"…and that's why my moustache is woven from asbestos."
In the end, you'll probably regret it, but maybe, in the end, you'll also have made a difference damn fool of yourself. I hope so. Best, BMK (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. You truly made the world a better place. There's no I in team. Stop making excuses. One game at a time. Time to make a play. We just have to keep following the process. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WARNING:Comment from bitter, disillusioned former arb ahead: Don't worry, you won't make any real differnece. You can stem the tide of insanity, but pushing it back and restoring sanity (if indeed it ever existd here) is too big a task for just fifteen people, no matter how good they are and what superpowers they have. I do think you will make a good arb. On the other hand, I thought Newyorkbrad was a good arb, and he was on there forever and yet... here we are. The best part is when it's over. Normal Wiki-drama seems so easy to deal with afterward. Now, I am off to compose the most complicated "gotcha" question for you I can... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. I'm only running because Kelapstick made me (I made a big mistake sending him naked selfies a few weeks ago). I equally foolishly volunteered to head a search committee so I can't handle too many questions. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Always knew you for a B-Boy. I'm watching some Sherlock Holmes movie on TV cause I couldn't watch CNN and MSNBC anymore. Well, they end up in Paris and there's a bomb. I click on Recent changes and on almost every page there's something related to the Paris attack. I vainly hope to wake up tomorrow and it was all a dream. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't blame you for turning off the 24 hour news. Filling space, needing something to talk about every second, has turned these supposed reporters into ghouls for years now. I'm not that old, just broke 40 now, but I do remember an ole days when a witness spoke for themselves and when they say something was horrible the horror spoke for itself. It was obvious. That's not changed because people are people. What's changed is these networks essentially following up with, how horrible was it? Give me sound bites. Ugh, digression. Glad you're running for Arb even given that most ex-Arbs say your soul is going to be left desolate after your tenure. Capeo (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In minor despair, you won my support by the answer to my second question. Kindly try to win my neutral also. Your present answer to #1 claims done for what you undid on my request. For the general reader who will not study the editing history of that "obscure" opera, please copy your reasoning to the answers and perhaps explain how you arrive at disagreeing with Gamaliel ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting your head on the block. You'd better get elected because if you don't and I do, there will be hell to pay and I'll never talk to you again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stop complaining, Kudpung. I'm reading about people at a concert who were pleading with killers so their wives could live. What a world. And here we are writing Good Articles on Meghan Trainor and hurricanes. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of election that makes me glad I'm old enough to vote. And I'm extremely glad you're willing to do this (and not just because I'm enjoying reading Marie de France on your recommendation). - Macspaunday (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Macspaunday, you are clearly leaving me this friendly note as a reminder. I believe I mentioned that BooksAMillion was all out of books that didn't have BDSM or vampires in them, and I need to find a decent copy from a colleague. I promise you I will, having just finished Miles Davis's autobio, and Paul Kingsnorth's The Wake. Yes, Marie de France, what a blast. Let's all play a game, one about me since this is my talk page: what do you think my favorite lay is? Drmies (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No conscious motive of a reminder, though I admit there may have been an unconscious one... So, you ask: which is your favorite? I'm only halfway through, but I would say "Le Fresne": you prefer things to end in harmony. How is that for a guess? (Incidentally, I finished reading the Decameron straight through for the first time a few months ago, so I feel as if I'm in familiar territory here.) - Macspaunday (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Decameron...a dirty mind is a joy forever... No, sorry. Le Fresne is great, and I do like a happy ending, but it reminds me too much of The Clerk's Tale, and I just cannot do that Christian patience. No, it's Laustic. There, I said it. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laüstic, eh? It's next on my list, and will read it with special interest. Today, however, I'm marking up student papers, for better or worse. Will be back soon! - Macspaunday (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--some of those questions are tough. Others are much better at answering--I've been thinking of just copying Keilana's answers. Except for that EMT part--I couldn't fake that. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those questions really nearly made me vomit and I won't provide answers that pander to their pompous arrogance just to get their vote. Arbcom election is not supposed to be RfA Mk.II It’s a shame that some editors are turning the question section into a farce. They are either fishing for opinions on their own actions in the past, or fishing for answers to general knowledge that they didn't learn in grade school or can’t be bothered to look up themselves. Some are just veiled PA designed to disparage the candidate.
Like RfA , it’s hardly surprising that not many people out of our thousands of editors and admins are prepared to step forward. Perhaps it would be a good idea to abolish the questions section for future elections, and give the candidates more than only 400 words. Voters should do their own research and vote as they think appropriate. A secret poll is quite different from RfA and the community needs to understand that an Arbcom election is not an RfA re-run and another venue to throw shit at people with impunity. I'm in the running but I'm still not wholly convinced that a seat on the Committee is what I really want and I'm fully capable of withdrawing at the drop of a hat before or even after the event. Anyway, knowing that Drmies is almost certainly going to be elected, I would be quite happy to continue to wield my wicked block hammer at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I don't know. I made plenty enemies here, I think, what with my continuous enabling of notorious longterm-chasers-away of good editors, my refusal to block certain editors and my willy-nilly blocking all over the place, with my declining to block for insulting language and my simultaneous insistence on Political Correctness Run Amok. I'm reminded of my RfA, where one oppose vote was for not supporting an indef-block on someone, and the other oppose vote was from that someone I didn't want indef-blocked. Also, there are some really good candidates who come with a lot less baggage than yours truly, and who may be in a better, more youthful spirit. Yes, the loaded questions are a bit bothersome, but hey, that's how Wikipedia works. Those who are really interested in making this a better place don't save up their diffs for that one occasion where they can publicly humiliate a fellow Wikipedian; I'm particularly disappointed in Spartaz's loaded question. What's funny is that such behavior immediately puts the lie to this "blue line" accusation: admins are perfectly capable of stabbing someone in the back in a very public venue. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I consider the q-pages at arbcom to be a good dose of what the actual arb-case-pages are kinda like. Lots of people with lots of extremely convoluted question, trying to influence you to see the world a certain way (usually their way). Backstory behind every question. No simple answers. Plenty of outright incivility, and VAST reservoirs of nominally-polite yet fundamentally not-very-damn-nice commentary, phrased in a way to avoid NPA by a hair, or a fig leaf, or whatever cliche you wish to utilize. Hard to make a difference (heh) under such trying circumstances, but a lot easier if you have a strong *group* of arbs and arb-candidates. In other words, don't quit now Kudpung, por favor. But do be fully aware, that probably the q-pages are just a taste of what the next two years will be like. WP:CHOICE applies as always, o'course. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Drmies, dunno about youthful. I've come across some extraordinarily intelligent young people in my time - linguists, mathematicians, medics, chess players, but it didn't always mean they were able to exercise the judgment of an adult. And that's why I think it's a good idea to have some not-quite-so-young people on the Committee like you, and some really old people like me and DGG. There's no denying the fact that a long and active RL brings with it it a baggage of useful stuff. . I don't think I'll be voting for really young candidates or young ones who are running for a second term. I've tried to give those questioners a dose of their own medicine. My answers are designed to demonstrate that while I do at least have a sense of humour, I'm a no-nonsese kind of gu, take things very seriously, and don't suffer fools gladly - and that's exactly how I would work on Arbcom if elected. Some of them won't see that though, because the answers are not the submissive crawllng they expected; nor are they to help them bridge deficiencies in their own general knowledge, nor to tell them that they handled past cases correctly. I won't be sent on fool's errands for hours like the old French expression used by parents to their pesky children: 'Va dehors, voir si j'y suis' . I'm glad someone asked me about the anti-admin brigade - they must have been looking in the mirror when they wrote that. It's funny, every morning when I have a shave I tend to see a familiar face... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I’ve been plowing through ANI as if I were a blind alien touching an elephant. The resulting hypothesis was that Wikipedia is a grand experiment to identify nasty people. I could be wrong. I’ll go back to touching articles and let those with the required fortitude deal with the underbelly.:) Good luck. Objective3000 (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I'd show Ealdgyth where it's at, and make an article edit for every edit to ACE. And wouldn't you know it, I run into a geographical article on some community in Spain with 283 people (though the Spanish wiki had 350...strange...) so I can do nothing, and then I get summoned at ANI again. I managed to make a few edits on a soccer player. Yes, article space is infinitely more rewarding. Also, "backstory"--there's some editors trying to get some old wounds reopened (or resutured, I don't know); Kudpung, you know those editors are not going to be convinced. Like DGG says, one can only hope to convince their audience.
Anyways, I got beets roasting and the dishes are done, so I got some time to make some Quality Edits to our Beautiful Project.™ Drmies (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do I have to do to win your vote? How about I don't block you for that first video, clearly a BLP violation? (Poor guy--you hear the first leg crack, and you know he's using all kinds of butt muscles to keep balanced, all the while talking...don't know what he's saying, but I think it was grammatically correct and all that.) Drmies (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, remarkable poise I thought. (Sorry I couldn't find the clip I really wanted). I'm sure a block for my first video would win you quite a few votes, although not necessarily one from me. But then at least folks could enjoy the second one all the more! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, he's a real misogynist.
