't remember the name--I think it was an indef-blocked account that then started socking/IP socking--who kept coming back making decent edits. There was some tacit agreement among editors and admins (I'm not sure if this was ever on ANI or whatever) that their good edits should simply remain, that there was no point in reverting since a. it did not deter the editor and b. it did not improve the encyclopedia. If my laissez faire attitude is called "enabling", the strict method which you employ, well, I don't have a one-word descriptor for it, but you have to agree that it is not deterring the editor. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which banned editor are we talking about here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing to me that an arbitrator can apparently not understand the revision deletion policy. Kww's actions are clearly in violation of it. The policy says:
Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal - nothing that Kww has deleted has been in any way offensive, let alone grossly so. There is significant dissent about these deletions.
RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or claims of editorial misconduct. (bold from original) There was not even a consensus to undo my edits, let alone delete them.
If deletion is needed, only redact what is necessary (i.e. leave non-harmful fields visible - Kww has deleted all fields. The harm of my IP address is particularly difficult to perceive.
When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons - Kww has restored blatant policy violations to the encyclopaedia. See in particular Alex Lowe for probably the worst example.
Furthermore, he has taken to deleting edits made when I was subject to no block at all. I'd like to see his justification for those. And I'd like to know User:Yunshui, why you don't have a problem with these obvious policy violations. Are you actually familiar with the policy?
Kww's stated intention is to get rid of me, without heed to the quality of the encyclopaedia. He has claimed that his abuse of revision delete might deter me from editing. Rest assured, it doesn't. The sight of people debasing themselves by restoring abysmal nonsense at SN 2003fg, wilderness hut, Alex Lowe and so many other places only makes me more determined to improve the encyclopaedia. Kww's vandalistic and childish behaviour disgusts me. I've got a long memory and a lot of patience, and I will not let his destructive edits stand. 186.9.133.205 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my giddy aunt. Just looked at Alex Lowe - I restored the IP's edit along with removing a bit more flowery language, and have put a well-deserved {{fanpov}} tag at the top of the article. I would also point out there are only five sources in the article, and that the BLP policy states quite clearly, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". Alright, many of you may not think 1999 is "recently deceased" enough for BLP, but the core policies of neutrality and verifiability don't magically disappear when you snuff it. As they say up north, "think on". (Gosh, I sound annoyed, but if your youngest son had just smashed a Denby Pottery bowl on the floor after being told to be careful at least three times, you would be too!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are we to think of an editor who created and enthusiastically maintains an attack page to encourage and coordinate pointless reverts of my edits, and then purports to feel annoyed at the very result they were aiming for? 186.9.130.0 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are a grandmother. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a worthwhile contribution. You must be very proud of it. 186.9.134.120 (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am. I like being hectored, and told what to think.Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each to their own I guess. 186.9.134.120 19:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I shall try to be clear.

[edit]

Please, let me be very clear. I have not suggested Paluzzi was a member of the Abstract Expressionism Movement. What I have suggested is that his work in the late ‘50s and early 60s was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. I received this suggestion from a professor of Art History at the school from which Paluzzi received his two degrees. What I also suggested was that per edits by JNW there are no published references as to Wilke, Wols or Zao Wou Ki being part of the Abstract Expressionism Movement or that their work was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. I also suggested that Modernist contradicted himself by deleting Romul Nutiu for not being an American when there are a number of non-Americans on that list. I hope to continue making positive comments and hope others will also add to these discussions. Sirswindon (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't need me to set the record straight, Drmies, but others will read this as well, and I don't mind aiding the above user's quest for clarity. The user did initially insist on Paluzzi's prominence as an Abstract expressionist [20], [21]. When rebuffed by several editors, he went after other artists listed in the article as a rationale for restoring Paluzzi [22]. In fact, most of the artists he's mentioned are easily confirmed as appropriate to the topic; see, for instance, here [23]. Now he's rolled out a few more: Wilke [24]; Zao Wou Ki [25]; Wols [26]. To say that there are no references to a connection to Abstract expressionism is untrue--saying that my example is merely being followed only continues the WP:POINTY crap. As I've stated elsewhere, this is a witch hunt that began as soon as Paluzzi was removed from the Ae article, and has now extended beyond article talk pages, to the report I've filed, and, finally, to the pages of three administrators. Hope you're very well...all the best, JNW (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's all good, JNW. I'm just sitting here waiting to be revdeleted into oblivion. In the meantime I shall give Sirswindon here some of my very divided attention whenever necessary. Hope you and yours are well--you must be snow-free by now, no? Drmies (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's beautiful here, though we need a bit of rain--all that endless snow and now we're dry. Writing up a storm for publication, teaching and painting, letting the dogs in and out of the house (canine valet is my new career description). I hope you're having a great year. JNW (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me with this

