HiLo48[edit]

Given that HiLo48 resorted to rhetorical insults, trying to undermine the intelligence of anyone who disagreed with him and his take on the Castro case, the inconsistency of your warnings about personal attacks says a great deal. Hypocrisy abounds. Bravo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 153, I would remind you that you received an only warning from Drmies about making personal attacks about that editor --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I filed this report at AN/I. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I think mine is the last name you want to invoke right now in a "civility" case. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, why? You're civil. Anyway, can you please look at the chaos that's going on at 68.50.128.91's talk page. My head is spinning. And immediately after I commented, Bbb23 (who wanted to marry me last night lol), protected the page, apparently solely because I posted. You can read my comment there. IP 68 is obviously very sensitive and, as a result, gets very worked up and says inappropriate things on impulse. But the way this is being handled is only making things much worse. It's like this IP is being attacked from all sides. Look at his talk page history. Anything you can do to calm this thing down would be appreciated. It doesn't take a platoon of admins to beat down on this IP, especially consider his relatively minor offense. I've seen him participating in the RfC at Pump and he seems to be a very nice person when he's not being scolded. That's enough for now. I think you'll agree. Haha. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see that Bbb23 just removed my comment from 68's talk page. Drmies, please, you've got to intervene. That's totally inappropriate. Are they're just completely throwing all the rules out the window? This is getting crazy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the appropriateness of the block and duration - the IP is simply continuing his prior disruption that was previously done on the article talk page. It is entirely appropriate to lengthen subsequent blocks for continuation of the same disruption. The fact that he changed from the talk page to the article itself does not dispose of the appropriateness of lengthening blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I really respect the fact that you are commenting here. But the overkill with IP 68 is remarkable. And the removal of my comment is totally inappropriate. Bbb had no right to remove it. Please restore it. And you will see that I try to be as fair as I can in my thoughts. But an admin censoring me and then protecting the page immediately after I post, solely because of that post (read the edit summary) is completely inappropriate. Again, thanks for coming here, but please let's bring the heat down on all this. It's out of control. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can actually see good arguments from both sides on the removal. Unfortunately, it appears to be another gray area in site policy (or, more accurate to say it appears to be a gray area intersection of contradicting policies/guidelines). This is another issue that may be better served via WP:AN, rather than the talk page of individuals. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which removal you're talking about... my comment or the endless things IP 68 removed. Haha. But there's absolutely nothing that allows Bbb to remove my comment. Especially when it's civil, fair, on-point, and tries to calm things down. Again, please restore it and unprotect the page. And I suggest you ask Ymblanter to stay out of this. He was clearly involved before he blocked 68; I mean they reverted each other in an article right before the block, for goodness sakes. How much clearer can "involved" be than that? ;) So the block coming from him is so blatantly inappropriate, that it's going to take an admin with integrity to simply tell him that he shouldn't have had any involvement in the block. And I see that he also has blocked 68's talk page access. Ymblanter is all worked up, and his one edit summary on 68's talk page clearly shows it. Again, thank you for commenting here but please be the hero in this and do the right thing(s). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point about the block by Ymblanter being procedurally inappropriate; but that does not clear 68.50.128.91 of his disruptive behavior, and given the IPs ongoing disruptions to force BLP violating content into the article, I would have done a longer block had I seen the behavior before Ymblanter placed the block. So, if you really want to be procedurally accurate, we could ask Ymblanter to remove his block so I can instead place a longer one - but, I don't think the exercise is worth the effort. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
76, I love you like a brother (I think), but I'm not going to wade into yet another mess, especially one involving a whole bunch of talk page comments and reverts and what not. I don't know what 68 is up, but it's attracting a lot of attention; if three (or more) admins are already involved then I would only hope in vain to do anything useful. If a block was made incorrectly there are places to address it, and that talk page is probably not the right one. I have great faith in Bbb, I love him like a son, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt; if he erred, then Barek (who's already there, and whom I love like a distant cousin) can judge that well enough, I suppose. Ymblanter, I don't know if you're watching--I love you like my neighbor, and if that block was involved that was not good thing. Still, there are levels of involvement, and if a block is warranted the community has a tendency to overlook a certain measure of involvement. Sorry, but that's the extent to which I will get involved. There's way too much heat in this place, or maybe it's just my street which is on fire; I trust it's not Rome that's burning while I'm fiddling. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, I still think WP:AN is the best place to take up the dispute with the revert by Bbb. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of love, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks, Barek. As I'm sure you know from my prior comments, I fully realize that 68 has done some inappropriate things. But that's not the issue. And I'm not aware of any continuing/recent BLP violations. If I'm wrong, please show me the diffs. The only thing I saw he did was to add a simple tag to an article, like in this edit You keep saying he's done all these terrible things that warrant a two-week block but no one has shown any diffs at all to support it. I saw him revert twice over that silly tag in one article. And Ymblanter was one of the editors who reverted it. What else did 68 do?? I see absolutely nothing, except participating very productively in an RfC discussion. Please Barek, I not only think you should ask Ymblanter to revert his blcok, I think you need to be honest with him and let him know that he should not have done been involved in that block in any way because he was clearly involved. And, for the third time, please restore my comment and unprotect the talk page. That's clearly improper and, respectfully, you know it. Policy without question allows me to post that comment and does not allow anyone to remove it, except 68. (Well, not while his TP access is revoked lol.) As far as blocking him for a longer period, or even long at all, it is unjustified without providing any diffs to show specifically which edits warranted it. If I saw any edits like that, I would be the first one to say it. And I'd tell 68 myself that he was wrong. I've done it before. ;) But all I see are the two reverts of that tag at Rob Bell (Virginia politician). Big deal. A low-key admin like Yunshui would have just talked to 68 calmly, especially knowing how sensitive 68 is, and explained why reverting that tag was wrong and asked him nicely not to do it again or else he'd need to block him. Just because an editor acts immaturely doesn't mean several admins treat him like shit, and like he's worthless. I see not one admin involved in this showing any kindness whatsoever; trying to open a door to getting him back on track productively. That is the biggest shame in all this. But again, you can be the hero in this. If you choose to be. Thanks again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love you too, Drmies, but a brother would help a brother. Haha. I am not asking for anything unreasonable. And, honestly, I don't even know why I'm defending 68. I just feel bad for him because I know how hurt he gets by criticism and I've seen how pleasant he is in various discussions (when he's not under the gun haha). If one of you wanted to do the best thing, you could've offered to mentor him, or at least hook him up with a mentor. Being ganged up on (not meant pejoratively) by several admins at the same time is an awful thing to watch. And I can imagine how he felt being blocked by the same guy he just traded reverts with. I know when you guys take off your admin uniforms, you are really fun, cool people. But some of you get really tough when your warning and sanctioning people on here. Perhaps it's hard for you to see or understand because you're in the power circle. Well, I'm not. I'm on the outside, impartially looking in. I honestly believe that a few admins here totally forget that there's a real live human being on the other end of your computer screen. Someone who has feelings and is just begging to be understood and treated with a little friendliness and respect. Even if 68 is a pain in the ass sometimes, big deal. Be the great admins you are and find a good way to stay above it, while getting him to do things the right way. If he thinks you give a shit about him at all, he'll respond positively. Enough, you get it. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Drmies, this thread was actually supposed to be about HiLo's admirer, 153.161.195.137. Anyway, check out this ever-so-cordial response I got at the AN/I I filed on your behalf (while you were dreaming about bacon explosions). See, I try to make your life easier and this is what I get. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U[edit]

I get the feeling that a couple of these need starting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commencing countdown, engines on? - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two are very obvious. I don't care about the snarking on my talk page, but it has gotten to the point that every discussion anywhere is subject to disruption, editorializing and derailment by individuals that are desperately seeking attention and apparently, martyrdom. As RFC/U is a necessary step in dispute resolution, I see no other choice. Drama is unavoidable regardless of what is done, so it is better to channel that into a process custom made for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know I hate civility blocks, but some people just push it too much. And yes, there's derailment, and the enabling/goading on thereof by some others. I restored DanielTom's TPA after a very polite and friendly message and then saw a complete turnaround. I don't know what's happening on that talk page right now and I don't care; I expect a note from the boss any day (that's a metaphor--two metaphors). Drmies (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed the same thing, email doesn't match talk page. I hate it, but the train has left the station for a couple of people here, it is just a matter of time. I'm tired of wasting my time with this, and the two of them have successfully located the limits of my tolerance. It is my opinion that both have well exceeded the threshold for WP:DE, not in a singular incident, but in everything they do. By their own admission and acts, they don't want to be here and hate this place. Everything they do seems to focus on spreading this misery so they don't have to hate alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, I'm a certified asshole, that is well known. I've never seen your limits get tested. You're the nicest guy I know (well, on Wikipedia--my real-life friend Rob, who is a seven-foot tall carpenter, is maybe the nicest one in the world). I'm not going to start something, I've done enough damage already for the time being, but I am interested to see what you think should be done. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pondering it. I'm not mad at anyone (I save anger for the real world, stuff that matters) but the actions of both of them have gotten to where it is interfering with helping people that have no relation to them, it is hurting other editors, and it is drama mongering. I think I've been as patient as I can be, but have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is better without either of them. This isn't something I say lightly, nor a conclusion that I jumped to without a great deal of consideration. I have tried very hard to not come to this conclusion, but it is what it is. I'm not sure if someone needs to make a proposal at WP:AN or try RFC/U. RFC only works if the editor is simply misguided but still has the best interests of the project at heart, but I'm running out of good faith and beginning to conclude that they are disrupting purely for the sake of disrupting. One has flatly stated " I reject this place with its dumbed-down double-standards and abusive environment & culture"[1] so I'm not sure I can make a stronger case for WP:HERE than he has himself. Why would someone stick around a place like he describes, except to disrupt it? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem here is that over a fairly long period, the editing of both of these parties (just as an example, I believe there are others) is detrimental to a collegial editing atmosphere. Of particular concern is the fact that a lot of these editors don't really seem to do anything else other than perpetuate this vitriol (which is, to his credit, not a criticism which could be levelled at IHTS). Dennis - your point about derailment is spot on; I can think of a recent RfA where this debate spilled over and we all know RfA is contentious enough without becoming a platform for the anti-admin brigade. The thing is, these editors apparently enjoy the sensation of being engaged in what they feel is a battle between two homogenous groups and so I can't see how anything is going to change without some form of escalated dispute resolution. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean you're joining Dennis for dinner and a movie?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha I was at a meeting and didn't have time to write a more lengthy response. I'm sufficiently concerned about DanielTom - looking at his en.wikiquote talk page I see some pretty nasty comments. This smells of "HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED!" and his criticisms are typically ad hominem attacks now.
  • Lately I've found admin work less stressful than my content work, however - maybe it's because I don't patrol ANI that much anymore, though I do a lot at SPI. The level of pure vitriol that my colleagues out at the U.S. roads project and I face on a daily basis now has become astounding, as can be seen in my contributions and on my talkpage. We've had to put up with people making wild accusations against us (including calling us the "road cartel") without proof, and without any ability to defend ourselves. We've had people try to force their conception of a road article on us time and time again. And yet our only goals are to create *good* road content and revert edits that degrade quality; we've written 52 FAs and over 850 GAs in the process. If this is how we treat people who write content, then we've got a problem. Yes, I have gotten quite frustrated in my talkpage messages lately, but when you've been constantly attacked from every angle for months, that tends to happen. It's times like this when I enjoy crosswiki work, since I lose the politics of enwiki. --Rschen7754 11:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rschen, the number of FAs and GAs is just an indication to which extent you and your other abusive admin friends OWN that wiki project at the exclusion of everyone else. You're probably abusing your tools in the process. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? If you're gonna make a serious accusation like that you need proof. --Rschen7754 21:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on Rschen--"admin abuse" never requires proof. Do I need to add sarcasm tags? :) Drmies (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dammit Mies, I ECed with you, was about to post a "lets all be friends and have a tea" speech. :p Your impersonation of an asshole is very convincing ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes think I should slip away from the front line and just plod through the CSD cats like many others do. But I would find that boring. Some of us have to do the dirty work and take the slings and contempt of the audacious youngsters and some older members (some as ancient as me) who still seem to be stuck in a schoolyard mentality. A lot of it comes from the Internet tradition of anonymity which lets people get away with stuff they wouldn't dream of doing/saying in RL. I've even heard that some are actually quite nice blokes in the pub. All the Wikipedians/medians I've met in RL with one exception who is both an admin and a WMF contractor are quite nice people - and I've personally met literally hundreds. I don't care two hoots what people say about me - I've made too many enemies among the children (and not so young) here already to ever succeed to higher office - but I look on with great distaste at those who have a general antipathy towards admins. Most of them reaped what they sowed; I'm convinced that actual abuse by admins is quite rare (although I've been at the brunt of it myself before I got the bit), and it's extremely unfair to tar us all with the same brush. Is it just my perception or is bashing admins on the increase? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good lawdy .. I never met another wikipedian. I probably should some day. Oh .. and up above - if you want to talk about "experience" and "being in all shoes" ... crap ... PumpkinSky/Rlevse ... good hell what has to go through that man's mind. New user, .. admin ... crat ... os ... cu ... arb ... beat to hell and back over a few sentences on a TFA? ... geesh. — Ched :  ?  03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"blinded by power and driven by revenge". Yep, that's me. Not a personal attack, of course. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need a userbox: "This user has been called an abusive admin $x times", but I'm sure that would be seen as too pointy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can be envious of me then - I was a guest of DGG's in his home in Brooklyn for several days. It was one of the nicest experiences of my life (no exaggeration). I couldn't have wished for a better welcome for my first (and probably only) visit to the USA.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm regularly in Eric's neck of the woods. I wonder what he's like over lunch. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 07:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said above I've even heard that some are actually quite nice blokes in the pub, but I haven't had the pleasure(?) yet... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know you guys think you know what it's like for someone who leaves for whatever reason, but if you've never worn those moccasins, you'd don't truly understand. I'm truly sorry I've caused so much trouble, I never meant to and but despite my best efforts I caused more last night. PumpkinSky talk 12:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cont.

Not sure what PumpkinSky "caused..last night"; but just some passing thoughts.

As wonderful as technology is, and as much as it has benefited mankind in so many ways - I think in some ways it has tended to isolate people even more too. No one can truly know another person; hell, we're lucky if we even understand ourselves in just a small way. Would that we could all share a "Vulcan mind meld" - but it just ain't so. When you throw communication such that comes with the Internet, texting, ect. into the mix - we lose even the body language and voice inflections to try to interpret. Is it really any wonder that people all too often feel isolated, and alone? Then you throw in the concept that when you communicate with someone only through digital means - where you tend to fill in the "blanks" with your own/our own thoughts ... when a dose of reality shows up uninvited .. it's a harsh thing to deal with. Don't mind me folks .. just running my mouth on the way through the pedia. For those of you in 'da States .. have a great holiday weekend. — Ched :  ?  13:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jordaanlied[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Once featured article)..[edit]

Nobody is interested in Bad Taste any more?


Slow decline of once featured article.[2]

[3] More decline in slow motion. [4] [5]

[6]

Until nothing is left.

Pickled herring, sour cream and chopped chives, potatoes and an egg half served at midsummer.