Having exposed one questioner's set of questions for being posed on a political platfrm with an intent to brand me as a mysoginist and the rest of their questions as grossly inapprpriate just because I don't actively fight females' battles for them has obviously got me a place on the 'Oppose' section of their voter guide. But to put Drmies there as well is simply beyond me. Now that I have experienced an Arbcom election first-hand, I must say it really is a farce. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the election is just a taste of what a two year term is like. As WTT says, you can expect to be a target, whether you are too activist or are considered not activist enough. And there are 14 other people you need to work with who you may or may not get along with...reading the statements of former arbitrators, this can be what causes individuals to end their term early. LizRead!Talk!20:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I don't rightly know what voter guide you're talking about, and please don't tell me--it's just a distraction. Sorry to hear you're such a woman hater. Sorry to hear that I'm one too. It's a good thing none of those people actually know me. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but, in my defense, most of my comments there are to troll. :) Ealdgyth, I haven't looked at your guide yet, and you can say whatever you like about me: your having raised Middle Ages to FA status makes you a saint. You can ride that one single accomplishment for the rest of your life, even if you hadn't done all those other things that make Wikipedia good. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically might be true, but 10k+ edits to mainspace per year, for the past seven years...[1] presumably some of them are content-contribs, not just vandalism-reverts and such. Could be mostly NCAA fancruft though, I suppose. ;-) If you wanna get back above 60% mainspace-contribs, you'll have to shut this usertalk page down, though! 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's diversion. And let's bring in the gender gap, and Eric of course, and the Balkans, and etc. etc. Nothing but tactics, and maybe they'll work. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen him at AfD, actually, something about User:Dr. Blofeld and a film-related AfD. Don't know much about him. Is MQS wise and calm like Anna, and depth-based and cool-headed like Diannaa? Competition is stiff this year. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MQS is about as much of a content admin as you can get. And spends a fair bit of time at afd, and always does his research. He's also my go to guy for film related stuff. It's getting to be a good pool of candidates this year. --kelapstick(on the run) 16:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what K-stick said. I'd love to see Diannaa and Anna on it. They are cool as cucumbers, know their policy, and have more patience and humanity in their little fingers than I do in all of my body. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If any rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." Quoth unquoth. Perhaps you can suggest, that if they don't run, you and kelapstick will wheel-war to keep indef'ing them both? :-) Or maybe you can just appeal to their better nature. Either way it will obviously improve the 'pedia if they can be made to run. But they've both been pinged before, and they are resisting the light-touch approach, because they are not sure they will be good at the job, which is of course a big part of why they would be great. Go twist their arms a little, please. Use your persuasive-ness stuffs, you know, to English them into running, eh? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...or pissed at being accused of turning the discussion into something that it already was? This was a dispute over someone's behaviour; sex had nothing to do with it. But as a result, Ched has had it away on his toes, forced into doing so by the feminists and soapboxers who hijacked the discussion. CassiantoTalk18:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was very unhelpful. I asked two people and both came up with something about slow and steady winning the race. I was looking more for "he (or she) who remains calm and collected and refrains from showing all too much excitement is more likely to gain the upper hand in a heated conversation"--but that doesn't have much of a ring to it. BTW, I'm kind of at a loss what that whole thread is about, so thanks SlimVirgin for pulling me in there. Pshaw! Seriously, Cassianto, slow and steady wins the race, and it's not "feminists" who are hijacking it; after all, I'm one myself, though I'm still struggling between French and "regular" third-wave feminism. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I brought up your name, but ACE 2015 seems to be turning into one of these cocktail parties where no one remembers who arrived with whom and who is likely to leave with whom. Swellegant, in other words. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of good people on that list. Ask King of Hearts. Tedder. MQS. Jayron. Bencherlite. Ed. Gatoclass. Ponyo. Guy. Don't ask me--I don't know. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
MQS I never thought of, would be a fascinating member to have eon the team. Big fan. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
No worries, Beeblebrox. You're always good in my book. Yes, Legacypac, I saw your nomination go by on Recent changes and thought I would take care of it. Muff (hair)? That's dumb. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the short article Apame (concubine), I may have violated a copyright. The final sentence of the article mentions a painting. The second footnote is a link to a page which has an image of the painting (which is not in the public domain).
Should I remove the footnote which links to the image? (I have encountered this situation before so I would like a little advice please)Rdmoore6 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying the factoids... please correct me if I am wrong...
physical object == So, the painting in question is an oil-on-wood from 1614 AD, by Hendrick Goltzius. Scene from book of Ezra apparently.
computer imagefile == The off-wiki website, which is being linked unto as a ref, in footnote#12, is http://www.akg-images.com , which has a high-resolution TIFF reproducing said painting
So there is no copyvio happening on-wiki, at any point, which is good. But there is a link to an off-wiki website which is hosting an imagefile that replicates a painting from the 1600s. Nice for the readership, to be able to see what the WP:NOTEWORTHY painting actually looks like. Now, is such a link, some kinda DMCA violation? Partly, that depends on whether the off-wiki website is engaging in a copyright violation. Obviously, if akg-images.com is NOT infringing upon any copyright, then we can link to them -- wikipedia pages link to copyrighted off-wiki material all the time. The question is, can a wikipedia article link to an off-wiki copyright-infringing location? See WP:CONVENIENCE for some pros and cons. If the answer is nay, the question becomes, is this specific computer imagefile copyright-infringing? Ping User:Diannaa, who knows more about copyright than moi. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". I also found this on the Commons: commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs, which says that use of such images is restricted in some jurisdictions. -- Diannaa🍁 (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all. I was thinking--but had to run off to class--that since this site is selling these images they most likely have a right to publish them. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on the "about us" link on the AKG site brings up a page of Lorem ipsum-type text. But their van Gogh "Flying Fox" seems to be an original photo of the painting- I can't find anything similar, so they might be kosher. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, this is interesting. First of all, User:KreimMissionaries, your name is not OK with our policy and I'm going the account so you can request a user name. Likewise, KreimSecretary is not OK since it does not denote a specific person; rather, it's a role within the organization. I'm sorry about that, but that's the way it is. Request a new username please.
Second, the name, I see plenty of reason to change it, including this, which in my experience is pretty reliable. So I'll just go ahead and move it.
Third, Cassianto, you've edited a Wikipedia article or two in your time, and I think that rascal Dr. Blofeld has too. Can y'all help me out a bit and clean it up? It needs a bit of work, and maybe you can find some things that I can't.
Finally, Master Kreim, you may not like what we're going to do with the article, at least not initially, but we need to bring it in line a bit with our policies. Once that's done, though, you'll see that it's better to have a decent article that's according to our guidelines than a chatty article with a bunch of tags on it. Leave it to the experts, and feel free to help out--from your new account. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It's surprising that that name hadn't been taken yet. I'm sure you feel a bit alienated, perhaps, but at least you're legit now. As for improving that article, we really need reliable secondary sources. I was not able to find many of them but I'll keep looking. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, German numerals will be most acceptable. Just a reminder that there's a copy-deadline on this, and the stats can't really be done until we receive all responses that are going to come in. Can you let me know if you're not participating, so we have a better idea of when to close it off? But I do hope you will participate—it's a different angle from the normal onwiki pages, and past electorate surveys have proved to be of interest to readers. About 8–12 hours, I guess. Tony(talk) 03:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting a lot of trivia loaded cricket lists and templates over the past few weeks. We've just had a bunch deleted, but apparently a lot more people who don't follow cricket like to have stats like this kept. —SpacemanSpiff16:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there are some who say that trivia and cricket...never mind, I shouldn't alienate anyone before An Important Election. All this reminds me that I've been neglecting Crisco 1492 for far too long. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LATEST ADDITIONS TO German Shepherd: (reverted) On the television series The Bionic Woman (1976-1978), a bionic German Shepherd dog was introduced in the show's third season, named Maximillian (shortened to simply just "Max" on the show). A laboratory fire accident when Max was a puppy led to his becoming the world's first bionic dog, capable of tearing through almost any material with his bionic jaw, running 90 mph (as referenced in the episode "The Bionic Dog" [Part 1]), and leaping several feet into the air. The series lead character, Jaime Sommers, adopted him after she discovered his presence at an OSI lab facility while she was there getting a routine check-up. Max and Jaime developed a very strong friendship bond, and Max was featured in several adventure stories in the last season.
Gosh, it was really important, because it is BACK AGAIN!!!
"(Reverted good faith edits ". Ah, I still have some good faith ...
Thanks for uploading File:Beatles stage Blokker.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do I recall correctly ... was that photo taken by your mother?And, while we're on a Dutch subject, you mentioned during your candidate grilling that Paris is the second most beautiful city in the world. Is Amsterdam number one? MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax, there is nothing wrong with your memory. Yes, this is correct. DYK that Drmies's mother turned seventy this past October and still rides her bike to the grocery store? OK, it's an e-bike now, but still. Stefan2, really? Really?
Yes, Mandarax, you were right on both counts. I miss it dearly, but right now I miss Paris as much. I used to...well, let's not get too personal. Let's just say I spent a lot of time in Paris, going there by train, hanging out with the American ex-pats, strolling all over town with nothing better to do than enjoy it. Musee d'Orsay, the old Opera, theaters all over town...hipsters and artists, and my French was really good in those days. If I close my eyes I remember the smell of the subway. If I close my eyes and I'm in a bad mood I can even remember the smell of the RER. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's great! I hope she had a good birthday. (I see from the e-bike article that in the Netherlands, they're "particularly popular among people aged 65 and over"). Yes, Paris is beautiful. Alas, I've never been to Amsterdam. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM08:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
À propos de bottes: I'm re-reading The Sorrows of Young Werther (this time in English because nicht sprechen zee Deutsch pretty good, to paraphrase Lady and the Tramp), and I just learned that the Netherlands was called States General prior to 1795. WTF? Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping pistols away from me for the time being. Though I must say my eyes welled up at the ending just now, even though it was obviously no surprise. Such a pretty book. I wish I could experience the ending again. Now I'm in a book hangover and can't read anything else for the time being. Softlavender (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: All you have to do to satisfy wiki copyright policy is have your mother re-email the photo to you (either in the body of the email or as an attachment), with the statement I, Nellie Besseling, the copyright holder of this photo, hereby publish it under the following license: CC-SA 1.0. and a link to the existing file on WP, and then you forward her email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. And you add a {{subst:OP}} ("OTRS pending") tag to the file. (Should do it soon because the file is set to be deleted on 25 November 2015.) Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when Ms Besseling's email hits OTRS, I'll verify the ticket (You may just want to send her this template filled out and ask her to forward that email to permissions@wikimedia.org). Alternately Kelapstick whose stellar OTRS work is a feature of ACE guides may swiftly act on this. —SpacemanSpiff15:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've personally found that if you do not use the correct precise email address, OTRS can't find it, or find it promptly -- for instance, an email sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org will never get to the EN-wiki OTRS people, and an email sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org will never get to the OTRS people at Commons. For that reason, since the file is on EN-wiki, and the correct email address for those OTRS tickets is permissions-en@wikimedia.org, I recommend sending it there. I also recommend that the email contain a link to the existing file so the OTRS folks can find and OK it promptly. Softlavender (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Thanks for the reminder. As Bbb indicated I was more interested in other aspects, but I'm happy to see that I still think more or less the same thing. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that recently, when you have been closing RFD discussion, you have been providing notes in the deletion log with broken links (both the fact that the discussion is not linked, and the fact that the summary refers the reader to the RFD base page instead of the daily subpage.) The entries have closure links that produce automated deletion summaries, but due to how the functionality of Template:Rfd2 works, these links can only appear when viewing the subpage directly, not from the RFD basepage. (The way I would go around this, and I'm guessing some RFD closure regulars do as well, is to click "edit" on one of the section headers in that day, and on the next page, click "Project page" at the top; then, you should be at the daily subpage where the links appear.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this will make sense to me when I do it again. When I deleted a whole bunch the other day, individual redirects were bundled together and had ... can't remember, something with "@" in front of them, but it wasn't clickable. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--so RfDs now are individual templates. Yes, I was looking at the wrong page, I suppose--I was wondering already why it was different. But you know, I still don't have a clue how this works. If I click on "close" (I tried for the one on Sir Hart Davis, which will be a keep), I go to the article where...what? I guess I'm removing the RfD coding? I'm so used to closing AfDs, now automatically, that this is just, well, complicated, and I've been relying on the kindness of strangers to close these things for me. (Believe me, just deleting them is already a drag.)