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tiptoethrutheminefield

I am so disgusted at the moment that I can't produce a clear and polite argument, and even if I could, I would find it impossible to withdraw the "cretin" and "insane" characterization since I can conceive of no other explanation. What next - some Wikipedia clerk "discovering" that Hitler and Churchill were actually the same person since they seemed to be editing in the same world war? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouild have read thrice on the SPI page before posting on it! The clerk ommitted an essential "a" from his comment so I read it as him saying I was Why Should I have a User Name. But his comment about a connection between me (in Britain) and many anon IP editors thoughout Turkey is still insane - and also I don't know how to defend against it since it is so insane! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope the awesomely wise Vanjagenije reads my response and enlightens the world about how brilliant I too am by explaining how I did it. I hope the closing admin also takes my advice that a short block is completely unsatisfactory and that I might as well be banned for life. I have no ability to obey any block (there will be many more posts from those IP addresses) and so I will be eventually banned anyway. The perfection incarnate that all administrators have will never admit to there being an error by Vanjagenije or an error in imposing the Vanjagenije recommended short block, so I will simply be a recipient of ever heavier blocks as anonymous posts continue to be made using those IP addresses in Turkey. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for your help because of what you wrote here [27] "that socking charge is a bit silly; nothing indicates that these are the same person and the language they use suggests they are quite different."
Actually, being accused of being a Turk by an extremist Armenian is perhaps the finest praise possible. It is as "absolute" as absolute proof can ever be that you are in the right in whatever aspect of Armenian history or contemporary Armenian affairs you are discussing. It works the other way too (when extremist Turks accuse you of being Armenian). I'm going to get some amusement from it, as well as hard evidence that it happens, when I am permanently blocked. So something good will come of it. I don't think most people will understand it is also to do with the idiocy tinged with sadism found amongst those that run Wikipedia, so I'll leave that out of the anecdote. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkMonitor

[edit]

There is a debate here regarding the recent addition of a paragraph that relies exclusively on primary sources from advocacy organizations and whether this is an acceptable use of primary sources. A couple editors including myself have argued that this is an inappropriate use of primary sources to create an original analysis, whereas naturally the editor adding the material feels it is an acceptable use of primary sources. Was wondering if you could take a look. I have a WP:COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Flipora

[edit]

@Drmies:: You had put an end to vandalism on the Flipora page last month, wherein negative adversarial content was written by citing poor sources, or writing negative things that no source contained. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flipora&diff=646421998&oldid=646421689 and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haminoon#Flipora and: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flipora&diff=646421689&oldid=646421500

It turns out that Haminoon is at it again with Ekips39, both confirmed editors, despite lots of material on the talk page on problems with the negative text written (which isn't even cited by references) and numerous problems with references themselves. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flipora#Request_for_reversion_to_the_last_clean_version_free_of_negative_connotations.3B_no_opinion_of_delete_or_keep.3D

Last time, the disruptive editing stopped only when you stepped in. I request you to do the same this time as well and restore this last clean version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flipora&diff=660706263&oldid=660696651

This kind of maligning and ignoring of the talk page is definitely against the spirit of wikipedia. Also, please make a call on whether you'd like to delete this page for reasons of non-sustained notability. If you decide to keep the page, I request cleaning it up by restoring this version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flipora&diff=660706263&oldid=660696651 and then fully-protecting it, since autoconfirmed users are engaging in disruptive edits now.