[7] only a vast amount of book titles on the literature list and a few lines. Warrington (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading a book[edit]

This came out a couple years ago, was introduced to me by my niece, but I think of you every time I watch it. [8] He has several surreal and exceptional videos. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cat. discussion[edit]

A cat worth discussion

This page fills up quickly. I don't know what became of that list article with which you'd intended to replace the rape victims category, or if you still have any interest in the topic, but that discussion was closed as no consensus. I've not added any more antique members since it opened, but will now perhaps, though that would probably just lead to a second nomination.  davidiad { t } 02:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a start. My position on the ancient members of the category was basically that narratives which informed the early modern rape topos which continues to be the crook in the hourglass that we can't get past needn't be authorized by historians as factual because the historical and the mythological were equally valid exempla in moral discussions which involved rape during antiquity, as they should be in a current epistemology of rape. This is a perennial topic at classics conferences, and I remember at least one panel on the topic at a recent APA conference. I'll see at some point if anything methodologically helpful for the ancient side, at least, of the list has come out of the discussions, hopefully more than an online abstract. In the list as it is, I'm most interested in the addition of Leda, not least because of what the editor who added her entry deleted a few days later.  davidiad { t } 03:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's my position too, just not in such nice words. Reminds me--I'm reviewing a real academic book: I can't even read the damn introduction. It's not jargon, it's concatenation. You think that editor realized they were giving swans a bad name? You think they're sweeping something under the rug, abusively? If Leda is in there, what about all Zeus's other "girlfriends"? Drmies (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the editor probably thought it trivialized the entry, but what I find so interesting about Zeus and Leda is that when gods take advantage of women in Greek poetic texts, it's often pretty metaphoric language (like "take advantage of"): the sort of stuff that's open to modern reactionary attacks about "anachronistic" conceptions of rape if someone chooses to call it "rape" and discuss it as such. But when you read accounts of Zeus and Leda, it reads like rape from the beginning: as though the sexual aggressor has to be a magical animal for the poet to be granted the license of realism. Is the book you're reviewing a first book? I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts it is, if I could afford a donut.  davidiad { t } 03:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worse, it's an edited collection. And it's awful. The essays themselves seem to be a lot more readable, at least the first one is. It often seems as if the editor has to blow everyone else out of the water in such collections. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why it's nice when folks with secure chairs organize these things: nothing to prove, they just write a true, brief introduction to the topic and place the papers that follow within the current state of the question. I can probably one up you on review curses. I have one that's six months overdue and the next (and final) volume in the series comes out this summer. Still more fun: I don't give a shit about the book. My shit, your shit, my cat's shit, any shit: no shit would be promised by me in return for this book. I just said I'd do it since the journal that's publishing the review doesn't generally do papyrology and I thought they'd have to apologize and offer to return their copy like they generally do with these editions, so I'd be a fucking hero for doing a couple day's work and clearing the review from their roster. Now I'm a dick and the review's a burden that I face every weekend. I'm working on it now, though the lady's in bed.  davidiad { t } 04:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hey ...[edit]

I'll tell ya what. You, Dennis, NYB, etc. all have etched your efforts into a "hall of fame" as far as great admins., ... but I gotta tell ya ... keep your eyes on Bbb23 - this guy is GOOOOOOD. He has some sort of ESP or something - and he reaches out to people when they are down. Just sayin. Oh ... and by the way - take a break from the AN boards... they will really twist your concepts of the project. You folks have a great weekend and holiday. later. — Ched :  ?  04:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A point of information[edit]

Hi Drmies. Did you mean to remove my comment with no acknowledgement, or was that just a bug in the edit conflict software? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN[edit]

Hi Drmies. There is a discussion at AN in which your name is mentioned. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, not my intent. And remember, I know there are many great admins out there. It's no surprise at all that Dennis Brown unilaterally closed the AN abruptly, while there was active participation, no less. And even though Barek is the one who told me to take it there. I let Dennis know my thoughts on the matter. I guarantee you that if I was registered and started that discussion, it wouldn't have been shut down like that. Well, figuring out where to take the kids later. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this comment 10 hours after the unblock request was denied. It can certainly be perceived by some as rubbing salt in the wound. The guy is gone for two weeks and he can't even say a word on his talk page. So I don't understand what your point in doing that was. How could it possibly help an already volatile situation. An encouraging word and maybe a nice piece of advice would've been a lot better. Disappointed. I'd suggest reverting yourself. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phead128[edit]

Hi, I took a chance and unblocked Phead128, given the new direction on the template's talk page. Please don't shank me for it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate teapots[edit]

Someone left me a link to how to make a chocolate teapot on my talk yesterday (long story). Thinking of you and your children (the ones at home, not the ones you deal with on WP), I thought you might want to stash it away as a school holiday project that is both educational and fun. Mind, you'll need a lot of chocolate. Enjoy! - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AAH[edit]

Hi,

Note my revert to an old version of the AAH, my reasoning is found in the ANI discussion. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus Free Theatre article[edit]

Hello Dmries!

I'm looking at the talk page of the Belarus Free theatre article and wondering how to get the neutrality tag removed. Could you help me understand what it takes to do that? Thank you! GayleKaren (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spekkomissie is back - under a new name[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but that despicable creature is back. He set a clever innocent looking trap for me at the Help Desk - WP:Help desk#Famous question and then revealed himself at my talk page - User talk:Dodger67#Poet. I'd be very grateful if you could do the necessary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Blocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WK. I revdeled the usual. This is worth keeping an eye on. Roger, usually my page has a decent amount of admin traffic, and those admins provide excellent customer service. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged a checkuser on IRC, and started a SPI for sleeper accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spekkommissie. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. I'm off to bed now - hope my page will still be here in the morning. I've just watchlisted the SPI. Goodnight! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. WK, thanks: you're so much more adept at those things that I am. I take this personally for reasons of historical shame, I think. When I was young, the word "kaffer" still had currency in a racial context. (Now it just means "sucker".) Drmies (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, my proverbial pleasure. It's pretty obvious what needed to be done, even though the unclear filter of Google Translate. SPI's already turned something up, so I guess it was a good thing we checked. (And by the way, I messed this one up already, so I guess I'm not as adept as you think. Dennis is more the mark for SPIs.) I'm sure most of us have similar memories of saying things we would cringe at hearing now, and no doubt we're saying things even now that we'll come to regret. The world moved on, as they say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted a pair of Help page topics initiated by the sockpuppets. BTW in South Africa the word "Kaffir" or "Kaffer" is still a fully serious racial insult - fully equivalent to the American "nigger". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's back again! As an IP - User talk:76.31.89.90 and also take a look at WP:Help desk#Bogus entry - it used my name to try to intimidate someone else n the Help Desk. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've mentioned your name at the "SPI Part 2" - WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Spekkommissie‎ it seems this loser has a far larger puppet collection than we initially found. Sorry to drag you into this muck! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it may be worthwhile asking other South African editors (at WikiProject South Africa) if they have also been targetted by racist trolling? If there are others we might get a better picture of the sock drawer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting byte count[edit]

(diff | hist) . . Talk:Wikipediocracy‎; 01:43 . . (+666)‎ . . ‎Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Lede grammar and style and content)

Gasp! ;) Optimom (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming what we already knew. Ignatzmice•talk 03:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cause that's how admins roll. >:-} — Ched :  ?  13:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting[edit]

Actually it is 594. This user is ranked 594 on the list of Wikipedians by number of pages created, you I mean. Do you remember Blue Lacy? Still alive. ... Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary and a spoon.

hello[edit]

I have been on the road for a bit, am now In Akron, Ohio, fumbling away at my daughter's laptop, a species of computers that I find even more confounding than the male mind. So I am not exactly sure what was wrong with my edit, (see my talk page, I can't figure out how to do links here) that I re-formatted another editor's posting, or expressed my sometime inability to understand the male mind. As you probably know (though to assume that anyone else is aware of something easily leads us into the trap of projection that is or can be a problem with all assumptions) the female mind has been considered one of the unfathomable mysteries of the universe and it has been clear to me (i.e., opinion) that the male mind is just as incomprehensible. This is wrong to say? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. So it was not my formatting. In any case, I consider myself warned and will try really really hard not to upset the guys at MRM. Or you, for that matter. Carptrash (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better if I said "the human mind?" or would that then become some animal rights thing? Carptrash (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Carptrash. I would have hoped that people who wanted to contribute could rise above the level of "ew boys have cooties". As for upsetting "the guys", that's not the issue: the problem is that your raising the temperature and it's not beneficial. Coupled with that "admins hiding stuff" comment, it begs the question of what you're really doing there. Drmies (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the question as to what I am doing there is a good one, but my comment about admins was (at least intended to be) that another editor hid a warning (to me) from an admin, thereby, at least from my perspective, rendering it less than effective. Carptrash (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block request[edit]

If next week is like this week, will you indef block me and take away talk page and email access? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Leap Years, you are supposed to be on duty all 366 days. Don't think you get a day off just because of the convoluted astronomy that I haven't bothered to try to understand :) Go Phightins! 02:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to point out that you are expected to be on duty during any ad hoc leap seconds added due to the slight irregularities in the speed of the earth's rotation. However, if it ever were to occur that a negative leap second were applied, you may consider that second of time that never officially existed to have been an opportunity for you to take a break. Zad68 14:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long time...[edit]

... yes very well thanks. Just don't get the chance to come on here as much as I'd like. Hope you're well too, and that you enjoy this sweet snack. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Anniversary![edit]

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee

Wishing Drmies/Archive 52 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- AutomaticStrikeout  ?  18:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggest Loser vandalism[edit]

Hello sir, the articles are being vandalized again. Mostly in Brunei's version of the show, The Biggest Loser Brunei: No Pain, No Gain. I have created a summary of the whole Biggest Loser articles, and the active IPs who had been vandalizing the articles. See it here → TBL.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've never done a range block. Too scary. I think most checkusers have experience with them, they have all the fancy technical know how. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought you were so rugged! Renzoy, maybe you should place a note on ANI, with a link to your table. Thanks Beeblebrox, Drmies (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, another IP has vandalized an article again. This time in The Biggest Loser Australia (season 1). I'll try to report this on Wiki:ANI.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 17:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to "sir" me, dear Renzoy. People might start talking. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another set of vandalism in The Biggest Loser UK (series 3) and The Biggest Loser UK (series 1). This IP 84.109.93.20, is leading a pack of new IP vandalists. Can we consider an indefinite blocking for that IP? And can we consider putting a semi-protection template for all other articles in order to prevent vandalism edits from the IPs sir?--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. No, no indefinite block on an IP, which is irregular in the first place and won't do us much good. I did block them, and I semi-protected a few more articles, indefinitely. No, we can't put templates on a page unless they're protected, and it probably wouldn't scare that loser off anyway. If I'm ever not around, you can ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, and tell them that you'd like infinite semi-protection and that I've been doing that for a while now for these articles. Thank you sir, Drmies (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sir. Thanks! :D--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 14:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, can I request for a page protection for the following pages? The Biggest Loser UK (series 2)‎, The Biggest Loser Germany‎, The Biggest Loser Asia (season 1)‎... Those were former protected pages, their page protection expired yesterday.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual problem[edit]

Hi Drmies. I recently found an article which is using links like these [link deleted] as sources. Besides other problems, I suspect the link may be performing a copyvio on the book. I am at sixes and sevens about how to deal with this. I thought I should bring this to an admins notice. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Well, one way or another, the links have to be stripped. Cited sources don't need to be online, so the right way to do this is to cite the book directly, rather than the images of the book. I believe you're right that they're copyright infringements, but even if they're not, they're still not appropriate, as they're self-uploaded; we have no kind of assurances at all that these images are of the real thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the links, and the ref tags that were wholly dependent on them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yes. Thank you both. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I guess the link is inappropriate here too. Deleting it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right--good call. Hey, I just reverted someone on Regar. The article is better than it was, but all the sources are a bit old. Do you have anything newer on the bookshelf? Drmies (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding Editor vendettas. The thread is Editor vendettas.The discussion is about the topic Editor vendettas. Thank you. unc123 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

[9]. You're right, I should have worded that better and will be far more careful from now on. Thanks for giving him the warning. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from New England[edit]

Look, I know next to nothing about gospel, but I think we may have multiple issues at Stewart Varnado, and I've dropped a stone down the well at BLP [10]. Any insight you can provide while not writing about triple-brewed Alsatian ales will be welcome. Best, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No hurry on my account. If one of your talk page stalkers takes a shine to this they're welcome to pitch in. The Ms. is improving; thanks for asking. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of laid the smack down. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's where I thought it might be heading. Thanks for finishing it off. I hope you're not in tornado alley lately. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete the page? I am confused as to why you did this 68.114.152.148 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Varnado was redirected to Dixie Echoes, which then was deleted at AfD for being a copyright infringement. After that, the redirect was deleted (not by Drmies) because it pointed to a nonexistent page. So it goes! --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the Page should have never been redirected he is notable in and of himself and another admin even agreed and locked the page 68.114.152.148 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page is back up, and I've put a notability tag on it. AfD anyone? 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, I restored the page per a requested and because it was technically deleted under WP:CSD#G8 I agreed with the rationale that the redirect discussion had not considered the fact that both might be deleted. If the article does not meet our notability guidelines it should be deleted through the AFD process rather than a technicality. Hope you don't mind. Mkdwtalk 21:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phead128[edit]

Unfortunately I believe that User:Phead128 was unblocked prematurely. He is still being very disruptive and attacking editors. Edits like this are completely unacceptable. I would have to recommend the user be blocked again, or banned from editing. He has obviously not learnt his lesson. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested[edit]