Anyway, if I want to continue the way I've been doing it, I should have something like "Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_19#Sir_Hart_Davis", right? Drmies (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i.e. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 19#Sir Hart Davis goes straight to where the discussion will be preserved. RfD is broken up by day on subpages, which is transcluded to the current list on the main page, as opposed to being individual templates per entry like AfD. Editing from the current list through the convenient edit button provided edits the subpage. The closure links are on the subpages, assuming each is listed and linked individually, some recent listings have not been unfortunately [they seem to have all been fixed, some weren't listed properly at one point, see Greenisholives for example]. WP:RFD/AI shows specifically how to close the discussions.—Godsy(TALKCONT)23:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been there before--it was not fun. Fortunately, there are a few editors, like I said, who help me file the paperwork. Deleting all those redirects is a drag to begin with, and it forced me to learn D-batch, which makes it go a bit quicker but it's still a lot of handiwork. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is so disruptive, no one bothers, to maintain the policies. I had not other ways to draw your attention that way. Naked breaching the policies, the bunch of editors demonstrating the strange behaviour. Please take a look WP:CREDENTIAL. Mohammad Iqbal/Allama Iqbal if I am wrong? dank U. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice007 (talk • contribs)
No one, I mean that a user does not understand me and I do not want to discuss if there is the lack of understanding even basic policies, most of the editors from that part of the world have some kinds of the fan phobia behaviour. I ask your assistance relating to the article Muhammad Iqbal that you contributed too, but it is moved to as Allama Iqbal violating the WP:CREDENTIAL. The editor is already engaged in edit warring, he thinks, I am playing the ownership of the Wikipedia, that's why I need your assistance, please take a look at it. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's my question to you this evening, Dr., regarding this account, whose only contributions since 2008 seem to be the addition and maintenance of external links, all from the same site [4]. If it's spam, they've racked up an impressive history, which will require an admin's touch to revert. If the site they're linking to is okay, consider this an opportunity to say hello. Merci, 99. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are those rhetorical questions? Feel free to clean up after me. You noted, perhaps, that another editor had warned them--in 2008. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that this is the Anonymous that got the Neelix ball rolling. 99, we should put you up against ISIS--they wouldn't stand a chance. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm aware of 99's ability to sniff out great problems from the most obscure areas. I think Sadie could learn a trick or two from him on sniffing things out. —SpacemanSpiff08:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I need to look at it more carefully. I've seen it before but left it as an EL, there are so many worse ones out there. But I didn't realise the spam element. Doug Weller (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. and Spaceman--ha! It's nothing more than scrolling through recent changes, and picking up suspicious looking patterns. Probably fewer than half I click on turn out to be disruptive (still, that's an enormous percentage), and out of those, a very small sample are impressive for their persistence or longevity. I really wasn't 100% sure on this one, given that the site itself looks pretty decent, not obviously selling a product, but the account's m.o. raised a red flag. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly covered more than one point and it seems that certain admins just looked at a deletion that was made almost 8 years ago and decided that was the sole basis on deletion. This is concerning and I will be escalating this matter. (Negligence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybobbie (talk • contribs) 07:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I'd get one it myself, but I need to get back to work: the Apostle of the Germans really needs another article written about him. I looked at that draft yesterday and thought I should let you have a look at it--then I saw in the history that you already did, haha. Great minds think alike! Drmies (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae condensed and created, please watch. Sources also use ae, expansion best in March, I would say. - I didn't do my homework properly, - for a while the image was there twice, in a FA, o dear ;) - I am so proud: used Alakzi's hint to play with image cropping, created nothing first but then a user box for the cabal with the familiar image which was first used to remind that with wrongly blocked users, we not only loose what they would have created but a little bit of our souls, - look for melancholic on my talk. Received a thank-you for that, didn't know it was the last. Tenebrae. My equivalent to your Notre Dame is its organ, did you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, I noticed you deleted the page BrightInteractive, but I can't find what speedy deletion criterion the deletion was done under. The talk page was removed under WP:G8 which makes sense given page deletion, but at least on my side all it says is "deleted page BrightInteractive" with no explanation. Anyway, thanks! Appable (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given you've blocked the UK IP who created the Black Brutality thread at the ref desk, you may want to do the same to the NYC IP who complains here that he created the question himself and is being censored for it. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I noticed the block you made of Joseph101895 regarding edits to California Lutheran High School. I had just declined to block that user since it appeared to me that, while they probably were promotionally motivated, they did have accurate information to contribute, and hadn't had a real chance to learn the guidelines of what information should and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. It seemed like overall they can have a positive impact. Obviously you disagree, with the indefinite block. I was wondering if you could summarize your reasoning? Might be some background I'm missing. Prodegotalk04:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the copyvio bit, and the edit warring. It seemed to me they had ample opportunity to address the matter but all they offered was "I'll get someone's approval." I'll leave them a note; let's see if they are genuinely interested in improving the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I didn't realize all the edits were posting the same excerpt from the website. If they are interested in doing it right then they should get a chance. If they paste copyvios and just want to get their text in, then they should be blocked. Leaving the block and adding a note seems like a solution. Thanks, Prodegotalk04:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia Agent, whosoever you are.. Please don't take unnecessary actions for the page created for Anil Kumar Kohli. Give time as we too are busy here and just do not do Wikipedia like you and a weekend is required to rewrite the content. Kindly discuss. Or I will have to bring this matter to your top management. I hope you understand. Kindly undo your editings and leave the page to where it was. I will do the needful and bring to your notice. Thankfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.124.114 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP, my name is Drmies and I am one of many administrators here (middle management, one might say). I am not sure who you are, but from your using the plural I gather that you represent something or someone, which can be problematic since we are an encyclopedia, not a publishing venue for press releases and subject-approved biographies. Please see WP:Five pillars for some of the things that are important in Wikipedia editing; one of the more important policies in this respect is WP:RS, which mandates that we use reliable sources--so the press releases I removed will have to stay removed. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia Agent, whosoever you are.. Please don't take unnecessary actions for the page created for Anil Kumar Kohli. Give time as we too are busy here and just do not do Wikipedia like you and a weekend is required to rewrite the content. Kindly discuss. Or I will have to bring this matter to your top management. I hope you understand. Kindly undo your editings and leave the page to where it was. I will do the needful and bring to your notice. Thankfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.124.114 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP, my name is Drmies and I am one of many administrators here (middle management, one might say). I am not sure who you are, but from your using the plural I gather that you represent something or someone, which can be problematic since we are an encyclopedia, not a publishing venue for press releases and subject-approved biographies. Please see WP:Five pillars for some of the things that are important in Wikipedia editing; one of the more important policies in this respect is WP:RS, which mandates that we use reliable sources--so the press releases I removed will have to stay removed. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Drmies (your name seems to be illogical and maybe some form of code) and other administrators linked in this connection, I respect you to be an administrator but I am strongly expressing my displeasure in the way you had reacted (can be termed as a dictatorship over the Wikipedia administratorship) by placing unnecessary comments that are cited on the view history and repeated undoing the entire article. This is not a signature value attached to a collaborative media like Wikipedia.
As suggested by you I will choose to place four tildes for signing the document but nonetheless my identity is secret. You and some fellow administrators have taken the article down and in a very unprofessional manner which is suggested to be reported to Wikipedia Corporation (if required).
Lets not waste anymore time in debating and I should come to point-wise clarification of what 3-4 administrators (maybe you are friends - jointly decide without even reading policies what is right or wrong and keep on attaching new things everytime in an added comment and action). All your IP describes that the accounts are operated from a shared network from US and it is quite possible that you people are freelancers working for the corporation and reside in the same campus.
Point-wise response:
- Marquis who's who is not-credited by a set of administrators and I suggest to put a complaint to their office that they should rather come to Wikipedia standards which in turn shares tremendous criticism "http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/" and "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia" to name a few (standards of the claimed administrators). Even Google discredits.
- I guess you people have not visited this place and hence, cannot know the credibility of the work that is undertaken here and the kind of vision attached to a leader or his capabilities. Therefore, it is suggested that before arriving to any conclusion please do a bit of literature survey of how complex things are and not just as you see within your four wall boundaries and internet.
- Some senseless edit summary like "well now. rm more images (not the family photo album)", "who's who is nothing. not a resume: rm resume", "is BRIT an airplane that can reach "new heights" (whatever that is supposed to mean" and many more is suggested to be notified to the top leaders of the corporation as very educated, sophisticated and fully ethical administrators like you seem to behave running the corporation.
- Regarding references that are hosted in a third party website - Kindly extend your logical reasoning and question yourself that do the third party website that were cited are registered ones, if so on what laws and principle they are governed!? In this respect you people lack substantial maturity and logic. Additionally, The Hindu is not the only publishing edition that is available here, there are many more and kindly update your knowledge.
- Dr. Kohli has had a key role in the significant projects of BRIT, beyond having headed the organization at some point, but due to the strategic nature they are not supposed to be public. Moreover, big institutes like Indian Railways and so on and so forth have been interviewed him because of his sheer capabilities but those are standalone articles and are not in web and if they happen to be hosted in third party websites; you people will start arguing regarding that too.
- I agree to the fact that scientific references are not endorsed to be put into Wikipedia but the redirection of publications that were done need not be undermined as they carry a huge impact factor with them.
- Lastly, I can help locate you people a huge list of candidates that are not notable in nature from the US and West apart from this place (upto the standards of Wikipedia as claimed by administrators) and can be taken down within 24 hours as well.
In consolidation, I suggest you to do whatever you feel as administrators (or dictators and not collaborators of collaborative media in principle). But things will not remain unreported to the corporation and those who are involved in vigilance.
You may merge or do whichever way you people wish to project our things and boost your things (undue advantage of your own publishing platform) but make sure that days are not far ahead for us too.
If you still feel that I may rewrite the content in a neutral manner (I initially felt that not a fundamental rewrite was required and needed revision) and allow standalone articles to be referenced. Kindly put to the talk page of Dr. Kohli and give a minimum time line or I suggest to let go and not to waste time (as I am fully occupied and can devote time to constructive projects only) as even if I attempt you people will undo.