  • That AfD was an easy close. I see nothing worthwhile on the talk page deciding on content one way or another. Y'all have a content dispute--talk it out, or find some other means of conflict resolution. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luke, with al the edit warring I lost track of who is who's sock, and I kind of lost interest, particularly since it's such a little (nonsense) article... Drmies (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation poem

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I notice you created this "quick stub" two years ago and have not returned to it. It contains no citations to support the contention that Wordsworth was a joint creator of the genre with Coleridge and I can't find a valid reference. I didn't want to nominate it for deletion before consulting with you. Apart from the lack of citation, it comes close to the article on Conversation poems, which I would have thought could have been used to include the Wordsworthian examples of what appears to be an extremely limited genre. Could we discuss the question? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mzilikazi1939, I don't understand the question nor do I understand your edits. You added a cn tag, even though the statement was clearly verified by this source, thus rendering your OR tag invalid also. And then you say that no Wordsworth etc., even though that very source--I don't know, maybe you didn't have access to it?--says "A major contribution of Coleridge and Wordsworth to English lyric poetry is the 'Conversation Poem'".... So there was no lack in citations, there was a clear reference to Wordsworth's contributions, there was no original research. And how do you not see that Conversation poems is an article about a group of poems and Conversation poem an article about a genre, limited though it may be? Drmies (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newly identified"? That's original research. "Proper citation"? Stephen Charles Gill's edition of the Prelude, published by Cambridge, is not proper enough for you? Drmies (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I put the wrong search definitions into Google and have learnt better later. But meanwhile I wrote to one of the first people to float the idea of the new genre, Lucy Newlyn in a book published 1986. That's 'newly identified' in my book. You'll have noticed by now, I hope, that I removed the template and added another reference. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note (from glancing at "What links here"): The term/article Conversation poem should at least be mentioned and linked on the article on the collection that gave them their name, Conversation poems, but it currently isn't. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure what the most apt wording/placement is (not being an expert on the matter). Could simply be a See Also, but I think it best that it be a mention in the lede that the poems more or less spawned a bit of a genre which includes some of Wordsworth's and others' poems. Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFA.

[edit]

Please don't badger opposers of an RFA candidate whom you had nommed. You do know better than that. I won't check back here to read or respond to abusive posts by your TPS'ers. However, I will say that the way you all treat new users such as Nick would frighten a new user from ever wanting to edit on the project or run for an RFA because of the way you treat the voters. Please always AGF. Regards. Vendetta Mack (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Looks like a duck to me. Blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear talk page stalkers of WP:AN/D: go vote

[edit]

Hi all, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people are likely going to make some significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathuram Godse

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I was rather curious about this edit for yours. Is there a history there that I'm not seeing? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wussup, dottore?

[edit]

Wikilove! Roberta Benigni (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

[edit]

Call me overly cautious but I am worried by this edit. It gives me the idea of paid editing without declaring it. Another possibility is that the editor just don't have a clue. What do you think? And where do I have to go to officially file my concern when there is really something to worry about? The Banner talk 10:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss Earth article is well dodgy- "The 24 year old model and former finance specialist, then sporting a blonde hair, appeared to have her hands covering her private parts and did a double breast exposure". And so on. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is a lot of advertising, several sockfarms where I can't get my fingers behind and some genuine interested editors and some genuine notable pageants. To complicate it further there are several editors dismissing advertising by claiming that it can be solved by normal editing (they do not see that the advertising is quickly back) while not living up to their own words. (I have never seen them do something) The Banner talk 10:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done a little bit on Lorraine Schuck. The article still contains the phrase "best known for". Hopefully that'll provoke some action . Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, Banner. Here's the thing--those contests are products, and if the contests written up by that account are all owned by the same one then we have a good indication. If, in addition, their edits smack of promotionalism, then action can be taken. As a side note, Banner, vandaag voor het eerst in jaren weer eens kibbeling gegeten, in de haven van Hoorn. Best lekker. Maar het bier, jongen, het bier! Wat een feest. En dan nog Beemster kaas erbij... Drmies (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread closure request

[edit]

Could you, or any admin talkpage stalkers, close this thread please? I'm seeing a pretty clear consensus here, and I'd hate for this to be archived without action as a result. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flipora

[edit]

I was recently contacted by the article-subject and was wondering if you knew any context (you closed the AfD). There seems to be a strong consensus that they are an invasive malware, but when I look at the sources (minus the "contributor"-authored forbes post and primary sources), none of them seem to characterize them as such. I probably won't work with them (as a ten-person company, it's unlikely they are even notable), but was wondering if you knew what was going on or if I was missing something. CorporateM (Talk) 03:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is strictly a RS in the Wikipedia sense, but it appears to be a reasonably objective description. Invasive, yes. Malware, not quite as clear (depending on what one considers "malware"). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good enough to me. CorporateM (Talk) 04:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

[edit]

Drmies ... I was just looking at this book I got[28] to work on the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church article ... It is freakin SIGNED by Dr. Wally Vaughn. (to a Dr. Ron Moock). It still belongs to you once I've worked on the article (we'll have to email name and address stuff) - but geesh. Oh yea buddy ... I done something good for ya! Waaa hooo.