I'm continuing to have problems with Lucia Black, but I'll keep it simple. Since the ANI where numerous issues were brought up, she has continued to refactor and alter my talk page comments. She was warned by RexxS after she altered his post on May 14th.[11] She altered my post pre-ANI at the VPP.[12] Post ANI, she continued by altering the statement in the latest discussion.[13] While it may be a single character, the change is terrible because it changed the context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should I template the user page or is the talk page note enough? I don't know what is most appropriate action at this point. For the underlying conflict problem, I think I've established the need for a full article with my prototype at User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox and probably will need mediation or whatever to address it. Though my biggest issue is how both Ryulong and Lucia have teamed up to disrupt GITS and insert false information and ruin the original topic-level page. If the RFC didn't work and DRN didn't work, what options do I have left? It seems offensive that two people can perpetually reject something on a simple 'grudge' and continue to obstruct the building of the encyclopedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris, I'm not sure what you mean with your first question. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see you issued a block instead, I was wondering if I should template a warning to her talk page or leave the comment the article talk page as suitable warning. What do you suggestion for resolving the underlying content dispute? I don't want to pester or anything, I'm just out of ideas for resolving said dispute. The RFC seems to have failed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we still talking about that title track thing? Someone needs to close that. I think the best thing to do is to place a (NEUTRAL!) note on WP:AN, asking for a volunteer to look into it. (As I said before, I can't do that since it's just not my cup of tea and I don't want anyone to laugh at me if I get those geek details wrong.) IMO it's an easy close, but just a lot of reading. Then you can move on. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to inform you... but the title track thing was not the problem at all. The actual issue started with Ghost in the Shell, which I dropped because it was not being resolved. Now it has moved to Dragon Ball; where I want to create an article on the notable anime series Dragon Ball Z. Two RFCs were opened, one on WP:MOS-AM and that was recently closed with the offending piece being removed per WP:CREEP. When I recreated the page with the lengthy content from my sandbox it was reverted and now its being blocked all over again. I don't see any avenue for the content issue to be resolved if DRN and RFC can be so easily ruined; I need something concrete to end this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you drop some diffs/links to the discussion? What is the objection to a DBZ article? There is enough commentary over the years that its 'not really dragonball' that the TV-series is notable. Given its themes and the large differences between it and DB, I cant see why it would not justify its own article. Even if I am more of an Outlaw Star fan Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, let me see if I interpret this correctly - Lucia is arguing against a dedicated DBZ(Anime) article on the basis that theDragon Ball (manga) covers both the arc of the 'Dragonball(anime)' and 'Dragonball Z(anime)' story/plot? Thats a novel interpretation of the MOS guidelines. IMO The anime/manga's should be split off due to the size of damn DB article at this point... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the dispute at Talk:Dragon Ball, I noticed their was no page and wanted to create one, apparently it was merged in 2008 for 'violating' MOS-AM. As seen in this discussion.Talk:Dragon_Ball/Archive_1#Merge So I did two things, get an RFC to split and an RFC to alter (later remove) the offending piece from MOS-AM. That RFC is here. It was no contest, but I asked for it formally closed to prevent future problems. Since there was no activity for weeks and my sandbox looked good I went ahead and recreated the page as it appeared the VPP RFC made clear the arguments against were overturned and that the 2008 merge was done for the wrong reasons. Ryulong reverted the page and threw a fit.[14] Now the issue is 'oh previously there was consensus to not split, so don't split it' and rather then argue policy, its "rhetoric" and I'm in the only one active on the support side now, other people supporting in Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z#Split seem unaware or have not been involved in the RFC. With 65 references and content half as long as the original franchise article, it completely lacks the plot and the overview of the works at this point. To be perfectly fair, Dragon Ball glosses over 200 episodes in a paragraph, instead focusing on the first half and the Frieza arc. Lucia has called my sandbox 'pointy', because I'm not adding the content to Dragon Ball before splitting off.[15] But I'm willing to overlook things like that for someone to explain policy. WP:CCC, WP:DETAIL and WP:SPINOFF all seem valid, but the opposition has only "rhetoric" of 'its not a good idea' or 'its not that different'. Lucia even claimed that my article was inaccurate because I mention the Dragon Ball Z manga, but didn't 'clarify it', when I did.[16] Its really just the continuation of their earlier grudge from before, but I've tried to appease them for days only to find their reasoning borders on "its not a worldview" so I address it to get the response that "Dragon Ball Z manga doesn't exist in Japan". USA and Germany both had DBZ manga releases, but most of Europe and South America did not and I clearly stated Viz's role in the brief section in the sandbox. This is a heavy condensed prose, but is an example of what Lucia calls inaccurate:User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox#Dragon_Ball_Z_manga So, I'm just going to work some more on the sandbox because eventually it will be at such a point that it might hit GA or FA despite not being in main space and the whole conflict will look ridiculously silly in hindsight. I believe that it is beginning to become clear already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; I might have a few options left to deal with the issue. And I did try DRN with GITS, I'll wait till Lucia can participate before continuing. Thanks Drmies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to do some more reading but I understand the argument you are facing Chris, and were this a lesser franchise, it would hold some weight. However in this case its a bit tortured given the scope of the franchise across manga (print) anime (TV series) OAV (film) and the videogames. (Although I would use 'Intellectual Property'/IP where you use the term franchise). Essentially their argument revolved around local MOS guidelines trumping notability and reliable sources policies. Thats irrelevant given LOCALCONSENSUS. If its notable as a stand alone product, it can have an article. If I have time I will take a look at the GITS issue as well. Drop some diffs on my talkpage if there is anything specific you want me to look at. Think we have taken up enough of the good Dr's talkpage with manga talk ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phead128[edit]

User:Phead128 was again blocked today after a renewal of the Template:WW2InfoBox edit war. I am asking for a review of the block as I've explained here. Kleinzach 05:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I should probably explain that I'm an 'involved party', as Phead128's opponent UrbanNerd has now refactored and deleted my messages there three times [21], [22], [23]. --Kleinzach 05:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your father[edit]

I will think of you, and of your memories of your father, for the next 24 hours, in your honor and in honor of your memory of him. I lost my dad in 2003, and the 10th anniversary approaches. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom dictionary[edit]

Sorry if this is a bad time, but you may be interested to know that idiom dictionary is currently showing at DYK. This is not just a told-you-so as I feel it could still use more work. You and your talk-page stalkers seem to be interested in words and their usage and so may be able to improve the topic while it is on display. Warden (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wardens note above showed up right next to Sagacious' note at DYK on my watchlist. I despair of DYK sometimes. Its reviewers (with some exceptions) follow 'does article meet these specific DYK criteria' to the letter, ignoring general quality. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that references are required under WP policy, not just the DYK criteria, and part of the text was copied from another source. Warden was just taking text from an earlier revision (and I'm not alleging any wrongdoing on his/her part!), but I don't think that this DYK should have passed as-is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry Warden that may have came out a bit short. I dont have an issue with your work on it, more the general quality of whats slipping through DYK. Regarding references - in the wider encyclopedia its a bit more relaxed/less rigid. However the criteria (last time I checked) for DYK is that the 'hook' is referenced. When I looked at a large amount of DYK's a few months ago, the tendency was for reviewers to only check the hook reference without taking a look at the whole. 'Is hook referenced? Check, pass' was how it was going. Very few of the reviewers were concerned with quality of the article, only that it checked the bullet points on the DYK criteria. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) References are only required for quotations and material which seems controversial — this has been confirmed at the core policy page WP:V multiple times. I'd have liked to do more for the article but the trouble is that processes like AFD and DYK run on a timetable of 5-7 days and it can be difficult to find the time when there's so much else to do too. Warden (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

The Administrator's Barnstar
For going the extra mile to resolve what could have been a very nasty situation. Thank you Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raw fish?[edit]

Do Dutch eat raw fish? On the Swedish wiki Dutch cuisine, the article say the most characteristic thing is Dutch eating habitually raw fish... called Nieuwe. I don’t know, nobody gave me raw fish while in Amsterdam. But then it might be something Dutch do when nobody is watching them? Or it is just fairy tale. ( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ken Matthews[edit]

Thanks for the note. That's part of the reason why we have to go through them all actually, some were removed or reverted properly, others weren't actually checked, which seems to be the case of that editor. Thankfully the large bios are long done, we only have pieces and parts of paragraphs left to tackle at this point. Wizardman 17:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Algar[edit]

Dear Drmies,

You had previously processed an edit war request in this article. At that time, you read the comments and even posted your thoughts about the dispute. Unfortunately, there seems to be another edit ware on this article. Given your previous experience, I would like to ask you to process this one as well. Thank You.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

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

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For stepping up to the plate (or the wicket, if you prefer) and helping to resolve the "Sallie Parker" episode. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another section[edit]

…== Jaffna Kingdom and blocking me == This is a sentence in Jaffna kingdom article. It is well referenced. > The origin of the medieval Jaffna kingdom is obscure and still the subject of controversy among historians.[17][18][19][20][21] Everyone accepted Jaffna kingdom was there in 1323. Some historians argued that it was there in 1215 and some argued it wasn't in 1215. What are the measurements you used favor it was there in 1215 and end a centuries long debate? Himesh84 (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit Jaffna kingdom page. Can you fixed it ? we can later discuss or decide about after effects. --Himesh84 (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
> Moreover, you seem to be making the same edits you were warring over in the first place.
This is incorrect. Now I am going with consensus. That's Jaffna kingdom was etablished in 1215. It was against my opinion before the block
We needed something to show WP has decided Jaffna kingdom was etablished in 1215 over other opinion. WP did it through consensus. There is only place which state it. That is WP consensus. If it is only there what is the problem of linking it --Himesh84 (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to figure out what you're trying to say, but one thing is clear: there is no consensus on the talk page for your edits. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Resistance Movement[edit]

now he removes everything from the talkpage instead of continuing the discussion so now further disussion seems impossible and his notice on my talkpage is against wp:goodfaith 95.195.223.226 (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

anyway if i actually edit the article again he will revert it without any working argumenation 95.195.223.226 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the...[edit]

Stealing a man's dog when he's away? Just came by to say hi, I'll probably come back to edit a little over the next few days. I hope you have been keeping busy on the cricket betting scandal article(s)? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category intersections[edit]

You had previously expressed interest in the idea of category intersections. I wanted to give you a sneak peek of something User:Magnus Manske has recently developed. To see it, add the following line to your common.js page: importScript('User:Obiwankenobi/intercat.js');

Then restart your browser, and visit Category:Wikipedia_categorization_intersect_test. You can click on the intersects up top, and it will display all articles that meet the criteria (e.g. American novelists who are LGBT and African American or whatever). This is still very early prototype stage, but since you were interested I wanted to share and get your feedback. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can just create it then.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. That's interesting. Next step is a pull-down menu, right? I was surprised to find how many hits I got for "Dutch people" and "Social classes". I suppose that one little move, one category getting added to a high category, would easily increase the number of hits tremendously. Thanks--yes, I think that's the kind of thing that would propel the debate forward. BTW, I still don't believe in gendering everyone. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you add something as a sub-category, it can change things. For example, Category:Guggenheim fellows was under Category:Guggenheim family, which was under Category:American Jews. As a result, James Baldwin came up in the intersection of Category:American novelists and Category:American Jews. If we do this at scale, we need to just be more clear about category membership - for example, the reason that example is broken is that Guggenheim fellows are *not* part of the Guggenheim family, they are simply related, so we need to start using category relations instead of just sub-catting, especially when it comes to people. When you say "I still don't believe in gendering everyone", I'm not sure what you mean - we could do for example what the German wikipedia does, with Men, Women, Third Gender, and Unknown for example, or we could even have 5 or 6 or 10 genders at the top level. In any case, the categories themselves would for the most part cease to be gendered (so they'd be no more Category:american women novelists and Category:American male novelists, you'd just have Category:American novelists, which you would intersect with women if you wanted such a list. But the default would always be an ungendered list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback Notice[edit]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Jcc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Using Drmies talk page as a billboard - Attn content creators:[edit]

An ANI discussion came up, fight between two editors on two articles Bicycle helmets in Australia and Bicycle helmet. The first is one of the worst article's I've seen in a long time, the second isn't much better. Both need to be trimmed by 75% and have entirely too many sources due to some POV warrioring. If any talk page stalker wants a real challenge on what should be two really straightforward articles, I'll buy the beer. Once all the POV and insanely tedious detail is removed, I'm guessing there will be less to fight about. The first article made my eyes cry. This is just a bit too much project for me to jump in and fix myself, but I know some of the best writers stalk here (one of them lives here), so I'm hoping a few will see this as a glorious challenge and opportunity. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need content creators, you need a weyr of wikidragons, accompanied by a few wikiogres and a random wikibarbarian thrown in for good measure. Then send some wikifairies to clean up the mess and make it pretty again. I read about 5 minutes before I had to stop, and I still hadn't learned anything except there are debates in the science. So what? Do users need to know the results of every single randomized controlled trial and graphs of bike usage from the 70s? i think one solution for Bike helmet might be to fork out all of the stuff about bike helmet safety into a separate article, and leave bike helmet as a nice, short summary article - when was it invented, what do they look like, quick overview of safety issues with link to debate, etc. Sort of like Climate, Climate change, and Global warming. Then, the debate can continue at the "safety" page without polluting the main page. Either that or nuke it from orbit - its the only way to be sure.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some COI and POV issues which caused part of the problem, which is why I think outside people need to come in an mercilessly turn it into whatever it needs to be. I'm handing the behavioral side, so really I shouldn't even if I felt I could do a good job with it. I think that would go a long way to help deal with the behavioral concerns. What this needs a few bold and skilled editors. Did I mention I will buy the beer? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 02:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put a split tag on it if you think that will help, and start a discussion on talk, and notify a few places, then see who comes by. Do you think we could get a consensus to split? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing two people are going to argue, but not sure about anyone else. The discussion is on ANI [25]. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 02:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an example of one section, maybe I'm off-base here...

before
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

History of designs[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
"Hairnet" helmet

A cycle helmet should generally be light in weight and provide ample ventilation, because cycling can be an intense aerobic activity which significantly raises body temperature, and the head in particular needs to be able to regulate its temperature. The dominant form of helmet up to the 1970s was the leather "hairnet" style. This offered acceptable protection from scrapes and cuts, but only minimal impact protection, and was mainly used by racing cyclists. More widespread use of helmets began in the U.S. in the 1970s. After many decades, when bicycles were regarded only as children's toys, many American adults took up cycling during and after the bike boom of the 1970s. Two of the first modern bicycle helmets were made by MSR, a manufacturer of mountaineering equipment, and Bell Sports, a manufacturer of helmets for auto racing and motorcycles. These helmets were a spin-off from the development of expanded polystyrene foam liners for motorcycling and motorsport helmets, and had hard polycarbonate plastic shells. The bicycle helmet arm of Bell was split off in 1991 as Bell Sports Inc., having completely overtaken the motorcycle and motor sports helmet business.

The first commercially successful purpose-designed bicycle helmet was the Bell Biker, a polystyrene-lined hard shell released in 1975.[1][2] At the time there was no appropriate standard; the only applicable one, from Snell, would be passed only by a light open-face motorcycle helmet. Over time the design was refined and by 1983 Bell were making the V1-Pro, the first polystyrene helmet intended for racing use. In 1984 Bell produced the Li'l Bell Shell, a no-shell children's helmet. These early helmets had little ventilation.

In 1985, Snell B85 was introduced, the first widely adopted standard for bicycle helmets; this has subsequently been refined into B90 and B95 (see Standards below). At this time helmets were almost all either hard-shell or no-shell (perhaps with a vacuum-formed plastic cover). Ventilation was still minimal due mainly to technical limitations of the foams and shells in use.

A Giro Atmos helmet, showing seamless in-mould microshell construction.

Around 1990 a new construction technique was invented: in-mould microshell. A very thin shell was incorporated during the moulding process. This rapidly became the dominant technology, allowing for larger vents and more complex shapes than hard shells.

Use of hard shells declined rapidly among the general cyclist population during the 1990s, almost disappearing by the end of the decade, but remain popular with BMX riders as well as inline skaters and skateboarders.

The late 1990s and early 2000s saw advances in retention and fitting systems, replacing the old system of varying thickness pads with cradles which adjust quite precisely to the rider's head. This has also resulted in the back of the head being less covered by the helmet; impacts to this region are rare, but it does make a modern bike helmet much less suitable for activities such as unicycling, skateboarding and inline skating, where falling over backward is relatively common. Other helmets will be more suitable for these activities.

Since more advanced helmets began being used in the Tour de France, carbon fiber inserts have started to be used to increase strength and protection of the helmet. The Giro Atmos and Ionos, as well as the Bell Alchera were among the first to use carbon fiber.

Some modern racing bicycle helmets have a long tapering back end for streamlining. This type of helmet is mainly dedicated to time trial racing as they lack significant ventilation, making them uncomfortable for long races.

after
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

History of designs[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
"Hairnet" helmet

Two of the first modern bicycle helmets were made by MSR, a manufacturer of mountaineering equipment, and Bell Sports, a manufacturer of helmets for auto racing and motorcycles. These helmets were a spin-off from the development of expanded polystyrene foam liners for motorcycling and motorsport helmets, and had hard polycarbonate plastic shells. The bicycle helmet arm of Bell was split off in 1991 as Bell Sports Inc., having completely overtaken the motorcycle and motor sports helmet business.

The first commercially successful purpose-designed bicycle helmet was the Bell Biker, a polystyrene-lined hard shell released in 1975.[3][4] The Snell B85 was introduced in 1985 and became the first widely adopted standard for bicycle helmets, which has been further refined.

A Giro Atmos helmet, showing seamless in-mould microshell construction.