Please communicate! Thankfully Sbatdaeindia (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)sbatdaeindia[reply]
Apologies for taking so long to thank you for those messages. I've been away in the wilds of the real world of students and committees, and it's a lot like being off the grid. Actually, it's "nature red in tooth and claw" out there, especially at department meetings. - Like just about all the medieval literature I've read, the Lais are seriously weird, and also wonderful. I especially enjoy "Marie's" claim at the end of most of the Lais that "this really happened just as I told you." And just about every Lai shows that she really knows how to guess the price of cloth; I'll bring along a copy the next time I go out to buy a suit. As for Vanity Fair, OK, I admit that you got yourself into this without knowing what you were getting yourself into, so your conscience shouldn't compel to read even a page of it. But if you start it as a book to read to use for decompression before sleeping at night, you'll find it both relaxing and enlightening, even if it takes months to read. It goes down very, very easily, and surprises you with some very moving moments. But, now, having absorbed some of the moral vision of Marie de France, this message formally releases you from any obligation to read it [waving of hands, serious nodding of head, swelling music, etc.]. - And, meanwhile, I'm looking forward to voting for you early (but annoyingly not often) next week. - Macspaunday (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I started a few nights ago, and read a half a dozen pages. Since it took me a while to get it I started on Petrarch's Secretum, and I'm almost done with it: apparently we should let go of love and glory, says Augustine. Who could let go of Laura? I imagine I will be enjoying the book--the opening scene was amusing. LadyofShalott and I have done some work on various women's schools and finishing schools in the US; that's a fascinating and very important world, and frequently underexposed. Someone should write a bit more on women's education in the 19th and 20th centuries--or perhaps I never ran into the article. Anyway, thanks again for the suggestion, and thanks for your vote: I appreciate the confidence as much as the actual vote.
Patrarch's Secretum? Should I add that to my list also? I thought I was doing well when I read (part of) Boccaccio's Life of Dante. Anyway, I voted for you earlier today after I got a friendly personal note sent by a bot inviting me to the polling booth. I was hoping to find a crowd of whooping and hollering voters, but it seemed a bit quiet. Maybe things will liven up later on? Anyway, Vanity Fair gets more lively as it goes on, and Becky Sharp gets more memorable on every page. Wait till you meet Rawdon Crawley and Lord Steyne for pure entertainment. Later! - Macspaunday (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol, well sir, I think you've managed well even without breakfast. I didn't understand what you meant by "more is better, code16" though, specifically. But please continue to suggest improvements that we can make on the article and ping any expert editors you feel should be involved. Thanks again. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hadith may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
in the Musnad of Ahmad (10\15-6\ 6510 and also nos. 6930, 7017 and 1720), Sunan Abu Dawud (Mukhtasar Sunan Abi Dawud (5\246\3499) and elsewhere.</ref>
amp;hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hadith%20authenticity&f=false}}</ref>]] has argued that the most central problem associated with Prophetic hadith has undoubtedly been
Why did you remove the stub on Armand (singer). The relevant Wikiprojects have classified the article as a stub so I placed it in the relevant stub category. If you disagree with the classification, it would be worth noting on the talk page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I have posted a "guide" in regards to ACE 2015 - I have not been outspoken about my own personal choices. I say this here and now however: I will support you as a "blue-collar version of NYB". I do NOT mean "blue-collar" in the sense of intelligence, but rather in communication style. Best of luck. — Ched : ? 02:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I appreciate it, Ched! Yes, NYB was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and it rubbed off on his speech organs. Honestly, please don't compare me with him: I'm not in that league. Sorry, gotta go: the girls feel the need to put their winter clothes on me, and possibly nail polish. It's all code, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "The good news? Anyone can learn English and get quite good at it, better than most native speakers if need be." I can't agree with this, at least as a blanket statement. Once you get past the crude word classes, the grammatical road-blocks start. The Dutch seem to be the best in the world at overcoming them (for some reason typically better than Germans); but the experience of most second-language speakers in acquiring English is perverse and exasperating. You might enjoy reading a recently published book: Harry Ritchie, English for the Natives, John Murray, 2013. Tony(talk) 06:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, you should read some of the writing produced by my sophomore students. Wikipedia writing is not like what the average (or mean, whatever) in the U.S. is. And we're really talking about writing, not speech. The Dutch aren't bad, this is true, but the average of most native speakers, that's not a very high bar. (Not just in the U.S., I'm sure.) Drmies (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sometime on @SpacemanSpiff:'s talk I had raised this issue of poor GAs being passed recently where he mentioned that it might be good to check with you first. After that I have gone ahead and GARed two articles already as they were far below the par; Sargun Mehta GAR and Palak Muchhal GAR. But I have trouble gauging this one called Grazing Goat Pictures. Criteria 3a of GA states that the article should "address the main aspects of the topic" and 3b states that it should stay "focused on the topic". This article is about a production house which produces films in India, mainly Bollywood and some regional-language films too. The article mentions some key people involved and then starts talking about the films and the business they did, awards they won, regular film reviews and such. The Article composition guideline stated at WP:COMPANIES puts few points that should be essential in a company's article, which seem to be missing from our subject case. Does the article pass the criteria 3 of GA then? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you are doubtless aware, I wander through CAT:UNBLOCK looking for editors to unblock, and tend to AGF a bit more than some admins when it comes to the block button. Part of the problem I've discovered is that when two administrators clash over whether or not to unblock, nothing happens except pages and pages and pages of discussion that bores me to tears, and doesn't do anything about the actual unblock. Is there another way round "cowboy unblocks", other than just doing them and waiting for it to backfire at ANI? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mobile and can't easily check your link but this sounds interesting. I like unblocks, they feel good. I'll check later--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, it isn't absolutely necessary to get permission from the blocking admin, right? It's a courtesy and common practice to discuss the unblock with them. Is this where you are seeing a logjam? LizRead!Talk!21:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to name names, Liz, but there is a block request I'm waiting on at the moment where I think the editor should be unblocked and I'm waiting for the blocking admin to reply. And I'm honestly not sure if it is necessary to get permission from the blocking admin or not, but I can think of once incident where I was lambasted at ANI for not running an unblock past the other admin (consensus was the unblock was okay). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We hired you for the job because we thought we could trust you. If the other admin is dragging their feet, go ahead. If they disagree, well, you can disagree with that. Of course you'll sort of "own" the editor. But I always though we should be BOLD, so go ahead. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I recommend that you contact JBW since pings have been known to fail. He may have good reasons and I do see a long block log and a sock case in the past. If no consensus between you both then you could post for block review at AN. — Berean Hunter(talk)23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, suggestions of a long term problem may change the calculus. Berean, I can't look deeply into matters right now but I was pinged from ANI about DanDude88 or some such name. Can you have a look plz? thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we are throwing out opinions: A note on the their talk page is best. If they have been editing a couple of hours since your note but haven't replied, I take that "I don't care" and move forward. If they complain, I just point out they had the opportunity to at least acknowledge the request, even if they didn't have a full answer, and didn't. I think I'm going to stop using pings for stuff like this because there is no way to tell if someone got it or not. A message on the admin's talk page leaves little doubt. If they haven't been editing, I think 72 hours is more than enough time to just act in good faith. That is probably too long, in fact. And no, we aren't required to talk to the blocking admin, but it is a matter of professional courtesy, one that we probably should try to maintain. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should that my comments were in the generic for run of the mill blocks. If it is likely contentious, then what Berean Hunter and HighInBC say is good advice, getting some other opinions or even going to AN for a full discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: When I cannot come to an agreement with the blocking admin and I still feel something needs to be done I generally seek a wider consensus and then accept the outcome. HighInBC00:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wheels of progress may be slow at times. See, that worked and much better than going cowboy. Now, it's NeilN's turn at looking over that block review. I'm writing this because there was no ping for Neil and this should expedite things a bit.
Sorry Drmies about not getting to the DanDude case that you mentioned above. After dinner, I read the ANI post but was too drowsy to do anything effective and headed for bed. I see that he was blocked for a week by Neil who must have felt generous. — Berean Hunter(talk)12:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing what Dennis said above, for important matters, if someone doesn't respond to a ping, leave a note on their talk page. Using the horribly designed notifications log (the WMF seriously has to get rid of designers who put mobile first for this kind of stuff) I found that I received no notification for this post. JamesBWatson, the system was probably confused because you included reposted content in your post. --NeilNtalk to me14:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I almost always consult the blocking administrator if I am considering unblocking. Recently, I have sometimes done so by pinging, but in view of the uncertainty of whether pings get through, I shall try to remember to stick to the older method of talk page posting. There are times when I really don't think consulting the blocking admin is necessary, such as when the original reason for the block very clearly no longer applies, but unless the case looks absolutely unambiguous, I err on the side of consulting even when I don't think I should need to. There are two reasons for that: (1) self-protection: I have in the past been lambasted for taking action without consultation, and I prefer not to be subject to such attacks again; (2) consideration for the other admin: I have occasionally seen another admin reverse an action of mine when I thought he or she was wrong to do so, and I didn't feel happy about it; how do I know who is going to feel that way about something I do? Very, very rarely I have reversed another admin's action without consultation because I have been convinced that he or she was totally unreasonable, but I will only do that if I am totally confident that there is no doubt about it.
If the comments above relate to the unblock request at User talk:Davefelmer, then I did not get the ping. Why? I know not, but maybe putting it inside an unblock request decline makes a difference. Like the example that NeilN mentions above, a decline of an unblock request includes reposted content, so perhaps it affects the outcome. Anyway, I have posted there now. I also attempted to ping NeilN in doing so, but in view of what has been said above, I'll post on his talk page too.
Who knows whether this will work, but here is my attempt to make sure that nobody concerned in the above discussion misses out on reading this wonderful contribution from me: @Ritchie333, Liz, NeilN, Berean Hunter, Dennis Brown, and HighInBC: Have I missed anyone? (Drmies, I assume you will see a message on your own talk page. If not, what can I do?) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got the ping. I think we need to forget policy with these matters, and just use common sense and courtesy. Theoretically, policy is supposed to be a reflection of these values anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the common reasons pings do not work is that they must be posted at the same time as a new signature in order to work. If you add a ping to an already posted comment, or add your signature in any way other than tildes(copy/paste), then it won't work. Not sure if this applies here. Even if used correctly some people may have notifications turned off. The talk page is the most reliable way to get someone's attention.