Anyway - go ahead and do whatever with the Loes article, I really don't have any more to add. — Ched :  ?  04:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow...that's great. You should be an antiquarian, the old Scott way. Hey, you may have seen, in an off-wiki forum, that I'm sort of away from my desk, and it feels pretty good. I'm just making assholish comments here and there. I'll get back to Loes when I get back to things. In the meantime, I'm sure you can imagine the quality and quantity of beer and cheese I consume on a daily basis, so happy days to you! Drmies (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - and I do envy you - so have one for me, and enjoy. — Ched :  ?  18:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelanalysis.com

[edit]

There has always been a dynamic IP which geolocates to Minneapolis, Minnesota operating in the Venezuela suite (samples):

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax-mongering on Eucleian Society

[edit]

The Eucleian Society was a literary society that existed at NYU in the olden days -- it ceased to exist by 1943. The article has been a magnet for hoax-mongering and for spurious unreliable claims that a "secret society" by that name still exists and/or that secret "members" have recently pulled this or that prank or flown their flag (as supposedly evidenced by meaningless or sometimes doctored photos). I tried to give the article somewhat of a cleanup six weeks ago, but now there's a new hoax-mongerer editor here messing things up again and posting meaningless non-verifying bogus citations, adding unnecessary verbiage, and edit-warring. Could you and your good talk-page watchers please put this article on your Watch lists, revert that editor (and block him if need be), and so on? I don't want to do this alone. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

No action is required (at least as of yet), but I do suggest that you look at this topic when you have time.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, "Wiki-Shield" is now proceeding to blank out critical sections from Arrowsmith School while adding poorly sourced promotional claims [29]. This person then went ahead and did the same with Dore Programme [30]. He's engaging in the same behavior as user:Brunasofia. I strongly suggest that this person be watched more carefully because he's going be a nuisance and engage in promotional behavior. He was also edit warring with me Cogmed inserting unbalanced claims. I don't have the kind of time to battle every POV-pusher here, so I encourage admins do what is needed of them. Thanks--Taeyebaar (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming from a person who disregards NPOV policy and is trying to portray all brain training and memory training programs (except Lumosity and LearningRx) in negative light - instead of providing balanced opinion he digs all negative research and facts and removes everything positive WRT supporting research and references. I analyzed Taeyebaar's long history of edits and his agenda is quite apparent. This is the reason he is posting notices about me everywhere, I initially suspected that he is a sock of some rotten admin, but apparently he is not. Fighting people like Taeyebaar is the exact reason I joined Wikipedia. Wiki-shield (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Regarding COI, where did you have your brain trained? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got brainwashed courtesy of Leffe. I'm really not interested in pissing contests, by the way. At my age, you can't win those anyway. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's 'cos you're drinking the wrong beer- good quality, the body hangs on to it longer. The Fountain Head in Branscombe has its gents urinals flushed by a stream, which takes the piss gently down a valley to the sea, past the brewery which owns the pub. There is of course some wastage, which is made up by rainfall. Found you an aviation sockpuppet, but I'll wait till you're back from civilisation . Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a lie, I did add critical material regarding LearnignRx and adding to luminosity soon. I'm going to move to ANI since he persistantly removes anything critical and adds positive, poorly sourced material.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taeyebaar, give it a rest. And I say this as someone whom Wiki-shield would probably view as an adversary for having toned down some of the promotion in Cogmed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's up, Doc?

[edit]

Hello, Good Doctor. Could you be convinced to take on a little new XfD work? Martin Hoekstra is AWOL at TfD, and Plastikspork is showing up every 10 to 14 days to close only a handful of TfD discussions. No other admin is closing TfDs right now. Could you be talked into closing a couple of TfDs per day, and I'll see if I can recruit two or three more admins to help on the same basis? I would be happy to help in any way possible, including pointing you in the direction of the relevant navbox and template guidelines and essays. Please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd love to, but I'm on vacation. Also, I've never done TfDs because I don't like it, haha. (And last time I looked it requited more than pushing a button AfD-style) Sorry, I can't help you... Drmies (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_85&oldid=1089756939"