Around 1990 construction techniques shifted and hard shell designs fell out of favor except with some BMX riders, inline skaters and skateboarders.[citation needed] As the years progressed, advances in retention and fitting systems replacing the old system of varying thickness pads with better fitting designs which offered less protection to the back of the head, where injuries are rare. Ventilation was also improved, increasing comfort for the rider.[citation needed]

Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User page "article"[edit]

I just noticed a situation that I'm not sure I know how, or whether, I should address. An article that was either an attempt to further a self-published literary hoax or (I guess it's possible) an overly credulous reader's product is now the author's user page; cf. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 14#Petreius Hyphantes for background (I'm User:Cardiffchestnut in that conversation before a name change). The user page shows up in Google searches. Should I care and should something be done? If so, what? Thanks, davidiad { t } 02:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it as a userspace draft and put a no-index tag on it, so it should eventually drop out of google; I also removed the categories (userspace pages should not have any mainspace categories). You may also want to drop a note to the concerned editor. There may be a reason to blank it, given it is a hoax apparently - I'm not sure if people are allowed to keep hoax pages in their userspace but not sure - there are certainly plenty of joke pages in wikipedia namespace.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I must, Ben. I'll think about approaching the editor.  davidiad { t } 04:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to User:Borsanova/sandbox, a better place. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, folks. I hope it doesn't drift back into article namespace.  davidiad { t } 21:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax(es)?[edit]

Drmies (or one of the admin page stalkers) could you perhaps have a look at this discussion: User talk:Yunshui#User:Jbignell (needs to be an admin to see the deleted article). One of those books was just added to another article by the same user. Looks very fishy to me, but have not time right now to look into it (another administrative form to fill out, in triplicate of course)... --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help?[edit]

  • What I saw from you was fine. Let's hope that Bushranger's warning was enough already; I have added my own, on both talk pages. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thank you for your support. :)

Phead128 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic ephemera[edit]

At least according to Jacob Rees-Mogg in last week's episode of Have I Got News For You, the word floccinaucinihilipilfication means "the estimation of something valueless". According to that TV programme, Rees-Mogg's use of the word in the House of Commons makes it the longest word to appear in Hansard. It is probably no surprise to you that I've never heard of the word before ... but I am tempted to find a use for it, perhaps at ANI. That will sort out the wheat from the chaff among the admin corps! Alternatively, perhaps I could just say that X or Y is crap? - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Time to burn the midnight oil again. With this out of the way, you need to get another project.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit xan, now I want to hunt down Company K and The Bad Seed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris. (Really, all I wanted was a GA rubber stamp!) Well, Company K was still available on Amazon last time I checked, and The Bad Seed is available in a mass paperback. The first is really a masterpiece--certainly for a first novel. It's quite extraordinary. The movie barely does it justice (and I don't think you'll find that easily). The latter is creepy. Good reading, but very creepy, especially if you have children. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but shipping rates are terrifying for Indonesia ;). No wonder I only got a "B" in Pragmatics back when I did my bachelour's degree... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was going to offer to send you one and then HOLY SHIT I checked the rates--$45. Back in the good old days every country offered lower shipping rates for books and magazines. Plus, it appears that surface mail doesn't exist anymore. Sorry Chris. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, my point exactly. I ordered Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory about three years ago... cost ten dollars for the book, thirty for shipping. Now I only buy stuff that's already in the country or can be shipped from Malaysia or Singapore. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, "curious" was the one I wanted to get away with. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ape Man's Brother[edit]

The Ape Man's Brother was a work in progress. You kinda Interrupted me as I was searching for more reliable sources. This is a relatively unknown ebook by a well known author. I sort of resent the fact you swooped in and deleted it before I had the chance to finish.PKDASD (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If it's "relatively unknown", how would it meet our notability requirements? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, if a book is notable and has reviews and all that, the wonders of Google will produce those in seconds, and adding them to the article takes mere minutes. Also, I didn't delete it: in fact, I undid your blanking; it's the blanking that's taken as a sign that the only contributor wants it deleted. My move would have saved the redirect. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been written and published as a e-book, something that Joe Lansdale does very little of. Joe is a very popular and prolific writer with many hardcore fans and I think this article belongs in the encyclopedia. Just check out his bibliography. I'm going to redo the article and hopefully this time it will meet Wikipedia's strict standards.PKDASD(talk) 20:20 5 June (UTC)

Guy, I'm weary of arguing with you. If you want to delete it, go ahead. I doubt me or Joe Lansdale will lose any sleep over it.11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)PKDASD

Phyllis Schlafly[edit]

Schlafly has been in the news for this numerous times.

I REPEATEDLY asked those removing information from the article to come to the talk page for discussion in accordance with what I understand the rules of wikipedia to be. They refused and instead, OUT OF POLICY, engaged in private conversation to get the page locked.

I have placed sections for information, discussion and sources on the talk page to try to get them to show up but I am confident they are not acting in good faith, as I am sure from YOUR direct threats that you are not bothering to act in good faith, and I'm certain they won't bother.

Prove me wrong, please. Show some good faith and show up for the discussion rather than making threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.198 (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Looks like valid protection and removal to me. For example, insisting that Youtube be used as a reference? Ridiculous and against policy. We need to protect biographies from people with axes to grind (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Bwilkins said. As revolting to some as someone's opinions may be, it is not our job to judge said someones for said opinions. You are going about it completely incorrectly. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that one useful indicator that an editor is committed to Wikipedia's core principles is whether that editor is as quick to insist on NPOV and adherence to BLP policy in an article about a political adversary as in one about a political ally. Of course, this doesn't apply to our apolitical editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as political as they come, Cullen! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits[edit]

Hi Drmies! Hope you remember me in the ANI discussion. I just want to get your opinion about this edit on the same article Joya Ahsan. Since you warned me for indulging in an edit war, I've refrained myself from reverting that, but please take a close look. This time another user SlawTony is making the same edit that Ricose used to do (suspecting a sock puppet), removing the existing references as well as some referenced contents and putting some blog sites instead. --Zayeem (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said in that ANI discussion, I had tried to discuss with user Ricose before those edit wars, but it was of no use. Since, SlawTony is also looking like a sock puppet of Ricose, I guess the result would be the same here as well. Anyway, I'll just do what you said, let's see what happens. Please keep that article in your watchlist. Thanks. --Zayeem (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're convinced that there's socking going on (is there evidence in other articles?), consider making a case at WP:SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their edit patterns are same. Collecting more evidence would be better before moving to the last resort. And again, he has removed those references and the referenced contents from the article here without even discussing in the talk page. --Zayeem (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, Zayeem. SlawTony edited Humayun Ahmed frequently, which the other hasn't (as far as I can tell, haven't looked at their entire history). I will grant you that their interests appear to overlap, as evidenced by their edit summaries. I must stress, however, that Ricose (with whom you've duked it out before) is not always wrong--in this edit, for instance, they were right in reverting your revert--"right" at least from the point of view of content (and language). I'm just a casual observer right now: it seems that Ricose could do with better manners (or a better application of the BRD cycle), but you can learn something from them, when it comes to style, grammar, and tone... Sorry, but you asked me to look at things, and that's my conclusion. We would all be better off if you two blended your strengths. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know Ricose did make some constructive edits earlier (I've acknowledged that in the ANI discussion as well), the articles were in really bad shape and he did remove some peacocks/original research from some articles, but in some cases I found that he removed more contents than he should have (contents that were not peacock and were supported by the references). What happened is that, when I first came across Ricose and his contributions, it seemed as vandalisms and massive content removals to me, hence I began to revert his edits in those articles (I went wrong here, I know that). However, my reverts were eventually reverted by Ricose later. I couldn't participate in every article that Ricose edited, but I did involve myself in improving some articles that I was interested on. When I started to add those contents (which were removed by Ricose} and add some references to verify those, Ricose again began to revert my edits with the same edit summaries. Now this made me surprised that at first he was removing those contents because of being unreferenced, now when I started to add some references why is he still removing those? I tried several times to sort it out with him in his talk page, but they were of no use. He took some breaks and I thought we might have reached a consensus, but then he emerged again with those same edits. Also, as the edits seem to be vandalisms at first sight, I have asked him several times to first use the ((citation needed)) or ((weasel words)) templates before removing the contents so that other users can add references or reword those contents, but he just ignored it. --Zayeem (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Clearing House[edit]

Hi Drmies. I'm poking around to get a couple more editors involved here if you're interested. It makes me uncomfortable to "argue" with volunteers and I would rather facilitate a thoughtful discussion among impartial editors.

I asked SmartSE initially, but he said he is busy IRL and not editing actively atm. CorporateM (Talk) 13:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don't think we have a Wikiproject Publishing or anything for Direct Marketing, so I'll have to keep poking around. CorporateM (Talk) 19:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Begging[edit]

Xr/ss mies, could you or a visual-arts loving TPS help me with Friedrich Carl Albert Schreuel? I've hit a brick wall (and I don't speak German or Dutch). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Levine (commentator)[edit]

Hi Drmies, could you perhaps have a look at this AFD? There are some BLP issues here, I think. Initially, I was surprised that this was apparently taken to AfD by an IP, but it's a new editor who has also edited this using his IP and doesn't sign his edits... --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of gothic rock bands (again)[edit]

Just to make you aware that I predict an edit war, or at minimum total waste of everyone's time on the talk page as particular editors refuse to actually read WP policies. Sorry to only get in contact when nonsense happens, but there you go... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop this?[edit]

Hi Doc.

We have this aggressive person who is edit-warring on K-pop adding unsourced positions and personall attacks in his edit-summaries. Now he is attacking my articles: [27]. I reported them at AIV but I thought it wouldn't hurt to try contacting you as well. Thank you and sorry for the trouble. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Δρ. Κ. and I are acquainted: whether he's this one or that one, I'm a fan of his work, since he recently brought out an awesome DYK that makes my field seem interesting. (But now I wish I could read suppressed edit summaries to see this shithole I call to mind.)  davidiad { t } 01:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol. Davidiad, you scored a home run with that baseball Dr. K. That was really funny. As far as Dr. Kakridis I know for sure I'm not him, since apparently I'm still around. :) In any case, thank you for your nice words. It is always a pleasure talking to you. Take care. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Trackers of Oxyrhynchus. Now if that doesn't sound like the fourth novel in a series of gay fiction involving a formerly closeted archeologist whose "digs" span the globe, I don't know what does. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hahahaha! Any more of these jokes and I will only be able to type just a long chain of "Ha"s. Drmies, I don't know what your specialty is but I am sure it isn't Greek classics. On the other hand you could single-handedly revitalise the genre in a manner similar to Harrison's. Except for an LGBT audience. Lol! Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Said[edit]

Drmies and stalkers, this seems like it might be up some of your alleys. There's some sort of slow brew edit war going on at Edward Said. I can't tell if it's hero-worshiper v. reactionary, but it's a GA and I suspect that nothing too productive is happening. (I only noticed because I tried to get rid of a couple weak phrases and both sides in whatever's going on have reverted me; one appears to think I'm a sock of the other.)  davidiad { t } 22:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a sock of both, which made the insinuation from either seem counter productive to me.  davidiad { t } 23:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a hot mess. And I just made it worse by sticking my nose in it--that "character assassination" thing is ridiculous. It's not the kind of language we're supposed to use. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll see what the folk there think of your bits of cleanup. It needs an editor or two who have the time and resources to make it the sort of article that is written well enough and cited strongly enough to dissuade the lovers and haters from sweeping in with online sourced POV and reverts. I don't have the energy or knowledge for the effort, and toning down the language is just a first step. As it is, I'd delist it as a GA.  davidiad { t } 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited this article before, I think, and wasn't very impressed by it at the time. I also don't wish this to get out of hand and I won't be afraid to use a tool: the article (and the subject) is too important to be screwed with. I got a couple of other things on my plate, but if we could get this back/keep it at GA level we would have done a good thing. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And without wanting to continue the homoerotic conversation started by Davidiad and Dr. K. in the previous section, damn he was a goodlooking man. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. It's too important an article to get bogged down like this. I'll dig in a bit and put it back on my watchlist if Ed and you and others keep an eye on it, too. And I'll sleep easier knowing that you'll use your tool on this goodlooking man.  davidiad { t } 02:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just woke up from a doze with the laptop open and saw what you've been up to. Good work, some heavy lifting.  davidiad { t } 04:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Let's see what will remain of it. I don't know (and I don't want to know) who stuck all those "in the event"s in there, all the blockquotes, the faulty punctuation, the enormous amount of excessive detail, etc. But it had to go. The next job, and that's the bigger one, is to improve the sourcing and to concoct a better system of documentation, because right now it sucks. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Said 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zenne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chhota Bheem and the Throne of Bali[edit]

--Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 08:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, wow.[edit]

I assume that your placement of this comment directly after mine is just a coincidence driven by when we each posted, but still...wow. You are one of a handful of admins i respect in person (as opposed to simply by virtue of the position), but i think you might have missed it here. I'm sure you're aware that Kumioko is always going on about the "us and them" mentality; thus far i've not agreed with him; please don't make me rethink that. I know WP:AN is primarily an announcement board for admins, but that function is acknowledged to lead to general community discussion, especially when regarding something which potentially affects the whole community like, oh i don't know, bans or blocks and their lengths. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, i agree with you about the public forum bit. The problem is that the community needs a public forum and, the way it's set up, places like the village pump, which i imagine were intended to serve that function, don't really, especially when things like this blow up. I suspect that that isn't a good solution, unfortunately. Anyway, see you around. Cheers, LindsayHello 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt[edit]

Thanks for blocking the not so funny Fun Minister for his attacks on Blackmetalbaz. I'm too involved in that goth rock list for pulling out the admin tools myself. And it seems also that he's quit completely about this whole thing. De728631 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block-evading IP[edit]

Viz your semi-protection of Anti-Romanian discrimination, can you also semi-protect Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureș, which is also a target of the IPs. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, already semi'd by User:Alexf. RashersTierney (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref cleanup[edit]

Thanks about that. No matter how many times I see those templates they just confuse the heck out of me. Can never remember what to put there. BTW I don't suppose you'd know whether or not articles written in the Hamilton Evening Journal in 1929 would be public domain by now? There is supposedly some interesting articles related to the Men's Rights League penned there by the creator of Wonder Woman 12 years prior to her debut. Ranze (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pima Air Museum[edit]

G'day from Oz; I have just come across List of aircraft in the Pima Air& Space Museum, which is apparently a creation of a COI editor calved off the Pima Air & Space Museum article after you deleted similar info from it late last year. The List is very very badly-done, being unsourced, full of OR and full of spelling mistakes (which is how it came to my notice). I am inclined to take it to AfD, but I don't know whether lists on WP have different standards for inclusion compared to articles and so I'd like your opinion. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and a GAF Nomad, product of Australia. I spent several days there just over five years ago (I have several photos I took there in my User page photo gallery), did the AMARG tour as well; I thought I'd died and gone to heaven :-) Thanks and Cheers again YSSYguy (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
For being willing to throw yourself into the mess of the men's rights movement.
—Tom Morris (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minister of fun[edit]

Kjartan Slettemark in a poodle costume.