I agree with what other have said about discussion not being required when there was an obvious error or simply a change in circumstances. Common sense of course applies. However when I find that the blocking admin and I simply disagree with how things should be done then gaining and following a wider consensus is wiser than unilateral action. (I have no idea of the circumstances of this block, not commenting on this block) HighInBC16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well my first comment would be that now that BASC is gone, WP:UTRS needs more admins. It's actually easier than on-wiki unblock reviews, most can be handled with a single click.
Anyhoo, pretty much the only time I don't consult with the blocking admin is in the case of obvious errors or cases of WP:INVOLVED. More so if it's a short block as the blocking admin can just wait it out and the erroneous block stays on the blocked users' log. I don't consider it cowboy unblocking if it's an obvious error. Obvious errors would not include blocks you just don't quite agree with or blocks of one of the WP:UNBLOCKABLES. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox, the UTRS page doesn't disclose much information about the process. Roughly, how many admins participate? How many appeals get filed per month? Is there a backlog or do requests usually get addressed within a few days? LizRead!Talk!02:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some good questions. I've only been doing it about ten days myself, so I may not be the best authority on the subject. @Worm That Turned: was the one who approved my request for an account there so I'm guessing he knows a bit more about it. Currently it does not seem to be experiencing heavy backlogs, but with WP:BASC going away completely the possibility certainly exists. I would guesstimate that it is a few hundred appeals per month, since there's usually 3-5 new ones every time I log in. I have no clue how many total admins work there, but it does tell you who has been active in the last five minutes and quite often I only seee my name there. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I was hoping to gain access to the deleted page Great American Canyon Band. I was not finished with the page and would like to add more sources and information to make it a credible page. This is my first page and I am just learning the wiki formats/processes. Would be much appreciated if you would allow me to gain access to the deleted page. Thanks!Sarahk.odo (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whew. Monster relieved. Was afraid little Drmies might be unaware of election. Was going to tell user. Junk Mass mail good work. Monster happy now. — ChedZILLA23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the gods that be allow you to be seated in the election that is, will you do your darnedest not to lose your sense of humor?I know it won't be easy, but, please? BMK (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tell you what, BM *m--f--ing* K, you got some nerve, buttering me up here when on ANI you called me a sucker! So setting a trap for you that can only be resolved by ArbCom's Indefinite Ban™ will be my first act.
You know that old Neil Young song? "She said 'you're strange, don't change'--and I let her." Anyway, I realized that I didn't have a platform or a PAC or even a slogan. This morning I thought of Distinction With A Difference, because I'm totally distinguished (as you well know) and the best-looking of all candidates, and I Promise To Make A Difference (I think last week was Make a Difference Week™ or something American like that). On the not-so bright side, if I get in I'm going full throttle in my Total Newyorkbrad Immersion Program™, since he is of course my model. I may need to vent regularly but I'll do that on one of your subpages.
That would be terrible. You must act like a normal Wikipedian. Please, translate this article (HERE, ) . The image is great, we co-nominate it together, later. Hafspajen (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of slogans: see top of my user page, and don't forget to look at the impressive "infoboxen-criminal-red" below, - you will have to block me fast for disruption of you want to still see that in December. - Btw, I voted for you ;) - Revert on Jean Sibelius, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess. There was an infobox and then there wasn't. I see there's a long talk page discussion. Who's taking bets on this coming up for the new suckers ArbCom before June 2016? Drmies (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I unified the lead of his symphonies, - several have a tag for more citations. Instead of fixing such things, we have what you observed well. Interesting that the revert was performed by a user who was then blocked, - where is the fun of an edit war if your opponent can't play? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Why is it that whenever people want to illustrate The Reader, it's with always with that same guy?" High Q rating?Thanks for posting the Fragonard painting, I wasn't aware of it. I've changed the image on my talk page. BMK (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LadyofShalott, you have put your finger on a sore spot. Maybe you saw that I "liked" something on Facebook a while ago, this collection of "20 Medieval and Renaissance Women Reading". Wonderful. I just typed in "images women reading" and there is a lot of material. This is interesting and pointed me to this website, which editors like Johnbod, SusunW, Rosiestep, Keilana, and others might be interested in as well. And then there's books like this--oh boy, there's a lot, but my syllabus for next semester's class (Women in Medieval Literature) is full already. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When we moved to Mexico, I brought 2 beds, 1 100-year-old stove, 4 boxes of paintings, 2 cat carriers with cats, 2 suitcases filled with computers, 1 suitcase with a printer and printer accessories, 1 suitcase with clothes and 2 cast iron skillets and 30 legal sized paper cartons of books. The customs people thought we were crazy. They kept asking where were my household goods. I said we only brought the necessities of life SusunW (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, true. Those three suitcases with computers, today you'd only need a purse for that computing power. You could carry thirty boxes of books on a Kindle or two--but e-reading is an abomination. When I moved to the US, all I had was one bag of luggage and a piece of carry-on. Many of my books are still in my mother's attic, and they're being ferried across one half dozen at a time. The books I took with me, most of them were for use in an English program--Abrams's Glossary of Literary Terms, an OUP edition of Shakespeare, the Riverside Chaucer (fortunately the UK version--paperback!). I think I left On the Road at home, ironically. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I love images of women reading and of women writing. I don't have an extra minute or I'd add some image from Commons to this page. It'll have to wait till I have some quiet time. Right now, visiting family is the priority. @SusunW: your move to Mexico story is amazing. And I can see how you chose those things. My only question is, what happened to all the books you didn't take with you? :) --Rosiestep (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep LOL you must have been in my head. We sold almost everything we owned, but the books all went to the Charter School in our neighborhood, my mom's for me to get later or with me. Books are living things. I couldn't sell them. I see freeing them from bookstores as my civic duty. ;) I love your picture of reading. SusunW (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even our feline friends like to bury themselves in a good book once in a while.
It only took a couple of minutes but I found my favorite picture of a woman reading. It's not an "important" work of art. But it reminds me to me which is why I had it up on my talkpage for awhile. Anyway, now it's gracing your talkpage. Hope you like it. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are lovely! Maybe I'll find a way to get a picture of me and my lady-cat reading at the same time...that would be the ultimate picture, I'd think. Keilana (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Drmies, I send you greetings from my great never-ending vacation from Wikiland. I was heartened to see your name on the slate, so I just popped in to vote for you (and, really, also to oppose a particular candidate who shall remain herein unnamed). I hope all's well and that you have a wonderfulest Thanksgiving.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alf! I had been wondering where you were. You doing alright? I appreciate the vote, but what I'd appreciate more is to have you back full- or part-time. I remember you as an editor with a great sense of curiosity and much common sense coupled with actual knowledge. Think about it: we need editors like you. If I get in, I'll ask Jimbo about putting you on payroll. Happy days to you as well, and thanks for stopping by--please come by anytime. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on out earlier conversation on the subject: For the heinous crime of opening this discussion at Commons in which I point out the absurdity of having nearly 200 images from a single bikini car wash fundraising event at a "breastaraunt" I have now been accused of censorship and inciting a moral panic, and conversly of misogyny and "body shaming". Some of the images did get deleted and now it's a big argument over there. This is pretty much exactly what I expected, although I had hoped Commons was coming around to some sort of sanity. I think I'll just stick to the occasional upload and not try and fix their screwed up community. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm running for ArbCom, can I say "holy fucking shit"? If this isn't blatantly sexist I don't know what is. Seriously. That editor's user page makes it pretty clear what they think you and your censoring ilk. You wonder if they have an ax to grind here as well. Thanks for trying, Beeblebrox. Maybe part 3 will be about sanctorum. I tried once and failed miserably. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say that page of photos does a pretty good job of showing that, despite the slow-motion photography and other visual aids of various exploitation films, women in bikinis washing cars just look, well, kinda silly, sorta as if I went to a production meeting in a bathing suit (which you don't want to see, BTW). BMK (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, is this the new mass-edit/mass-disruption du jour? And I was having so much fun with mass redirects on en-wiki. I never knew Commons could be just as much fun. Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the images wasn't deleted because it was in use here. I've rectified that, so if anyone else wants to have a go at the next round of nominations of out of scope images as suggested by Yann, you can include that. On a related note, this isn't very different from the crap that gets included in Indian actor/actress articles here, it's the same issue -- the only difference being that on Commons it's visual. Just have a run through at WP:DSI and see what kind of sources are being pushed around as reliable and all that. —SpacemanSpiff03:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you close the entire thread so that the initial attack on me stays with the broad consensus supporting my use of CSDs when archived. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, someone will--I won't for a little while. I'd have to read the whole thing, drink coffee, and wake up, just when I'm watching House after a bunch of cocktails with Mrs. Drmies. Liz, I think you're online--can you have a look? Drmies (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to just be seeing this now...I didn't get ping, just happened to drop by your user page. Looks like you closed this Neelix-related discussion earlier today. LizRead!Talk!17:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I first encountered Drmies I thought I had to fit myself with forged steel armor. Their passion was indeed a force to be reckoned with. However....this admin is also someone understands that they can be wrong, can learn from others and more importantly....could effect real change with even someone who was opposed to their position. This is someone who may react, but then takes time to think about what they did. They can admit when they are wrong, stand strong when they feel they are right but still allow all concerned to have a voice, even those many may have ill feelings for them...because must such feelings are based on a misconception. There is something about this editor, contributor and admin that gets to the very heart of what this project is really about, the content, the creation of more content, and the willingness of everyone to work together in some for that moves us forward.
Am I going to vote for this one for arb com? F**k yeah! Because this is someone who has had a greater influence on dispute resolution than anyone else I know...even those that are deeply embedded into the DR mediation. I have always felt that Drmies should volunteer for the DRN but then....that is not what is really needed to do all those things I have tried to support. Not a DRN volunteer or even someone you see on the other boards much but....they effect more on a daily basis than most do in a year or more. You won't see me say anything about those I don't support (they probably know I would never vote for them anyway), and I probably won't go on about the many others I am voting for....but if anyone cares what I think (and why should you) about who you should vote for and why.....I think I covered the best reasons to support this candidate. I feel there is something very substantial in what Drmies has to offer on Arb Com so I felt making clear what I felt here was the best route in supporting this candidate. Good luck to both you and Wikipedia in general.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa Mark! Thanks. Yes, DRN--I'm going to leave that to User:TransporterMan, who is a hard act to follow. I don't have the patience or the diplomacy. Hey, there's a few more qualified candidates--take your time and look at the voter guides. It is important that a variety of people get elected: diversity is a good thing.
...how that Dutch fella climbed this whole GD mountain back in '36. I've been walking my little portion (which is at about 2000 metres above sea level) for about a week, down and up, every day, sometimes more than once, and I am still wiped by the time I get "home" in the evenings. On the bright side I don't feel bad about never going to the gym. Also I now live (while here) about a block from the mosque, the call to prayer can be quite lovely. --kelapstick(on the run) 08:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw "the view"--so that's the mountain? Which mountain is it, precisely? That Dutch guy, he probably didn't fly in: I'm sure he walked 5000 miles to get there so he was probably in shape already. Plus, he wasn't Canadian, he was Dutch, and that makes all the difference. (I'm not very Dutch anymore. Three days ago we hiked five miles in pretty steep terrain, and my calves are still hurting.[a] Hard to get down the stairs in the morning.)
This reminded me of "the world's largest artist-in-residence community",[2] which consists of hundreds of artist lofts converted from an old brewery. Twice a year I go on a huge tour of their open studios. I climb up and down litterally millions of stairs, and I always end up with painfully achy calves for days afterward.Equally painful: I just had to gut the Brewery Art Colony article. It included: "At the edge of downtown looms the cement-gray smokestack of the Brewery. Thousands of motorists on the 5 Freeway drive by each day, giving it nary a glance." This caused my Spidey-sense to tingle. Sure enough, almost the whole article was a copyvio. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM21:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which mountain specifically it is, there are a lot of them (depending on the definition of mountain). I have to drive up another 1000m in elevation each day as well. The walks are just to get dinner and such. On the bright side, I am down a belt notch, I think. That view is from my apartment, I call it the mansion on the hill, about as far up as you can get while still being "in town". --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A RFC has been opened at Battle of Karbala talk page. Please give your input. your views/opinion will be valuable for 1)You have knowledge of Islam and Islam related articles and 2)As an admin you will be able to give insight as to whether we should mass delete the non-notable POV/Hagiographic pages or run AFD's on them one by one. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, fellow no-I-in-team. I have repeatedly cut down mountains of absolute dreck from articles about game engines over the years and I've had about enough of it. You know they let absolutely anybody or nobody edit this thing? Today, I noticed that Unity (game engine) had been dutifully re-crufted by someone who said he was bringing it in line with articles of other game engines! I glanced at List of game engines for the really popular ones that I could recognize, and I don't even know what else to look at. I had long long ago already deleted a major cruft list inserted by a Unity employee who tragically never contributed again after I encouraged him to do so without being the corporate public archivalist. So I dragged the waters at Unity (game engine) which was verrrry much easier after my previous major overhauls, and Marmalade, Frostbite (game engine), GameMaker: Studio, and Unreal Engine. I'm hoping that some anti-cruft warriors like yourself will verify that I cut it via strict encyclopedic standards without losing anything. Really, the citations of RSes are the important thing. Thank you for your efforts! — Smuckola(talk)04:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that OTHERSTUFF applies in all kinds of ways. They can point at something and say "see, that has it too"--the best way to counter it is to say "point at a GA please". I'll have a looksee--thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm no expert on the topic but a quick look tells me that certainly the sourcing in Unity is much improved. Keep it up, I'd say. I read the conversation with the Ubermammal--pity they didn't return, but you did all you could, I think, to help them over the first big hurdle: Wikipedia only includes relevant, neutrally written, properly verified information. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I want you to know that I appreciate the impartial stance you took regarding my unblock request. I have noted that the very same problem that started the chain of events which led eventually to my indefinite block has resurfaced. Please have a look at Talk:RT (TV network), section "Former Russian Officials". Masebrock has independently observed the same misquotation of a source [5] (already sufficiently biased). As a result, he has been called a vandal, warned that he was edit-warring and forced to surrender in the previous section "I recognize that I am in the minority here and will surrender this point." (see: "Mention the source of RT criticism" section). You know the very strict conditions that have been imposed to me, so that I intervene only minimally. I left a comment on his talk page. In my opinion, this instrumentalization of Wikipedia for purposes other than the dissemination of knowledge are very detrimental to the project, and it is an issue that must be addressed.
For reference, the lead of the article in January 2010 read:
"RT sets out to present the Russian point of view on events in Russia and its 'near abroad' and give the viewers an opportunity to get acquainted with Russian views on world and domestic events. Margarita Simonyan, RT's editor-in-chief, says the station was born out of the desire to present an "unbiased portrait of Russia".[1]
A major part of RT's airtime is devoted to Russian and world news, but it also airs business, sports and culture news. In addition, RT features documentaries, travel shows and commentaries on present-day life in Russia and Russian history."
... as to whether this point [6] should get the highhanded brushoff, instead of the discussion being allowed to take its natural course. Or perhaps I'll get blocked too, for showing disrespect to an administrator? EEng (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't block for that unless you kept edit warring to restore it (I have blocked an editor for doing that). I do have certain opinions on undoing actions by administrators on the administrators' noticeboard, but today is a happy day so I'll keep them to myself. Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those were some...interesting comments on the BLP by that other editor. As for your comment about MikeV, I don't really know what to say; I have so little knowledge of what happens on the meta pages. Until proven otherwise, though, I'll accept on good faith that meta is able to weight and balance and check edits and decisions made there. I don't know exactly what decision Mike V made that you linked or what that was based on, but I doubt that they'd let anyone there get away with rigging an election (you may recall that I am something of an optimist). I do share with you some disappointment that Mike V didn't comment himself, but it's possible they're a bit upset either with others or themselves, or both. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never for a moment meant that Mike V might rig an election. It's a matter of propriety and appearances, like a judge not having a meal with a litigant, or an election commissioner not carrying a campaign sign. But yeah, that fact that he didn't bother to come comment himself if probably the worst thing. EEng (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I know so little I just picked a hypothetical problem; I don't think I'd know where to go if I thought something was fishy up in Meta. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't link to any "decision", just to the diff I happened on which showed me Mike V is part of the scrutineering/stewarding/whatchamcalliting election machinery. That's all that mattered. Like Drmies, I didn't infer anything from Mike V's silence, except that he didn't care to explain himself or answer the near-unanimous criticism of his action. EEng (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not inferring anything, Bbb--I'm just registering some sadness. You may have seen that the Lady Catherine De Burgh spoke kindly of me. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I didn't comment on the matter solely because it was closed for discussion by the time I actually saw it. There were a number of things mentioned by those with opposing views that were incorrect, but I don't see a good reason to create an extended discussion over a 24 hour block. (Though I can certainly elaborate on my thoughts if someone feels it's necessary.) I will mention that in general, I'm saddened to see a growing number of users who find it acceptable to disparage others (editors and article subjects) under the guise of "satire" or "friendly banter". I'd also encourage everyone who has to opportunity to do so to spend some time volunteering for OTRS. You'd be surprised to learn the effect some of these sort of comments may have and the efforts we take to mitigate such situations.
As for me "rigging an election", respectfully, I don't believe those holding such a view have a basis for such as claim. In addition, it shows a misunderstanding of what is the role of an election commissioner. We help set up and facilitate the election. Any "rigging" would have to occur by striking votes of eligible voters and this is limited to the steward scrutineers. (Not to mention that all actions are logged.) Finally, I rarely (if ever) opine on the suitability of arbcom candidates. Mike V • Talk02:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like Drmies said, no one suggested you might rig anything, and again -- amazing I have to point this out to someone in a position of trust -- it's the appearance of impropriety that matters (aside from the fact it was an ill-considered block for any admin to impose). There's indeed a good reason the rest of us should hear your reasoning (it doesn't have to be an "extended discussion"): WP:ADMINACCT. "Unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools" -- remember? Either the reasoning for your action was good, and the rest of us will be better editors and admins for understanding that reasoning, or the reasoning was bad, and you'll be a better admin for understanding that. This blithe, "so-I-smacked-him-it's-over-so-what" no-care attitude on the part of admins is why a lot of editors have little faith in the admin corps as a whole.
The primary justification for the special carve-outs in WP policy for BLP is a legal one. In the US satire of public figures is legally protected, and that's what matters for BLP purposes. You may be "saddened" to see its use here, but it's not your place for you to import your sadness into your duties a super-admin, using a mistaken BLP rationale as justification. EEng (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the election, I don't believe you saw my comment below. I'd also appreciate if you could stop talking to me in a condescending manner. On reflection, yes, perhaps this all could have proceeded better if we both approached this a different way. As for my reasoning, BLP policy does apply to every page on the encyclopedia. (BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts.) Content relating to article subjects "... should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Criticism and praise should be included ... so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." By extension, we have a whole policy page on civility and attack pages. In addition, we expect administrators to behave in a respectful, civil manner towards others. (I still feel that comments such as these are subpar behavior for an admin: 1, 2) As for the block, the BLP policy permits the use of a block, "even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved." Whether or not the use of satire is permitted by law is irrelevant here. Wikipedia is not a satirical website and the community has already established policies that prohibit attacking our readers, editors, and article subjects. We don't have special "carve-outs" as you've mentioned. As I briefly discussed above, such issues aren't always as trivial is you might believe. At the very least a culmination of these instances have led to editors leaving the community for good, article subjects (or friends and family of the subject) raising complaints, and readers viewing Wikipedia in a negative light. Mike V • Talk22:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen this (was wondering what Mike V was up to, and half-expecting to hear from him directly; I guess not). But just to say one more time: the Right Honourable Member of Parliament for Islington North was not disparaged in the Lady Catherine's guide. (And yes, even if he had been, this would not have been defamatory.) As for what may or may not be worrisome in Mike V's actions and attitude, I suspect that if he hasn't realized that by now, he never will, so there's no point beating a dead horse. Which is why I closed the ANI discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jbmurray, I see you're a specialist in Latin American literature, which means you probably don't take anything at face value. Well, no one writes to the professor. When you have a moment, I would like for you to virtually bless my Duke shirt, which I wear out of eternal gratitude to Coach K and all Three-Point Shooters of the World. You may be interested in a trap I set for a (Romantic) colleague. He was spending the night and I put a copy of Chronicle of a Death Foretold on his nightstand. He never touched it. What is this world coming to? But I won't denounce him until I make full. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one writes to the professor, indeed. I am increasingly tending towards some of the perspective espoused by Her Ladyship. Such lack of decorum and basic social graces around here... not least by those who so espouse "civility." In Latin American Studies, incidentally, we know a lot about the supposed dichotomy between civilization and barbarism, and tend to side with the latter, for good reason. Sigh. Consider your shirt blessed. Your colleague is clearly a fool, though for a tastier morsel I'd have slipped him Pedro Páramo. All best. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prof. Jbmurray, I preciate the pointer--foolishly I promised one of your fellow Wikipedia editors I'd read Vanity Fair, so it'll be a few years. I will tell my colleague what you said, amplified and embellished of course. By the way, I'm the only prof I know who's taught 2666, and I'm kind of proud of that. Some of my students even finished it. May you live long and prosper, Drmies (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, "rigging" was a purely hypothetical example. No one suggested you're actually rigging anything. As for the discussion, it all passed me by as well, but I do think it would have been good to have heard from you there--not showing up made you a kind of a punching bag, which is unfortunate. Having said that, I'm with those who just didn't understand the block, and I doubt that the person (whoever it was--a British politician?) will complain about it. Anyway, I guess it's all water under the bridge, and I appreciate you coming by here, I really do. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to tie back to the beginning and prepare for closure: EEng, I'm one of those who thinks that admins run the admin noticeboards, and I think that if an admin closes something (or hats it, or whatever), then that decision ought to stand. Bbb, I got a question for you too, but it's so secret that I'll send you a message via carrier pigeon. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wish it was only a hypothetical accusation. A few anonymous accounts (or perhaps the work of one individual), have sent me emails accusing me of such with an assortment of choice words and derogatory comments. I just wanted to briefly touch on that matter in case anyone actually had concerns. Mike V • Talk03:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right--well, touching on that matter is fine with me. Sounds like you're dealing with some of the people that I hear from every now and then... Drmies (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But see, Mike V, the experience you're having proves my point. I personally have enough faith in Wikipedia processes to believe that you, having been selected by whatever process selects you, will perform your duties with the utmost integrity. But (reasonably or not) not everyone has that faith, and when an election official does anything that carries even a whiff of side-taking, it brings disrepute on the process, in at least some people's eyes. It may very well be that such people are unreasonable or paranoid, but the election system deserves to enjoy the faith of everyone -- even the unreasonable and paranoid -- and by doing what you did you reduced that faith by some epsilon. I think epsilon is probably small, but that's still too much.