It is a title given to any Minister who tries to be overly charming, something like this, see picture. That is my conclusion, after much original research. After that they are all put on Cabbage soup diet. Wonder what Malleus Fatuorum alias Corbett would think of that article, since he doesn't like how to do articles. Warrington (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User_talk:Ansh666#ANI[edit]

Heya, is there a policy that would prevent me from posting on Malke's talk page after he told me not to, or is it just bad form to do so? Just in case I run into him sometime again and need to put something - I'm afraid that even if it's a notification or something, he'll remove it and try to bring more down on me, from his general lack of listening to people trying to help or explain that I've experienced. Thanks, Ansh666 14:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC) (P.S. didn't see the section on my talk at all until over a week later, or else I would surely have apologized profusely on AN/I. Blame Echo!)[reply]

Bilal Khan (Pakistani Singer)[edit]

I see you made some minor edits to this article. I have nominated it for CSD G4, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilal Khan (singer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilal Khan also see the delete log for Bilal_Khan. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I nominated the creator of that article for an SPI investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Faizan. You were involved in some of the previous SPI investigations that I suspect are related. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sabeeel43/Archive Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the article and added a good pinch of salt, too. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Salted according to good local tradition, no doubt. Hey De, do they do that too where you're from? Drmies (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had them for lunch today. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obiwankenobi[edit]

in his wisdom, ended our exchange at Men's rights movement. (1) You might not have seen my reply or (2) you might not want to see my reply, but you may as well proceed with the knowledge of its existance. Your last posting (now removed) did prompt me to add "theory" to my list of words and phrases that mean in my opinion. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(stalker) I'd encourage you to continue that exchange here, if you find it valuable. The bar is always open at Drmies' talk page, and drinks are free :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I said all that needed to be said. Obi, the attitude I criticized underlies too much of our thinking about gender. "Real men"--pff. This taught me something, way back when. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption[edit]

Hello Drmies, I am very busy off Wiki, but there is some disruption going on that is upsetting User:Miss Bono. See my talk page and hers. User:OneMadScientist seems to be up to no good. Thanks for any assistance that you can provide. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High art A nude for you[edit]

And all I got was a lousy beer. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not. A terrific painter, no interest in any subjects other than portraits and nudes. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes[edit]

I had a bit of trouble following the edit diffs, I noticed characters were reduced but since the spacing was compacted it took a bit to figure. Here though, it appears you removed the footnotes marked '2' and '3', which I found essential for interpreting the statement (I didn't make the footnotes, they're in the actual book, probably added by the translators). Number 3 which was removed in this edit "Walter A. Berendsohn was a professor of Scandinavian literature at the University of Hamburg and active member of the League for Men's Rights. He emigrated to Sweden in 1933." I found essential for understanding this interpretation. We seem to have an issue here where translators are recurringly translating "Menchrechten" as "men's rights" rather than "human rights" as it is used today. The term "Mensch" appears to have shifted from back then referring to men, to in a modern sense also including women. This group is spoken of by WW creator also as a "men's" group and his discussion of their issues makes it very clear it's a MRA thing. The problem is just getting a good screenshot of the source documents. I have a text translation but that alone won't stand as a source without the raw newspaper.

Anyway, I'm wondering if there could be a non-confusing way to retain the footnotes. I attempted to keep them in original form by superscripting the notes. Ranze (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV on the Brooklyn D.A.[edit]

For Drmies or talk page stalkers: I've started a thread at the BLP noticeboard for Charles J. Hynes. Am I wrong that this looks like a bio that's gone off the tracks, with major NPOV issues? 99.149.85.229 (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism In A Page[edit]

The Season 2 table in List of Wild Kratts episodes had been messed up by an IP user which is 99.230.35.247. Please restore the table and try to warn that user. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.91.133 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: gender identity[edit]

I just created Kristin Beck - if you're in the mood to expand a stub, there's plenty of material/coverage about them. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done DYK before. Is it worth it? In what cases would I choose to do so? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I browsed around some and it shouldn't be too hard to expand this to DYK limits: 1500 characters (for a new article). It's just that this is a biography on a topic I don't care so much for. But basically, it starts with expansion to 1500, properly sourced and all. Then, compose a catchy hook (shouldn't be hard with this topic!) and nominate it (the rules are at WP:DYK, but I can do that for you). Typically you'd have to review another nomination (quid pro quo), but since this would be your first I don't think you have to do that. I'll do one for you, if you like, so you can see what to look for. And then you get a wonderful DYK thank you template on your talk page, and your article on the front page...and maybe listed here, Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Statistics#All-time_DYK_page_view_leaders... It's quite fun. There's a couple of military people in that list, and a couple by yours truly, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok - so then it gets lots of views, and others come along and improve it hopefully? Is that the point of the DYK? to attract more editors to the article? Also would you mind if I asked what part of the topic you don't care about? I thought you were a student of gender identity, no? Anyway, thanks for the explanation. There are many wikiprocesses I still don't know about. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's more to entice readers, not editors. The article should be finished, or at least be decent, by the time it runs. And gender is fun, but I don't really like writing biographies. Look at the article--it's grown a bit. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With my additions it's at 1000 characters now, so it doesn't need much more. If you can cobble together a paragraph (or two) on her military history, that would be great. A picture would be even better. Does she have a press agent? Drmies (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ack, just realized it must be within 5 days - argh. I contacted the publisher, she sent me pics, but then held back as she wasn't sure on licensing - she was ok with having the book cover there though, but I'm a little unsure about that - I'm not sure we should encourage her to release the book cover itself as free, since she's publishing the book (a pic, ok, but not the book cover). Anyway, will it pass DYK without a photo? Seems most users would want to see that. i can try to expand today or tomorrow and submit.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures aren't necessary. Just a bit of expansion and maybe some shuffling, that's all. The book cover is usually fine as fair use of non-free content, but only if it's in an article on the book, and there's little chance that some busybody will claim "she's only notable for the book" and move it. If the publisher sent you a photo of Ms. Beck and gave you permission to use it, you could try and upload it on Commons and send an email to (some talk page stalker help me out...) OTRS, in which you forward their message; I've done that before but it's been a while--I did something like that for this image, now to be seen in all its glory in Henrik Vibskov. The easiest thing to do (for you!) is to ask the publisher, or whoever holds the copyright for the photo, to upload it to Commons directly, with the proper license. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've now gotten pictures directly from the subject herself, but one of them still looks pro, so I'm awaiting a response - will likely upload them within a day or two and then have whoever the copyright owner is send an email to WP. Sheesh what a pain it is to get images, but I guess better safe than sorry. I've expanded the article a bit and filed my DYK (crediting you too, oh master) Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Kristin_Beck. Take a look and plz add other hooks, and any other tweaks to the article. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman...again[edit]

User:Zimmermanh1997/User:Hollisz is back, yet again, this time with a new account (User:Zman9000) and two new edits to the WICL page (his favorite haunt). I'm leaving this one up to you, but I think a block for all accounts and his range (if possible) is due. He obviously isn't getting the idea of Wikipedia...or doesn't care. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, his IP could use a block as well. He primarily uses User:98.204.145.138. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Diannaa‎ (who blocked one of the accounts previously) indef-blocked the User:Zman9000 account. I still believe the User:Zimmermanh1997, User:Hollisz and User:Do Not Delete acounts all should have indef-blocks as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but neither Zimmerman or Hollisz have edited since last year, and Do Not Delete never returned. I'll tell you what, though. This has gone on long enough. I'm going to indef-block all of them; if they ever wish to talk, they can do that from one single account. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow reply...sleep happened. That works for me. Zimmerman can talk on his original account and go from there. I hope this is finally what gets his attention, I really do. Thanks for your help on this. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sleep is good. I'm about to get me some. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sleep is good, Melatonin helps. Have a good sleep. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Travis Alexander[edit]

Hi, I am not really involved in the dispute but I have noticed that an article that I have contributed alot too has been the subject of a dispute for a few days. It is a user named Geebee that runs a pro-Jodi website of somekind that has heavily edited the article, and it seems that alot of Pro-Jodi Arias stuff has been inserted. The user is showing the telling characteristics of someone who wants to "win the discussions" as evident on the users extensive use of the talk page. User Bishonen referred me to you and I thought I could atleast ask you to review it. Anywhow If you could take a look at it when you find time it would be appreciated. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help appreciated, Dr[edit]

Hi Drmies, any wisdom you can provide at International Indian School Jeddah will be appreciated. I've tried to clean up the gratuitous listings of non-notable administrators, and have hit the 3rr wall. Am I wrong about this? Thanks, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appears resolved. Hope you're drier today than we are. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No rhetorical questions, please: this is a happy place. Also, probably not, since I just got out of the pool. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pool. It's not even 60 here today, and the dogs won't go outside. When the rain stops they'll be delighted to dig in the mud, though. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yanking plug from wall, hoping to dissolve this IP. At least I'm teaching all weekend, so that will cut down on the free time. Do me a favor, though: if you ever run across me in a different 99 incarnation, just block my account, as a humanitarian measure. And feel free to keep in touch via e-mail. Cheers, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But first, will someboday AfD Amp Beats? It's been speedied multiple times, and two socks continue to revive it. Okay, now block me. 99.156.66.213 (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, both things. Get to work. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socks edit-warring at Nine Muses (band)[edit]

Hi Doc. The socks are at Nine Muses (band), adding back the birthdays reverting your changes and using personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I also opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved for the moment as Bishonen blocked the account for 48 hours. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, K-pop is the new Israel-Palestine, abortion, yoghurt, Ryukyu islands, Scientology, Transcendental Meditation and Lyndon LaRouche, all rolled into one! How thrilling! Apply for jobs today! Oliver Keyes is hiring! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha! There must be something with this user talkpage because I keep reading the best jokes around. That's getting too much. Lol. :) On a more serious note I have never seen this amount of socking in K-pop before. It's like a sock-apocalypse. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Dr. K thinks my jokes are funny, then I am surely . . . droll. Happy Friday night! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To you too. Have a great weekend! Btw, I stand by my appraisal. You encapsulated this mini-crisis so well and in such a funny way. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Oliver Keyes will be hiring me anytime soon. No one should be surprised at socking there though Vgleer (or whoever) had a point--couldn't SM hire someone with better English skills? No, I think there's a meat machine there, all churning out the same articles with the same layout and the same style of writing and referencing. Pre-video, video teaser, video, single, digital single single album, comeback tour, second comeback tour, names in six different scripts. Remember the one that had blood groups? And the official color of the fan club, first as an announcement and then as a comeback color? If CU were a fishing expedition, it'd be like throwing a net over a salmon farm. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geebee2[edit]

That dog looks hungry. I have requested a topic ban of Geebee2 at ANI here because of his recent edits. Given your previous concerns on his edits I figure you may want to weigh in. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting open in WMF elections[edit]

The history of sausage casings spans from ancient Mesopotamia to modern Dutch examples.

Nervous yet? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Talk page stalkers, is it considered bad form to endorse? I would like to endorse two of the candidates, if it wouldn't ruffle any feathers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as they're both me, Cullen, or I'm withdrawing my sizable investment from your hedge fund. But there's really not much to do there in the way of endorsing, though I appreciate your private donations to my election fund, with a maximum of $2500 of course (if you want to give more do so secretly through Eric Corbett). Drmies (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for that wisecrack, I hereby endorse Drmies, Phoebe Ayers and Kat Walsh. There are lots of great candidates, but I think that you, Drmies, will best represent the rank-and-file, while Phoebe and Kat are highly experienced with the inner workings of the foundation. All three of you are splendid people as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Cullen. Maybe wisecracks will be like Clinton's saxophone. I certainly don't have much to offer in the way of inner knowledge. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need your own Super PAC to with whom to coordinate not coordinate your advertising. Go Phightins! 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took me too long to figure it out, so here's the en.wp link for others.  davidiad { t } 18:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Drmies, and I approved this message.
  • Ha, I think there will be plenty of detractors also; one of them just saw the need to email me--"Ah, Drmies, power-hungry much?" No, not power-hungry. The person obviously also doesn't know that the Board doesn't come with power... Bbb, I actually have met a few of the candidates, including Thelmadatter, who is a fine editor and a great asset for Wikipedia and the Education branch. Do I get to vote (for) myself? I'd vote for her if I weren't running. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what?, you haven't been .. oh ... never mind .. got it. Little slow on the uptake today. — Ched :  ?  23:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Well, Mr. Newbie, what if a candidate had two bottles of beer, one in each hand? Would you vote for them twice?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency!?[edit]

Ooooookay, let's cut this off now. Drmies, this is your talk page, so feel free to revert. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"I haven't abused the email function to bitch at you [User:DanielTom], nor have I made any false claims about you. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)"

Drmies, if you think bitching at someone in an Email is abuse of the Email function, then I cannot help but wonder what you might think of a certain Email I received from an Admin acquaintance (or friend perhaps) of yours, which did quite some bitching at me in quite some foul language to boot (including calling me "a mother-fucking asshole"). (In addition to some off-the-wall generalized accusations to boot.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly never send such an email and have never received an insulting email from any Wikipedian, administrator or not. Surely you are not blaming Drmies for an email that some other unnamed person sent? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ihardlythinkso, I think you should hardily have a word with your little friend, not with me--that person with a talk page full of lies and rancor. BTW, if I ever want you to comment here, I'll invite you, OK? And I have no opinions on any emails you may have received or will receive, unless I sent them. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I did not come to your Talk to make "comment". I came here for what I wrote clearly above, to ask about consistency regarding your understanding and claim DanielTom "abused [WP] Email" by "bitching [at you]", and in light of the Email I received from an Admin containing name-calling at me as "a mother-fucking asshole". (If you considered this a question from a user to an Admin to explain their behaviors under policy, well, that would be a fair interpretation. So your response telling me to not come here when "uninvited" isn't really appropriate now, is it. As an Admin you are supposed to respond to clear questions, and mine was pretty darn clear.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking Drmies to comment on a comparison between one or more emails that he may have exchanged with a retired editor, and an email you report you've received, but Drmies didn't send and apparently hasn't read. In my opinion, that question isn't "clear" but instead is baffling and impossible for any reasonable person to answer directly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, based on my interactions with you after the ANI filed by User:Quale on what turned out to be a notorious long-term troll that you and Drmies defended, the followup discussions with me at your User:Talk, FYI, I don't approve of how you think, and I'm subsequently not interested in anything you have to say. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear lord please help[edit]

Could someone PLEASE tell Esoglou to stop edit warring and running off Eastern Orthodox editors [30] Please. LoveMonkey 23:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"bizarrely malicious"[edit]