So even assuming, for the moment, that your action was an appropriate one for an abstract random admin to take, you should not have taken it. You should have done nothing, allowing the N-1 other admins to notice and correct any problem (if there was one) or at most brought the matter to other admins' attention for them to act on or not act on as they saw fit. Nothing would have been lost thereby by -- there was no emergency -- and something precious would have been preserved.
Side note to Drmies re "admins run the admin noticeboards, and I think that if an admin closes something (or hats it, or whatever), then that decision ought to stand": um, what happened to "Administrators do not have more rights than other editors, just more tools"? (Paraphrasing there, since I can't find the quote just now.) EEng (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More tools, more responsibilities. NAC, for instance, is governed by codes of behavior that don't apply to administrative closures. As far as I'm concerned administrative closures on an administrative board should not be undone by other editors. Call me old fashioned... Drmies (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty poor reasoning for an about-to-be-Arbcom-member (but I think you know that). But despite that, in my book you're still an OK guy (or gal) though I've never been able to decide which not that it matters, of course. I mean, it might if we were going to have a personal relationship but that's neither here nor there... As for the nonresponse from Mike V, I guess that's one more person who was asleep in high school civics class. EEng (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had no choice but comment on ANI after you requested me to. I think if there was a diff where I have "lied" or "continually.. harrassed" then Fyunck would have presented it. I am going to stand back and watch. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, I didn't mean to force your hand--wait, I did, and I feel a tiny bit sorry about it, but I think it was the right thing for you to do, commenting. I haven't been on much (Iron Bowl and all, and Windows 10 wreaking havoc on my netbook), but I'll have a look to see if anyone responded to your comment. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing Oshwah. I frequently see you do many good things around here--please let it just be a reminder to look carefully at what IP editors do and what summaries they give. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we need Grandpa Frank on board, so step up to the place. For the record, I don't think grandfathers should be named "Frank", but I suppose I'm not making the laws--yet. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry K-stick--I meant no disrespect. My grandfather was called Theodorus, which I think is appropriate. I mean, I guess I can get used to it--I'll mull it over tonight. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken, I just found it to be an amusing coincidence. And Bbb23, no, we had another name my cousin came up with when he was quite young. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My maternal grandfather (I never knew my paternal grandfather) died many years ago, but we called him grandpa. It wasn't really the use of the word grandpa in isolation - and it certainly wasn't the name of the grandfather - but the whole sentence that struck me as funny. I just had this picture of grandpa getting all het up at being reverted. I've heard little brother, little sister, cousins, but I don't recall grandparents being invoked before by a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a grandfather named Grover. I always thought that this would be a hard name for a child to have as I tend to think of Grovers as old men, not 9 year old kids. LizRead!Talk!20:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was a great grandfather...gruff, loving and took us to baseball games. Made my brother a lifelong fan. I wished he had lived longer but I think that sentiment is true for many people regarding grandparents. LizRead!Talk!02:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Dr., from 99. Perhaps a week ago I asked for help at the BLP noticeboard, and received no traction there, re: Nnamdi Kanu. My take is that one account took over the biography and turned it into a coatrack for far more expansive political issues in Nigeria. If you or your talk page stalkers have a chance, I'd appreciate other opinions--I think an awful lot of what's there doesn't belong, and may reflect someone's very prolifically sourced agenda. Nice painting of the reader you have here. We're still wading through Thursday's leftovers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:78F9:225E:C72:122C (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mrs Drmies made me get rid of the turkey leftovers yesterday. Good, cause I can't stand turkey--I only bought it because Winn Dixie had a crazy sale. I marinated it in achiote paste and a bunch of other funky stuff and cooked it in banana leaves. It still tasted like turkey, though. As for your activist, that was quite something. I reverted. M done for now--doing Wikipedia on my phone is a drag. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, today I took Mrs. 99 out for a nice non-turkey lunch, and we both were happy. I can't believe you were able to edit with your phone--I've got an old one, and if I so much as try to revert a single edit the thing crashes. My calculator function has a picture of an abacus. Thank you--if I'd done that as an IP I suspect I would have been tagged for vandalism. 2601:188:0:ABE6:78F9:225E:C72:122C (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My cellphone is so old I don't use it for anything, although I do cart it around when I'm by myself in case of an emergency. Every couple of months I charge it, too. And no I don't want a new one. @99, don't you think it's about time you graduated to 100 for all your fine work and your even finer vandalism? Why don't you request a rename?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sure you've already got a notification, but Dalamani has continued with their problematic behaviour, and since there's no point me warning them further it has gone to ANI. Regards. --Michig (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not funny, you know. --> Rosie tried to draw a butt, but wasn't successful; I suggested she draw it literally. The expression is hers. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very classic expression, "old fart". Maybe Rosie had been reading the Jargon file? "A term of insult in the second or third person but one of pride in first person,"[7] as of course you used it on ANI, doctor. Speaking of which, help, help, my ANI ban is about to expire (see the top of my page), what shall I do? I've enjoyed it so much, but it seems a little lazy and self-indulgent to simply extend it. Would somebody like to ban me again? Perhaps that would take community consensus on... er... ANI? (Hint hint, please propose it.) Bishonen | talk18:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Why was this page deleted? I see it has something about referencing but surely this is due to a previous editor? It's a New York Times - Best selling children's book. I wanted to add something to it and realised that it had been deleted but without seeing the content how can it be improved upon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:51c3:7900:45fd:9303:7a11:f709 (talk • contribs)
I would recommand to use some of the content in the author's article. New York Times - Best selling children's book should have some references and reviews. But I am more of a merger than a inclusionist. Hallo Hafspajen, I came here to comment on Drmies changes on my Andreas Anton parapsychology draft, thought this is the right section ;). While I am fully OK with an article about an author being formost about the person, statements in a scientific volume with variuous coeditors is much more according the third party rule than a blog entry or personal communication. Even better of those statements are being repeated in various media dealing with the subject. Polentarion Talk21:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Dr., here's one from my files: over the summer I came across a COI account, who'd written his autobiography on Wikipedia, and adds links to his essays as references for other articles. Now, that sort of rampant self-referencing makes me queasy, and I reported this to the COI noticeboard, where the topic died quietly. I don't doubt notability, nor his knowledge. But, well. If you or your astute talk page stalkers want to take a look at some point and let me know what you think, great. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's really unfortunately a ton of things like this. The last time I tried to examine the problem by hand to come up with an idea of it's scale, I had a list of a couple hundred pretty obvious autobiogs, and a couple hundred more that had been pretty obviously written by someone's agent or PR person - and only spent an hour or two compiling the list. As much as I wish it were different, until there's a policy change suggested that is accepted (or IAR deletes become way more common than they currently are - and I've definitely seen more admins performing them of late than I had previously (ignoring the redirect situation),) we get a TON more active editors, or there's some other major shift, we'll be stuck with most of this stuff. Normally I only bother to spend the time to take action with stuff that isn't CSDable if it's really widespread, or there's evidence that it's done by a group of undisclosed paid editors who have done more than a page or two (well, or if it's easily traceable to a large PR firm - ever since Donovan House got hammered out, all the big PR firms jump like hell when one of their employees unaware of the agreement breaks it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Gorman, I think that this encyclopedia is better off with an article about Stephen Whittington than without an article about him. Yes, the unreferenced stuff should either be cited or trimmed. But this is very far from the most promotional article I've seen here. An overly aggressive response to this type of article alienates notable people and damages the encyclopedia rather than helping it. So be careful, please. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, your mention of Miles Davis reminds me of your earlier discussion here of the word "bitch", because that word reminds me of his 1970 classic Bitches Brew. You see, I was 18 in 1970, and with a few of my buddies, we rustled up $600.00 and rented an abandoned barber shop on Woodward Avenue, a mile north of Detroit. There, we opened a rock and roll record store selling LPs for $2.29 each. Britches Brew was our best selling jazz-rock album for two years, and I listened to it constantly. I still love it, though I have learned to appreciate much more of his work as the years go by. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't actually looked directly at the article in detail, which I probably should've mentioned. I try as hard as I can to not destroy useful articles or alienate people (notable or not) unless it's a PR type scenario where a damnatio memoriae approach to their work is the only effective way to stop them from greatly subverting NPOV, etc. Even in the instance of non-notable people, unless there's major BLP issues, I try to approach the issue in a way that doesn't throw people off. I've encountered a number of PR people (including several at wikiconf USA) who were explicitly interested in trying to work successfully within Wikipedia's PR best practices, and work with them as I can (none of the wikiconf people have gotten to the stage of wanting to work directly with WP yet, but I imagine some will eventually, and I've previously helped multiple PR professionals succeed while staying on the right side of the ideals of the encyclopedia as much as possible.) I'm good friends with Bill Beutler and significantly respect the work his folk do on Wikipedia, even though they're paid for it, often by companies I don't especially like. I've also worked with some notable individuals who wanted Wikipedia articles help figure out a way to get them created (including a couple I've written myself) while adding value to Wikipedia. And even with some of the bigger paid editing issues that have come up, I've tried to salvage articles that were of value to the encyclopedia. With fluffy articles about notable people, I just try to kindly defluff them.
I hate to dig up a quote from an ancient article about the Wiki-PR thing, but for the most part it really does sum up how I feel about both a lot of COI issues and a lot of paid editing in general: "Many of their early articles were about things that weren't really encyclopedic, but unfortunately, as time has gone on, they have been able to attract bigger clients. I don't give two shits if they write articles about websites that sell erectile dysfunction pills—they're immediately obvious to the casual user as lame spam. I'm much more worried about what happens when an unethical outfit manages to start getting major clients, and start controlling articles that our average reader assumes are not written by corporate flaks.” Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing problems regarding a specific article, it seems prudent and wise to me to actually read that article and comment on that article, instead of immediately discussing generalities. That's how I roll, at least. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course correct, but I'm fairly tired, using a browser where the wikilink to the article wasn't apparent, and I wanted to comment without tracking through 99's history (ps 99: I miss when you were on IPV4) to find it. In my default chrome stylesheet on many talkpages, nonbolded or italicized article links don't stand out from background text. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article claimed that he'd written an influential essay on Satie; the refs given were the essay, and an abstract of an article on Satie by another author, which didn't mention the essay. Old Australian joke; "I have two sons- one's still living, and the other works in Adelaide." Brian Adam Douglas is another one- he's a notable artist, but unfortunately the only editors who've heard of him are him and me- and I can't think of anything to write about him. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft, if I were a coder I probably would've been motivated enough to figure out the appropriate user specific css changes to make links stand out on the laptop it's an issue on when I'm tired :P Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay--to bring everyone back to the specifics: Notability isn't in question. The concerns are 1). The inevitable liberties taken in an autobiography, which strike me as subtle, but there nonetheless in this article, and 2). The slow creep, if you will, of the subject using his essays as references in numerous other articles. Are his contributions acceptable as WP:RELIABLE sources? The whole self-referencing business always makes one uneasy--Drmies, can you imagine if I started doing that in articles across Wikipedia? Hmmmm. 2601:188:0:ABE6:9DC4:922:9262:2028 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subtle, yes: the phrase "If Australia has produced a classic piece of musical minimalism, this is it" becomes transmuted to "a classic piece of musical minimalism", leaving out the all-important if. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you reverted me, it seems clear we do not quite agree on what constitutes a BLP issue.
To avoid further conflict, could you look at the article in question, in its current state and contribute to the talk page, outlining if there are any issues.
As you are aware, it was not just me who was reverted, perhaps the IP editor could also contribute as they were also reverted. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Greetings. I've noticed a few of your edits across articles regarding the use of flag icons. Therefore I invite you to pitch in at Talk:Joe Calzaghe for a discussion on ditching flagicons across boxing articles altogether. I think I might've even adopted one of your terms—"cute little flag icons"—so please don't sue me for gimmick infringement. ;-) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the closure. [8] For clarity's and posterity's sake, could I suggest we add the words in green to the second sentence, changing:
"A COI itself is not a reason to block or ban; as Jayen466 points out, this was done early enough in the editor's history."
to
"A COI itself is not a reason to block or ban, as long as it's openly declared; as Jayen466 points out, this was done early enough in the editor's history."
Yes--I think one half of my brain wrote the first half, and the other the second. The first part by itself is correct, but of course the declaration has no antecedent. Thanks! And season's greetings to you and yours--it's almost Sinterklaas! Have you been a good child or a bad child? Drmies (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Prominent", no less! Well done! Why does no one ever ask me for my opinion? I see they tagged Peteforsyth as well; for an old dude, he's not a bad dresser, you know--sort of hipster chic. I think the argument about the ads is a bit overplayed--it's hardly as intrusive as every other website through a mobile phone, and at least we're not playing videos and stuff. One does wonder where the money goes; it's not going to me, that's for sure, but I know that people like Kelapstick travel from one exotic location to another.
Please tell the lovely Draco I said hi. I hope y'all are keeping warm and that Mama Merkel continues to be the unexpected example of hospitality, certainly when compared to the rest of the world. Here is a cold place, in all kinds of ways. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am awaiting your signature on my expense report Doc. Also, I am booking my next flight home, I may (if I get the flights I want) have the better part of the day in Amsterdam when I return. An old friend of mine is a pianist over there (I had no idea that was an actual occupation), so I may have to drop in on him during my layover. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An old guy! Oh my! When did that happen? :) The ads thing is a soundbite, not intended to withstand robust scrutiny. In the abstract I have no problem with the WMF running ads. But I think they undermine their own credibility when they build their message around "we will never run ads." That point doesn't go to the substance of my concerns. I got into that stuff in a followup blog post. Anyway, glad to hear the feedback, and of course open to more. -Pete (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
can't say i agree with you on this one. But I didn't comment further because it may come to Arb. As you will soon learn, need to avoid recusing oneself all the time at arbcom means not closing or actively participating in most of the interesting disputes around here. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies et al. could anyone voice their opinion at Talk:Mudar_Zahran#Protected_edit_request_on_2_December_2015? It relates to whether we should include that activists on Facebook have accused the subject of being a Mossad agent and commentary in a open letter written by his father in which he was renounced. It's been at COIN once and BLPN twice in the last month but no one else is showing much interest. I've been going round in circles with another editor and can't reach a consensus. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary for this edit of yours seems to be inaccurate.
The edit summary is no--we are not a directory. a link to an official website is acceptable (in general--this case may be different), but we're not linking to all issues--certainly not for this topic).
But your edit does NOT remove links to each issue. That was already done by a previous edit - and has been fought / edit warred over repeatedly. [9], and many more, most recent diff. Dtellett's moderate/middle ground position (mention the issues, but don't link to the issues) seems quite appropriate and I wonder if your intention was to overturn it. Your edit summary suggests not, but your edit does so. Please reconsider your overturn. --Elvey(t•c)20:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha--good point. I don't like a table listing each issue, but you are right: my (I think hastily written) edit summary was incorrect, and if you and Dtellett think it's acceptable, then that's fine. My apologies for the incorrect summary. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think the table listing is a good idea. It's relatively low on information content and since it's a periodical needs updating frequently and will likely be longer than the article proper soon. But I left it alone in later edits as a compromise. Dtellett (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I now see your comment on the talk page too. (Your edit summary led me to conclude you hadn't visited it.) Let's continue to discuss on the talk page. Copied Drmies' initial reply there. Dtellett : Understood; I see the difference MOS:EMBED should guide us... And I feel I must add that your describing restoring the links as "anonymous terrorism promotion" (in your edit summary) was beyond the pale - and so disruptive. --Elvey(t•c)21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Elvey : My edit summaries frequently encouraged discussion on the talk page. Instead, IP editors kept reverting my edits, often so quickly they appeared to be coordinated. That's disruptive. If you check some of their edit histories (e.g. [[10]]) my accusation of bad faith wasn't exactly unwarranted. Dtellett (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion
Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
Compared to Fox, that does look like some left-leaning candy. Mongo, this is a micro aggression--don't you know I'm diabetic? I'm going to get the ant-bullying force to stalk and hound you. Thanks pal! Drmies (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never knew those musicies with horns and fiddles had names, let alone numbers. I guess it's easy if you want to tell one from the other, though I've never been able to hear the difference. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back in august you commented that I was being "silly" for commenting that a user is labeling a religious organization "a sect.[11]You said its not a bad word. Really? Yes its a bad word when its meant for bad intentions. [12] FYI I made that comment because I knew the editors intentions were not for the good because I have had extensive discussions with him and reviewed his edits. Misdemenor (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, I've been working on improving the article Miss Belvedere and I would like a fresh set of eyes to look it over. Also, it has an original research tag on it but I think that I've removed or sourced the statements that were of concern. If you're interested I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look. Thanks! Shinerunner(talk)14:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, just FYI, years ago I locked suer:Omar-Toons because of massive crosswiki editwars. Since he's currently editing fr.wiki and en.wiki I won't lock this account but I thought you'd need to be aware of this background. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I get it when kids use the site to promote their bands, but academics my age presumably grew up using printed encyclopedias, and understand their significance, what they are and what they aren't. But human nature is a damnably funny thing, and it's so difficult not to insist upon our own individual importance. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Academics our age may have grown up with print encyclopedias, but they also had their opinions of the internet formed in the 1990s when you wouldn't take anything you found there seriously, and can have trouble seeing Wikipedia as anything more than the bastard child of LinkedIn and Encarta, whereas the younger generation can sometimes treat Wikipedia with more respect as they grew up with it. It cuts both ways. ‑ Iridescent22:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(a) You'd think an academic would be able to break out of notions formed 20 years ago; (b) even if not, why would anyone want to post themselves on LinkedIn and Encarta? It's embarrassing. EEng (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, living next to NYC and having gone to dozens of media, marketing and social media conferences over the past 7 years, millennials are continually told that they need to develop their own "brand". However, self-promotion within academia has always been looked down upon...I mean, if a scholar is doing good and substantial work, it will be recognized by their peers, they don't need to promote themselves. But I think there is a younger cohort of academics who don't think it is in bad taste to create their own Wikipedia page and manage it as an extension of their research and teaching.
To be fair, though, when I was in graduate schools, there was an ongoing nostalgia for a time when academics were "public intellectuals", when their work and opinion pieces could positively influence the general population (or at least those people who read newspapers). It could be that establishing a presence on Wikipedia is seen as a part of that process of getting out of the ivory tower and being more accessible to people. LizRead!Talk!
Very interesting, and good to read. I don't take a reflexively dim view of either the internet or youthful contributors, nor do I assume that anyone is automatically gifted with wisdom once past a certain age. I do think we all tend to be self-serving, regardless of our best intentions. And I think the internet will one day be superseded by something else. I know not what, but technology is evolving too quickly for me to think otherwise. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Deleted. I guess I owe you one for that ACE question. Are we even? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hadith may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
And season's greetings to you as well! Andreas JN466 12:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