In honor of Yukio Mishima

I think Oliver summed it up well with this term [31], particularly when you look at the logs for DanielTom [32] combined with their talk page history. Combined with the abusive emails you have been sent, I think the editor needs to be indef blocked with talk page and email access removed for trolling. Normally, I would just block them myself but I'm leaving in a few hours and will have limited internet access for several days, and since they made me the target, people would have questions. Not sure if it needs to go to WP:AN or not, the total evidence is pretty self evident. It seems clear that a RFCU is no longer an option as the editor is simply going to troll. There really is no question about it at this point. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flying out in the wee hours, but have to attend a graduation tonight, so will be offline soon. It's for the niece who is valedictorian and won the full scholarship (and then some). Insanely brilliant young lady. Again, obviously not blood related. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed Toddst1 blocked DT but left email and talk intact, which I think was a generous thing to do, considering the circumstances. I can't say I hold out a lot of hope that the talk page and email will stay unblocked, but it seems Todd is going the extra mile to use the least aggressive way to deal with the disruption. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I'm less generous. As a preventative measure I've revoked DanielTom's access to his talk page and the email button. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Weird; I actually got a quite pleasant email from him around the time of his retirement, though I don't recall the exact message or context. I can't help but feel that there's been some awful misunderstanding (of his or ours) buried somewhere in his past that has led him down this path, and had that one issue been cleared up, none of this would have happened. Not that that really matters; what's done is done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also had a nice email off him, not long before he went on a rampage on his talk page. I'm not entirely convinced the emails he sends are entirely genuine. At any rate, User:De728631 as now revoked talk page and email access. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Writ, I got a polite email asking for TPA to be reinstated, and in response I got a rant on his talk page, and now a bunch of insults and baiting operations via email. And just now the obligatory "hope you're happy" (that's a quote) note. He could have been happily retired, or making a comeback for all I care, but he chose to email me and bitch at me for being abusive, a bully, power-hungry, unfit to be an admin, having lost my mind and tact, and suicidal (all these are quotes) in relation to my running for the Board. Now, he has my email address since I emailed him back to tell him I was reinstating his talk page access, so I may have an ongoing problem. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the two emails I have received, I have noticed an inconsistency between his tone in email and onwiki. His emails were asking for help, even while his comments here were berating me. I've not replied to either so he doesn't have my address, at least not by my actions. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not altogether surprising, I suppose; I know I sound different between on-wiki and IRC, and email is likely analogous. It probably has to do with a) size of audience (IRC > onwiki > email) and b) amount of thought, time, and effort that goes into each communication method (email > onwiki > IRC). I have also heard that I come across differently in person than I do online, which is much the same phenomenon (I wonder Drmies has noticed; I think he's the only person, aside from the Teahouse folks, who has talked to me in both situations). For one, I tend to use profanity significantly more in real-life (depends on the audience, but I have to make an effort to avoid it at some times when it would be inappropriate). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WK, I don't think you're much different in real life compared to online. I found you to be (don't blush now) just one of the nicest guys ever, and you are being just that, a really nice guy, on Wikipedia as well. You have a mix of proper manners and easy-going colloquialness that comes across well in both venues, at least to me. I haven't met a lot of others that I know well. The Lady had dinner at my house; she's much the same in real life: nice and friendly and great with kids. More later. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your point Writ, but I honestly don't think it's as complicated as that. I just think he enjoys the bait-and-switch. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I don't mind being compared to Aeneas. I've been called a lot worse. And to have been loved by a woman who had suffered so much, and then accomplished so much, that would have been an honor. Still, Saint Sebastian might have been more immediately accessible from a dramatic point of view. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AAP spamming[edit]

I'm seeing problems across numerous articles that basically amounts to spamming of the Aam Aadmi Party, a new-ish Indian political group. Many such parties in India last little more than a few months but they generate a lot of heat & they are increasingly aware of how they can use WP for their propaganda purposes etc. If you or any of your stalkers should come across references to the AAP then I'd appreciate it if a bit of scrutiny took place, mainly wrt WP:DUE and WP:PRIMARY. Ta, and sorry for using this as a sort of messageboard. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • ANI? I'm still trying to catch up on 4 or 5 days of inactivity - not got to the drama boards yet but, yes, ThinkingYouth is one of several names that seem to be involved. Off to bed but will look tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And having read this and the following section, I'm definitely off to bed. I don't need ANI to cause drama! - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I can't seem to be able to find those sections. Must be a browser problem. Natti natti, Drmies (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nose hair wax? Davidiad, you're disgusting, and I should revdel this from the history. I'm leaving it only because, being like Aeneas, I respect history and historians. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you're supposed to put nads up your nose. Whats with all this Aeneas talk? It's starting to make me wonder if this account is compormised. You know he existed before the Historia Britonum, right?  davidiad { t } 03:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

Hi there, with all due respect i believe i was unfairly tageed with vandalism. The artic;e i tried to delete was far to short and i will copy and paste the entire thing onto here "Russell G. Lloyd, Jr. was mayor before Jonathan Weinzapfel took his spot in office.

Insert non-formatted text here *all credit to writer. The article does not have to be removed but if you review it and remove the vandalism tag that would be great. Thank you my fellow wikipedia lover and contributer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwidesunshine (talk • contribs)

RfC invitation[edit]

Hi Drmies,

Thought I would let you know that there is currently an RfC taking place at Project Eurovision, just in case you wished to participate. Hope you're doing well BTW! Wesley♦Mouse 00:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a year has gone by; how time moves so quickly. We (close family) had a gathering over the weekend as a memorial-type thing. Was sorrowful yet happy at the same time. And so much that has happened since my mother passed away too; such as volunteering at London 2012 Olympics; and only a couple of weeks ago I was accepted as a volunteer role at Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games too. So all is running smoothly lately. Keeping myself busy on Wikipedia too, rewriting articles such as OGAE, which was in a very disastrous and neglected state. But I've given it some overdue TLC. Wesley♦Mouse 00:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

My apologies. I was trying to smooth over an edit conflict and I accidentally only kept my post instead of both of ours. DrPhen (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Argh, I've been backing, copying and then backing further and going to the edit window again and pasting and having it fail sometimes. That so much simpler. Learn something new everyday. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on my netbook the screen with two edit windows takes up too much space, and scrolling isn't easy. But on top of that, if you open a new window you can click edit for just the section, instead of having to add it to the entire page--and so you run less of a chance of more edit conflicts with other sections. Chris, I expected you to post another ANI notification here, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...[edit]

Because I'm on a diet, I'll tempt you.

If you do too much article work, they might think you're - gasp - a content admin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course :-) This is likely a shoo-in for FAC too, once Lie Kim Hok leaves the building and I've polished the prose a bit. Si Tjonat is probably ready too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll have to get a real editor to look at that. Oh, I love you like a brother, but I don't like how you do the references with those titles like "Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 1940, (untitled)." Brr. I left you a few more (little) notes. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more star for your trophy case, Crisco. Wanna check me to see if I filed the paperwork correctly? Well done, my friend, and I meant that about the medal. They ought to give you a fucking pension for all the good you've done for Indonesian culture and history. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd settle for academic recognition, which is about as likely. Thanks a lot! You get a cupcake! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies engaged in warring, vandalism, sockpuppetry, deletion of sourced verifiable citation and encyclopedic content, personal attack, cyberbullying, cyber attacks on Fistful Of Metal, Neil Turbin, Deathriders, NAMM Metal Jam pages: ====ATTENTION====[edit]

June 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ==== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonsoftheserpent (talk • contribs) 03:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen's Hypothesis: Editors starting sections with titles filling six lines of the display on a Droid Razr will soon be blocked. Test #1: check! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually coming here to ask for your help with this guy, as Dennis is away and I would rather be castrated with dull fishing knives than file an ANi complaint. I guess you're INVOLVED now that you've reverted him (thank you, BTW). That no one has blocked him yet is unbelievable; I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as the last time I reverted a troll I was the one who wound up blocked. This kind of crap is the reason I don't spend much time here anymore. I think it's time for a new policy to trump all others- WP:NOSHITHEADS or something like that. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worry not, and put down the dull knives. Kww gave him a 3-day block. Feel free to edit away unimpeded on heavy metal topics, for a while, at least. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh. Drmies does all those unsavory Wikipedia actions everyday. You forgot browbeating, name calling, swearing and fish slapping. Plus everybody knows Dennis is a sockpuppet of Drmies.
Joefromrandb, I don't remember your name. But, your attitude towards ANI makes you one extremely smart person that could never be an admin because your IQ is over 50. I think I'll start asking you for wise and sage advice, unlike the drivel Drmies hands out. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened the header for this section a little bit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Totally wrecking my joke, but if you must . . . . Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can put it back. :).....and did. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Bgwhite. I'll see if I can get you a slot in Remedial English this summer, so you can more properly process my drivel. Pff. Wikignome! Drmies (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is "fish slapping" taking a fish and slapping someone else with it, or is it slapping a fish with one's own hand? And which is the more grievous violation of Wikipedia policy? Thanks in advance. Zad68 14:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's like this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I knew you'd go there. That's one hell of a fish slap. DYK that I used to watch Monty Python with a friend of mine, back in the early 80s, who had a remote control for his TV consisting of an eight-foot pole? Ha, has an article on the Dutch wiki. Go ahead and stick that tidbit in his Dutch article--they don't care for sources and non-trivial information there anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a Godwin's law but for Monty Python instead of, you know... Hitler. Zad68 17:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get right on that, Mr. Luxury Yacht. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is one; it's called "The Law Of Internet Nerds Who Think They're Clever And Funny, But Actually Are Neither, And Just Go Around Quoting Monty Python All The Time In The Absence Of Actual Wit Or Original Thought." We're still working on the name. It's mostly only invoked with respect to the Holy Grail movie, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's spelt "Luxury Yacht", but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pinot Grigio with ice cubes[edit]

OK, I am amazed. That is exactly what Mrs. Cullen and I drank with our leftover chicken curry over Japanese noodles this evening. I should have remembered to put the bottle in an ice bucket but I was too busy pecking away on a certain encyclopedia website. I hope your wife returns soon. Men were not created to sleep alone. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amido Baldé[edit]

Hi there my friend, longtime no "see" hope all's the best it could be and more by you,

again, a simple request from a simple man, can you please check the dutch reference in this guy's article and see if i translated it correctly? I admit, i "peaked" at GOOGLE TRANSLATOR, but i'll be damned if i used the "sentence" that resulted from their mixes entirely :)

My lab dog (not a pet, a friend) died a month ago, aged almost 11. He did not suffer heavily that was a bonus, it was like one day he was on cloud nine, the other he was "kill me please". He is missed, cute little thing inspiring us while we write in your page will too when it gets its turn.

Kind regards, thanks again for being there --AL (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Softer block[edit]

Shouldn't softer block be autoblock disabled, and not account creation blocked? 216.11.222.27 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

Since you had interaction related to one of the socks named here, I thought I'd bring your attention to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN/EW[edit]

Hi Drmies. There is a discussion at AN/EW regarding CSDarrow, in which your name was mentioned. So I just wanted to make you aware of it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I don't envy admins. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jeanne Phillips#Long-term vandalism by 68.94.xx.xx[edit]

Hi Drmies. Would you take a look at Talk:Jeanne Phillips#Long-term vandalism by 68.94.xx.xx? The article has been subjected to long-term vandalism by dynamic IP editor 68.94.xx.xx who repeatedly adds Category:Transgender and transsexual women and Category:Transgender and transsexual writers to the article. I listed the seven additions/reversions on the talk page. The vandal is persistent: The vandalism started in June 2011 and last occurred two days ago. Would you consider watchlisting Jeanne Phillips or applying Wikipedia:Protection policy#When to apply pending changes protection to the article to counter the vandalism? Thank you for your help. Best, Cunard (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia at ANI[edit]

I hope you don't mind, but I made the post before I saw your own and cited the evidence where Lucia lied to you about the troll claiming it was me. It was a rather obvious attempt to deflect and justify her personal attacks at ANI. Normally, that kind of stunt would get a harsh warning, but as you can tell I've been trying to resolve things hoping there was some chance of peace. Lucia seems to be completely opposed to that and intends "justice" on me; so at this point I have little reason to remain silent. Everything is too personal for her; I think I may actually need to do the RFC/U at this point. I just don't know what to at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that it was obvious and didn't need a formal close; I only insisted upon the MOS-AM one because it was critical. Lucia's issue with the WP:LASTWORD is often best solved by letting her get it or it could run forever. While I don't like how the ANI started, I'm sure our troll friend is watching and Lucia is ripe for the drama, meaning a general on-guard needs to be done. Lucia won't take my advice or anyone's for that matter; she's going to end up getting herself blocked, but hopefully she's off Wikipedia for the current splinter of ANI. This ANI will probably sink fast enough; while Lucia has over a dozen warnings for personal attacks and such; few were formal twinkle ones, probably per "don't template the regulars" and most need no formal restating, but the several at ANI and currently on the talk page are valid even without the twinkle icons. Anyways; I want to stay out of this latest drama, since it doesn't really concern me anymore. I got some busy work to do... but yes, the current admissions of her hatred for me show that there will be no "peace" and she had no intention of listening to the community. Wikipedia seems to be a giant battlefield for her; she seems to get more out of the senseless arguing than fixing articles. I've long since tried to limit that interaction to the minimum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block request[edit]

User:Toby323- is constantly breaking the three-revert rule. He is warned several times by other editors but again he put vandal edits on this article here!Bangladesh; as he has previously done at Talk:List of countries where English is an official language and was blocked by you!!!!Samudrakula (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has also reverted the edits of User:Materialscientist and mine.--Zayeem (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off to class right now. Perhaps a stalker can look into this? Reverting Materialscientist is punishable by amputation of wifi access. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't one of my options on the block template. However, I did block the user for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR. @Samudrakula, fewer exclamation points and a little less over-the-topness would be more effective, although I understand it's hard to type anything on this talk page while looking at that dog. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Thanks Bbb. I'm all entranced by 1930s French novels with lesbian themes. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Mirza Adeeb.
Message added 15:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Faizan 15:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger Scholars, etc.[edit]

Drmies,

Perhaps, we need to start the conversation again because quite frankly I do not understand what's going on with the pages I created. I am a grad student, and I am simply interested in all things Augustine and the various scholars who have contributed to my intellectual growth. Firs, as far as I can see, Augustinian phenomenology is a new field within phenomenology, and it is rooted in Augustine's own phenomenology. Second, now you tell me that you have removed Craig J. N. de Paulo's listing as a Heidegger scholar from the Heidegger's template when many of his books and articles listed on his page clearly indicate that he is a notable Heidegger scholar. If twelve books and 133 (WorldCat, Philosopher' Index, etc.)articles on Heidegger does not make him eligible for this listing, what would? There are others listed who are not as accomplished. Since I am not an expert in creating or editing these pages, I am sure that I have made many mistakes but everything that I have ever posted is true to the best of my knowledge. I also try to reference as much as possible using links, etc. Please help! Augustinestudent (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason...[edit]

...I'm not responding to CSD's latest tirade only because you asked me to back out, which I am respecting. But when an editor posts such nonsense where he again attacks the entire project and the quality of all of its editors, it's difficult not to respond. As I asked elsewhere, why would an editor who despises the project so much be so upset about not being able to participate in it? ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you didn't read his latest post, or mine, very carefully. Only the first eight words of his latest comment were directed to BWilkins. Obviously, the tirade, overall, was (once again) against all editors and the entire project. Finally, I clearly explained to you that I would not be commenting again on that page (twice). Wow, I post a friendly comment telling you (again) that I will respect your request, and in return I get a lecture fit for a 10-year-old. And if you think he has ever had, or will ever have, "firm, encylopedic goals", you are either very naive or very sleepy. (I'll assume sleepy.) Perhaps you forgot these classic lines: "Unless something is done Wikipedia will eventually fail or fade away, and replaced by something by Microsoft or Apple. Wikipedia has better attract higher quality people and take careful stock of the culture that has evolved over the last few years, else this incredible human experiment will crash. I thoroughly recommend people read and participate in Wikipediocracy, whilst it is still functioning constructively". And you were saying? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune - you should be a poet. I don't think Bill Speareshake has yet been used as a pseudonym ;) - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Call me naive or sleepy, whatever you like. The tirade is directed in part at BWilkins, and BWilkins, it seems to me, is taken as emblematic of what is wrong with Wikipedia. I get that, and I don't really care. What's the point of reading and responding to rants? I don't think you understand that, as an admin, I should see this glass as half-full, otherwise I should have blocked him indefinitely in the first place. You're welcome to register with a name, run for admin, and embark on a mission to eradicate every foul word said about our project. But I see little reason to revoke his talk page access just because he's angry with the way we run things and wants to rant a bit. And if you think that I spoke to you as a ten-year old, perhaps you should seek more mature company than mine. Good day. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I think the person was saying you spoke to them as if they were ten years old. Bishonen, fully eleven years old | talk 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
My grammar allows for both, creature of the deep. Ambiguously yours, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Bish, that's what I meant. Haha. Thanks. And sorry to Drmies for my somewhat harsh tone. It's just that when you have an editor who's repeatedly bashing Wikipedia and the "quality" of its editors, and saying things like "I thoroughly recommend people read and participate in Wikipediocracy", it's a pretty strong indication that the person is not interested in bettering this project. To me, editors like that are potentially far more dangerous to Wikipedia than all the petty little vandals who are just bored and want attention. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to call CSDarrow a troll, but in general I prefer not to feed the trolls. Believe me, there's a half dozen editors that I'd like to give a piece of my mind, people who have done worse than say bad things about the project. Not listening to them (or pretending not to!) is hard but I find it's better for my blood pressure. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, you could just tell us that you want us to leave you alone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Sorry in advance for the hijack: this is unrelated to the above, except inasmuch as my use of the word led me to it, but isn't it weird that snark (punctuation) redirects to the irony punctuation article, which doesn't actually mention the word "snark"? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off to MfD we go? Drmies (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a specialized Bureau of Redirects for Deletion or something these days? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, OK: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Can you drop the snark now? It's jumped the shark. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snark is really all I have, Drmies. Snark and Google searches. Anyway, looking at the RfD things, it doesn't really fit the criteria for deletion per se. Redirects are cheap, and it is being used, in the dab page for "Snark" at least, so it's probably okay. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here the snark mark section that the redirect tries to point to gets removed from Irony punctuation in November 2010. And guess what, the snark mark ("proposed" punctuation, haha) just disappeared from the snark dab page, per Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. :-) Seems to me the redirect should go too. Can't pretend I care, but still. Bishonen | talk 18:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Well, okay, then, RfD it is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:John_Carter_256[edit]

Seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Jakob_Franz_Katze_258, who you blocked a couple of days ago. Valenciano (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Mirza Adeeb[edit]

Hi, Drmies! Well, we have tried clear away your reservations regarding that nomination to the best of what we could have done... Please go, have a look and tell us what you think.—Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drmies. We know you may be busy with the heck of work. But at least we can expect a reply. Faizan 14:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

The Association of European Border Regions, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Drmies (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AKB48 fanpov tag[edit]

Hi, can you detail on the talk page for AKB48 what specifically needs to be cleaned up for the fanpov tag? I have tried to make the Concept, Membership, and History sections neutral, although questioning the notability of specific events and information was met with resistance as you can see on the talk page. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Shinoda[edit]

I saw your message on my talk page and was saddened to see that you underestimate me. I have participated on over 100 AfD discussion, almost all of which went according to my vote. I am very aware of notability guidelines. I might remind you, for instance, of WP:NRVE which states that "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Just because the Shinoda article is bad now does not mean she is not notable. I suggest you do some searching for sources before turning pages into redirects, or better yet, seek consensus first per WP:CON. Working on Japan topics, I know she is notable and can prove that. (Note that I saw you turning other AKB48 members into redirects, but I did not undo some of those because I did not have an argument to claim notability.) Michitaro (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have written down my basic reasoning on the Minegishi and Shinoda AfDs. I can certainly expand on it, but the basic reasoning is as follows: 1) the current state of the articles is not in itself sufficient reason to delete; 2) even if one finds them a part of an idol industry, they both have received sufficient independent reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG on an objective standard; and 3) while the argument against assuming that the notability of a band passes on to the band member is valid, looking at these two on a case by case basis, there is enough evidence of notability on an individual basis for each to warrant a separate article. I believe these two are rather clear-cut cases, but I am less convinced by the notability of the other AKB-related articles you brought up for AfD, so for the time being I will stand on the sidelines for those. Michitaro (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Novels[edit]

Tired of letting you have all the fun, I decided to write about a somewhat depressing novel for children. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vgleer[edit]

the Return. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mathijs Bouman[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bad Example[edit]

Not sure you should even care, but FYI, there is a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Block and ANI process is completely subjective where a "mistaken" block issued by you is used as an example of why all admins are biased against.... sorry we haven't quite established that bit yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen or Lucia?[edit]

I'm not certain to whom this edit is directed. Indentation implies Jensen, but I think you meant to address Lucia.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only a rapid scan. Truther screeds hurt my brain, and it looked more like conspiracy theories than anything else. I suppose that most statements about conspiracy theories can be considered BLP violations unless very carefully phrased, and Jensen doesn't seem to be particularly meticulous.—Kww(talk) 19:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help please[edit]

Again i come to you so you can come to the rescue (about bloody time i helped you in reverse, but we edit in different fields it seems), let's see if you can oblige (i know you will, as it involves your favorite team and that who will be coached by the son of god!),

The article is Miralem Sulejmani. I'd like for you to retrieve references in Dutch for the following sentences: 1 - intro, him being the most expensive transfer between Dutch clubs (that one is optional, i just wished to replace the horrible TRANSFERMARKT.com table with a newspiece that's all); 2 - him signing for Ajax, there is a source from the official web, but it's DEAD; 3 - his solo goal against Juventus; 4 - him falling out with Franky de Boer.

If you do not wish to insert them in text mate, just send me the URLs, i'll do it myself. Kindest regards from your friend VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASCO! --AL (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gatto[edit]

Hi Drmies (and talk page stalkers), can you help ascertain which came first, the content of the Wiki article or this copyrighted version [33]. I'd tagged the article as a copypaste job, then removed the template out of uncertainty. Once that's settled, the neutrality issue still bears observation. Thanks from above the Mason Dixon, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syngmung[edit]

That went into the ANI archives without any sort of formal conclusion, despite what looked like clear consensus to impose some sort of topic ban. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Drmies, your unblock statement surrounding Kiefer was, in my opinion, brilliant. Thank you for donating your time to Wikipedia ... with resolutions like that, you make this a better place to contribute, and consequently a better encyclopedia. Go Phightins! 02:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After two edit conflicts, I will keep this comment brief: You did a really outstanding job here, Drmies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You unblocked him?!? Yay! Well done :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beer in hand[edit]

Well, you inspired me while in Vegas, and Mrs. Brown took a few photos of me with my Wikipedia t-shirt on with beer in hand at the Stratosphere, but I look somewhat drunker than I was so I don't think I will use them. It might be because it was 10am. It is amazing the things you do in Las Vegas that you wouldn't do in the course of a normal day at home. Pretty good time was had, broke even gambling, so all is well. Finally saw Hoover Dam, which was amazing. Take the long tour if you ever go. The Fremont Street Experience was the best time you can have for almost free, as always. I go every couple of years, and they have gotten their act together on rebuilding downtown. People running on ziplines above the crowds, several really good band playing on the street, and the bar serving the street crowd actually had reasonable prices. The strip kind of sucked, way too expensive, $10 for a coke and chips. Paris Las Vegas is over-rated, although their buffet has the best prime rib and worth the $30 easily. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 03:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Syngmung TBAN[edit]

No one opposed your wording substantially, since there is no real difference between your wording and Bbb23's. The thread was archived (I really HATE Mizsabot, by the way ;) ), but might as well put in the topic ban. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Green (athlete)[edit]

Hi Drmies, just read the message you left on my talk page. Sorry for reverting, but like you said there was no explaination and when I looked at the history and seen what that editor had been up to in previous edits, combined with the fact that he had already been warned on talk page about removing the templates, I just assumed that he was removing them again for no reason. Cmr08 (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Johnson (Minnesota politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concordia College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request[edit]

...since that noticeboard is protected, I'm seeking protection for SPNRC High School, which is being used as a high school yearbook page by multiple accounts, likely the same editor. Thanks Drmies, and happy weekend, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP is not protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echh, I'm punchy. You're right, Bbb23. Drmies, I'd gotten tired of reverting at the high school article, and lost track of the time frame. Look, I finished a nice long piece on him for publication, and have nothing with an immediate deadline, so I'm languishing here before the next job, firing off a few miscalculated shots, and waiting for this evening's Leinenkugel's Summer Shandy to kick in. Apologies. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got a bottle and a half of that here for you--turns out everybody here despises it. I'm sipping on what I call a Gripenberger, and I may have stolen that from a Sjöwall and Wahlöö novel. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Needed[edit]

An IP editor removed sourced content from the Movies! page (it's an American TV network, in case you are wondering). I reverted twice (up to my 2RR limit) and posted a warning on the IPs talk page. The anon is using an IP registered to Sprint PCS in the Charlotte area, so rangeblocks are out.

While typing this up, the anon reverted a third time with the edit summary "e/i not welcome nor noteworthy. do NOT revert!". Obviously the warning didn't get through to them.

Since I am at 2RR, I am turning this one over to you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tube Bar Article and Album Listings[edit]

Hi Drmies,

If you get some time, could you please review the Tube Bar main article & album listings that I created to verify my work. Since I am a fan, I don't want to be bias, the article and album listings should be notable. Thank you for your help, and I am glad to see you are running for the Board. Tyros1972 Talk 15:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Drmies I really appreciate you taking the time. Now I am keeping my fingers crossed that you make it on the board, you certainly will do a great job. Tyros1972 Talk 20:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sulejmani update[edit]

I open a new message topic because the other one is already way up in the "charts", this makes it easier for you chap,

found out this ref about him being banned by FIFA for his contract with 'veen, maybe this about covers it (see this one http://www.voetbalzone.nl/doc.asp?uid=172190), you please tell me if otherwise, i'll search further.

Cheerio --AL (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kristin Beck[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 01:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer[edit]

You may not be around at the moment, but you should take a look at my revert here. There's also a brief, weird discussion on the project talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we all agree it's often a thankless job. I think you should do whatever you feel like today - and any day for that matter - and if you don't feel like being here, you should go enjoy yourself. Of course, I miss you when you're not around, but I console myself with the fact that you're just a hop, skip, and e-mail away.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I got an email from Dennis too (see, I do like to do these things transparently), and left a note on Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page suggesting he take it to AN. You probably know this feeling from the EW noticeboard: there is no way in which you can do it right, it seems, and the nice people are always less loud that the rest. Anyway, we'll see. I am done with this case. Baby Liam is laughing at me across the room with a wooden mushroom in his mouth: I'm going to play with him. Thanks Bbb, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this. Yes. Illegitimi non carborundum. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Burnt Offering (Galzy novel)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar of Integrity[edit]

The Barnstar of Integrity
For your support during the recent unpleasantness. PumpkinSky talk 22:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock[edit]

Drmies, I've been thinking very hard about this since you unblocked Kiefer.Wolfowitz the other day, and I feel that the following needs to be said on-wiki. I think that your unblocking Kiefer overstepped your authority and was very disrespectful to Wikipedians. Here's why:

so I don't think you can seriously argue that there was a consensus among editors for Kiefer to be unblocked after just 12 days.
To summarise all that: even if you want to say that you were seeking an undertaking to act as if a ban were in place, you didn't do very effective groundwork to ensure that either "ban" would work.

This is all very important, because there are a few editors who, for one reason or another, have some resentment about Wikipedia and take every opportunity to chip into any discussion to air it. Maybe some of them have good reasons for that, and I'm not judging anyone, but it's very distracting and energy-consuming and really quite unfair to the rest of us. As I've said elsewhere, we shouldn't have to jump into a fire if we want our say on who can block us and delete our articles. Admins give us precious little protection from people doing that, and when an admin undoes some little bit of respite that we've been given, and bypasses due process to do so, then it's very bad. In summary, this unblock has been very disruptive.

Regards, --Stfg (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is not a vote, in theory. Do you dispute Nick's statement that IRC canvassing disrupted that AN vote? Did you notice how many of the pitchforks were held by students of a adoption school of WTT etc.? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Stfg: My unblock requests were denied three times. Drmies took a chance with me and unblocked me, a very unpopular decision (and still is with some). Drmies doesn't just take a chance though, he makes you keep up with the conditions he sets forth when he unblocks, to check in when there are problems, etc. He never had to with me, but I don't think Drmies would hesitate to reblock me or Kiefer. So, while the unblock of Kiefer is unpopular, let Kiefer win people back. Let him earn the community's trust back, he will have to, just as I still am.
@Kiefer: I recommend, as someone who has been there, that you stick with very gnome-ish edits, uncontroversial cleanup, maybe work on that article you have always been wanting to work on but never had the time, do not make any waves...hell, get out of the water entirely. Steer clear of any and all discussions or articles that might cause problems for you. Remember, this is a one-time chance and you won't get a second if you screw up, better yourself, mind your Ps and Qs and stay out of trouble. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to stay out of dramah, but I've had no problems in the (admittedly brief) time I've worked with Keifer, and I personally think any admin who can successfully avoid getting an indef is a good admin. Hitting the banhammer is easy. Convincing the other party to change their ways so you don't need to is better. It's also harder. Kiefer, I don't know what your relationship with Blofeld is like, but I've had to drop a GA review for Paco de Lucía, and that might be something you could pick up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer has asked me about the duration of the ban here User talk:Salix alba#AN close. I've interpreted the length as indefinite.--Salix (talk): 06:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
It's difficult to see a positive solution when people are baying for blood, even more difficult when the subject seems masochistic. I admire you for sticking your neck out when others wouldn't and wanted to let you know that. WormTT(talk) 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (apologies for the fanboyism) I third it - especially the attached advice. Being a parent is rewarding, but hard at the same time exhausting - if we could find a WP equivalent of "who wants to go to the swings and run around for half an hour?" to get all that hyperactivity out of people, then life would be easier. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyperactivity would be a relief. The problem is when editors concentrate on raiding the neighboring band of chimpanzees. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WW2InfoBox[edit]

Could you please remove the off-topic slander on the Talk:WW2InfoBox. It's unconscionable that an off-topic slander of another editor is left on a talk page in a closed discussion with a "do not modify" tag applied. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user goes off on off-topic crap and I can't respond or defend myself because the discussion is closed. It has no place there. I'm only asking you because you were involved with the addition of the "do not modify" tag and chose to include it for unknown reasons. If you're not willing to remove I will ask some willing to. To be clear I'm speaking of the "Refactor and deletions by UrbanNerd" in the discussion, which has no place there. It's even labelled "Off-topic; not a matter to be discussed and edit-warred over here". UrbanNerd (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those few remarks don't really qualify as crap. But go ahead and ask someone else--someone willing and competent. Or you can choose to leave it be, given that it's gotten you in hot water before. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libel/Slander is criminal[edit]

Dear Drmies, I made no attack upon you. I was corrected the libelous remark that was launched against The Edwin Mellen Press, which also infers slander against all of those scholars who have published with this publisher. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our place to make such judgments. Universitybuff (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty/staff listings[edit]

Any thoughts on this? I was reverted soon after removing a rather promotional section, and would prefer reinforcements to heading down the edit war path. Thanks, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm usually pretty conservative in what I cut from school articles, and still meet substantial resistance; WP:BULLETINBOARD would be an appropriate guideline. I am finding Leinenkugel's to be a sympathetic beverage. Though not for breakfast. A man has to draw the line somewhere. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triple bacon[edit]

Just fried 5 pieces of bacon, then fried some potatoes in the bacon grease, followed by a couple of eggs. My left arm is a bit numb now, but my taste buds and belly are happy. I should go walk around the block or something... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken eyeglasses

Someone linked this at Anna's guantlet, and I then remembered that I have not seen any odd articles linked on your page in days. I have to admit, I have near heard of such a thing in my entire life. I wonder if they have them in bifocals? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close but no cigar[edit]

Tried for a late hommage, but as expected he is (was) not notable enough,

more about my attempt and my feelings due to the legal updates here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Richard_Nieuwenhuizen_-_A_late_hommage.3F). Kind regards --AL (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion needed[edit]

Hey Drmies! Hope you're doing well! Just want your suggestion, an user (Special:Contributions/Baigmirzawaqar) has just made few edits outside an AfD and I have tagged his vote with ((SPA)), but he is continuously removing that. I have also discussed the matter in his talk page but he is still edit warring. What should I do? --Zayeem (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Coral Island[edit]

File:Stuffed orca tagged "LOVE".jpg
Can you read the tag?

What are your thoughts on taking this to FAC? Eric Corbett 01:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does it have "et al" in italics? I think that it's FA material. It's funny--I hear all the time that GA really has no prose requirements, etc etc. And that FA is impossible. But look at the things we got through--without a hitch, really. Actually, I think that Coral Island is such a strong GA that, yeah, sure. Mind you, the scholarship in our article, that's pretty much exhaustive. I think I got everything I could. Gotta go for now: the girls are love-tagging their stuffed animals. It's cute. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We both found everything we could, and if I'm not blocked I'll put it up for FAC when the Tiger article is done. But what the Hell is "love-tagging"? Eric Corbett 01:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get blocked, Eric. Should we run through that article once more before we send it off? Also, I still have Edward Said and William March to take care of... Drmies (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you do, as FN 24 is a plain DOI. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot summary, paragraph 3, "Food in the shape of fruits ...", next paragraph opens "Less welcome visitors then arrive in the shape of British pirates ...".  davidiad { t } 03:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "in the shape of", maybe. I don't mind it, esp. since Eric wrote most of the plot summary. That other sentence, I like it. I suppose you can tell he wrote it: two or three times now I have momentarily stopped at "The account starts briskly", and every single time I read the rest of the paragraph and think, yeah, it does start briskly. I like that. I think Eric (well, Malleus) was really enjoying himself when he wrote it up. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was. It was one of my favourite books as a kid and it brought back some nice memories. I've fixed the "shape ... shape" thing btw. Eric Corbett 14:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Young boy, love-tagged.JPG
A young boy is tagged with a heart, denoting he is loved.
  • The OED cites a nice instance from Scott's Lady of the Lake--"He girt his loins, and came." Possibly one of the earliest references to a kind of penis pump? Drmies (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha yes, I forgot about that. Since he is born we haven't lost a national championship yet. You in the South, Davidiad, you know how important it is. Eric, there's a t-shirt here, saying something like "Football is not like religion at all. It's much more important." Drmies (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the first meeting I went to down here there was a lull, and the conversation turned to the Razorback–UT rivalry. Completely tone-deaf, I said that I was pretty sure that no one in Austin knew there was any such rivalry. Since that day I've eaten so much poorly prepared pork and even bowled four times trying to win back a little goodwill. I'm still the Yankee dick who said UT doesn't know Arkansas exists.  davidiad { t } 00:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Hi Drmies,

Would it be possible for you to mediate a situation via my talk page please? Both myself and Pickette have endured, shall we say, "negative" interactions with each other. I have tried to seek peace, but to no avail. Anyhow, we are discussing the issue now via my talk page, and are both thinking of some sort of mediation, without going through the ANI route (a bit like the now defunct WP:WQA). I know that you are very good at being impartial, which is why I thought of you first as a potential mediator. The discussion is taking place at User talk:Wesley Mouse#Issue. Thanks, Wesley ☮ Mouse 17:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Removal discussion[edit]

Hello. I have undone the removal of some contents after checking that numerous editors contributed to that particular section. I feel that I should apologise in case I have missed a good reason for the removal but could not understand since it seems relevant to understanding the history of this movement. Perhaps a discussion on the Talk page of the article would be helpful. Thanks for your understanding. Bamkin (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afd[edit]

Hi, I apologize for getting carried away there yesterday. If we've really muddied up the discussion, could we remove the comments and suggestions posted at the end yesterday?--ArmanJ (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found somethin' up your alley[edit]

new article: Brasserie de la Senne LadyofShalott 01:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something simple[edit]

Hey Drmies,

Found a nice easy case for you to do your magic on. Bulgaria in Radoslav's Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013. It is clearly a false article as there is no such contest in the world, never mind in Europe. And by looking at this Facebook page, it looks like some over-enthusiastic kid who lives in a fantasy world making up their own contests and using Wikipedia to "promote" their fantasia. I don't even know why it has gone via AfD when a speedy is clearly the solution on this. Enjoy! Wesley ☮ Mouse 04:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helga þáttr Þórissonar[edit]

Thanks for keeping it, I had just started improving the heck out of it prior to opining at the AfD; we have so few articles on þættir anyway, it's criminal. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and now improved beyond all recognition and hopefully safe from future challenges. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Antonio Toriello[edit]

Hi Drmies, thank you so much for cleaning up the article as it needed it as unfortunately most of us are fresh editors writing it of non-english mother tongue but above all not wikipedian expert editors. I have only a point for to you as I have gone through the person story since long now and it is that you are very much right that absolutely no hypothesis has to be made referring to personality like the Pope, but why to erase his religious experience which is the fulcrum of the person life as activist which he and his family has suffered badly and which is his main social fight to help preventing abuses. Himself has exposed it and beside all the italian newspapers of the time which reported his battle against the church even in the guardian interview of nowadays he has mentioned it and which is the most reliable source. Therefore i think that although it is a tough subject it is of public interest to know such concealed facts and not to be hidden. It is like to repress true achievements done by notable people like James Wales (not to compare). Please find the right way and according wikipedia guidelines to revert it back or kindly advice how it has to be put taking in consideration also our journalistic effort to research verifiable sources which should not be an in vane work for dedicating our free time to contribute to wikipedia expansion like you do. Many thanks.DrKlain (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help as the aim is to rather hear a lot of “peep out of you” or of any editors helping to clear over the top contents. Unfortunately the writing of this article has been complex since the beginning due to language problems by translating from Italian which give the puffed up tone at detriment of the neutrality as well, and poor online sources as mostly are offline and as explained in the note of the article itself. Moreover, to be honest, knowing and following the story of the guy since long I believe that affects a bit the writing “neutrality” as well. However, most of the information of the Toriello’ s early life comes from his place where he has grown up and from journalists who have written about his story in the time when the facts happened and whom have kindly accepted to help me writing his article as there is no much online sources. So by referring to “we” I just refer to these journalists and some users who are helping me to expand the content of the article. Kindly to preserve neutrality and tone I need help to translate in the proper English so if you don’t mind, before to publish anything on Wikipedia I will consult you if you will authorise me and give me your availability. But regarding the well-sourced point , although poor , all Toriello’s story it is condensed in these online scanned Italian newspaper article cuts and which user FreeFrogRange editor has “approved”. Kindly advice again. Thanks very much.DrKlain (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Drmies. Although I did not hear from you, kindly give your approval for this content editing:1)"For that, and because of the French cultural influence, Toriello acquired the nickname of “Angelo o’ francese” as an inheritance from his father. By nature extroverted, since young he has always drawn “attention” around him for his eccentricities". to be added in the introduction;2)In 1992, after having had many experiences in different life directions, Toriello embraced the priesthood path by becoming a catholic Franciscan Friar - although at the age of 13th, himself endured abuses by his religious teacher whilst following his vocation - a priest who supposed to be the spiritual leader of the young seminarists of the local parish and who some time later was charged of pedophilia. In1996 he was forced to quit the monkhood path as he publicly exposed the religious institution deviations. In fact, he launched a toll-free line centre for child abuses, a project to help victims, but it was soon forced to shut down by church’s pressures. Regrettably, Toriello’s precursor action was misunderstood by the Vatican congregation in power of that time enough to embitter their relation. To be added to Toriello Early life paragraph. Both content lines are well sourced by the the italians newspaper articles and some english as well. Thank you very much. DrKlain (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on 2 haze articles[edit]

Hi Drmies, you are invited to participate in this discussion. Please note that participation is optional and the discussion closes at 12:15am sharp tonight (GMT+8). Cheers. --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jeunes filles en serre chaude[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YGM[edit]

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

Magnus[edit]

Ok, it's up Magnus Manske. Go wild. I'm submitting DYK now. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help getting off the ground with DYK. it's kinda fun. I'm starting to understand those strange people who have all those little stars and green things on their homepage. Content is the shit. Why have I wasted my time on categories-for-deletion and redirects and RMs all these years? :( Don't worry, I'll never make admin, the recent close I did at Talk:Hillary Clinton (now at move review) will ensure that, + there's a bulldog that hates my guts and I've crossed swords with some powerful admins like SV and BHG, so I don't know why I'd go to RFA just to get the crap beat out of me. But I do love a good RM discussion. If you're really aching for some pain and suffering, swing by Talk:Deadmaus and watch the fireworks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi for various reasons i'm stepping away for a while. Can i leave an orphan on your doorstep? Template:Did you know nominations/Magnus Manske - some sourcing has been debated but I'd love for Magnus to have his day on the homepage - would you mind trying to shepherd it through, or perhaps User:Jayen466 could help? I found a profile on him in a wide-circulation german newspaper, but I dont have the heart for more wikiwork. I'm done. Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking. Take care Obi. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added material from half a dozen German-language sources and added myself as co-nominator (if that's okay, Obi). I will also keep an eye on the nomination. Andreas JN466 05:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issue[edit]

Lucia Black is bothering me on my own talk page despite telling her that she is not welcome; I've explained the issue, why she is wrong, and given another warning. She came to my user page to make a "warning" for pointing out her behavior issues; and refusal to discuss and work together as demonstrated by her response at DRN at that time.link. And yes; the Dragon Ball Z article recreation is still an issue with my sandbox User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox and User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox5 holding the prototypes. Two new editors have joined in the talk page discussion, so it helps, but the problem remains. Since she doesn't want me on her talk page; I told her that any issue will go through a third-party. Considering you know the issue; could you please take a look at User talk:ChrisGualtieri and comment? I don't want to argue with her all day long; her "warning" is non-sense and I am seriously considering ANI or RFC/U, but I don't know if what the procedure would be for notifying those who have issue with her behavior from past discussions or if that would be "canvassing" because I need at least one other person who has issues with her IDHT and personal attacks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice[edit]

RFCU for admin cases like this is a waste of time. They never accomplish anything, why waste so many people's time? "Some" bad decisions? Are you kidding me? I have 26 of them posted. Wiki is totally fucked up. No wonder it's participation levels continue to nose dive. And Doc is not the only case out there, because people won't file a case knowing nothing will get done because the bullies rule wiki. PumpkinSky talk 14:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...RfcU is probably just a procedural step that doesn't solve much except give the illusion of trying to work things out. But I do think that Drmies is being pretty charitable here. I don't think comparing your situation to the use of the pompous ass thingee to Drmies usage of it is helpful...what I do think is important is that you were blocked for two days for saying that which is excessive and well, ridiculous. Unless I'm not seeing whether their were escalting issues...but I don't see evidence that you recieved warnings or similar.--MONGO 14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, I have no illusions about the efficacy of RfC/Us. None. But as long as it is deemed to be of relevance it's a more or less necessary step. And you may know that I got blocked once myself, and I also didn't receive a warning. Now, Doc James claimed that PumpkinSky was a repeat offender, so to speak, and that's probably what made him do what he did without a warning. I don't agree with it: something has to be egregious, and likely to be continued, before a warningless block, and that was not the case here, nor was it the case for my block, which still hurts me. PumpkinSky, I understand your feelings and I will look at your list again. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Fladrif and King97tut cases and the series of involved protections are egregious. Also see the more recent commenters. Not to mention him blocking me is about as involved as it gets (two arb votes against him plus the whole WBB mess.PumpkinSky talk 15:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with that Drmies...blocks aren't fun. The last person that blocked me was desysopped partly for that, it was the impetus of that block which led to a case, which was not preceded by an RFCU. But there are plenty of instances where an RFCU gave the parties time to hash it out or just to let go of the bad feelings and a case was avoided. Now would be a good time for Doc James to do a little self examination so that what happened to my bit and what happened to the bit of the guy that blocked me doesn't happen to him.--MONGO 20:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--something a bit deeper than this. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that ties in well with this blog. PumpkinSky talk 22:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone loves the lawyer argument until it's you or your daughter that is raped or murdered by one of the ones that got off scott free. Believe me, whether real world or in an analogous wiki situation, you'd change your view post haste.PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This won't affect my view on the arbitration request in any way, but I really wish you'd stop comparing disputes on Wikipedia to rape. As has been pointed out before, that analogy is inflammatory and unhelpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was rape, I said "an analogous wiki situation" as in where someone that should not have gotten off scott free did get off scott free. PumpkinSky talk 00:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying so quickly. It might perhaps be best to drop the term "rape" altogether (and we could probably live without "murder" also). But I'll leave it at that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regards to you too. PumpkinSky talk 00:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I - and I'm sure others - are watching. You've got the better argument, although it's not clear that a sense of humor (Drmies's) is permitted at ArbCom. Still, if Drmies wants to call himself not call himself a pompous ass, it's certainly his prerogative.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I totally missed that! That's exciting. Maybe Kumioko has nothing better to do--good thing I didn't tell them the joke of the old man who goes to get a blow job. Anyway, while everyone was thusly occupied we ate hamburgers at Five Guys and had a delicious little nap. Thanks for keeping the place dirty, Beeblebrox. You're a good man, even though you're probably a lousy admin, like the rest of 'em. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23, can you figure out what I did that made the title of Ched's section disappear? thanks... Drmies (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Mathsci could probably explain better than I as he fixed it, but take a look at ((-)), which is what Mathsci used to correct the problem. The heading didn't really disappear (look at the TOC); the quotebox just encroached on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Age Against the Machine[edit]

Thanks for helping me revert his revert! Contrary to what he claims, it WAS plagiarism. Thanks. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

While you're at it, could you make me invisible too?  :/ — Ched :  ?  03:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User talk:NuclearWarfare#I do understand ... Let me know if you disagree with my action a lot and I'm sure we can work something out. NW (Talk) 19:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I'm not in charge of anything, NW--I'd set a terrible example. Also, Kumioko is disinvited from this week's beer drinking wiki session, where such prurience is unwelcome; plus, I'm wondering what their comments are made for since it doesn't seem like they spend a lot of time looking at anything. You are still welcome, of course, since you're a big shot and in this case you're doing what's more or less requested of you, and that's fine. I had not seen that there was hullabaloo concerning my little stab at myself and us admins in general; I was busy looking at that long list of diffs. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by[edit]

...to say hello. I may ask for some help with a recalcitrant user here if this continues [34]. I've asked them not to post at my talk page anymore, but we so seldom get what we wish for. I hope you're well. Very best, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History merge request[edit]

Heya Doc, could you or one of your admin TPSers do a history merge of 2008 riot in Mongolia and User:Kelapstick/Riot. I have some edit summaries in my userspace draft that I want to keep in the main article history. Much thanks, --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←Hmmm....Well There were some lovely vacation photos, I have been living vicariously through you as I am stuck in the desert, and believe it or not we got flooded out two days ago (photos to come). Did you know, tomorrow is election day, which means we are not allowed to use explosives. What kind of a rule is that? --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by[edit]

...to say hello. Warrington (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

schelvis (Tuna liver) paté, have you ever had one? Warrington (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WSNV/Requested Help[edit]

Hey Drmies, hope all is well with you. I am having a problem with User:71.254.85.74. The user added some original research yesterday under a different IP. Today it was added again and I reverted per OR, especially after an edit summary saying the information was "per listeners" (which has disappeared for some reason). A couple minutes ago, the anon, again, reverted back to the OR information. Since I am at 2RR, could you take it from here? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The anon is now using User:72.86.15.233, looks like an IP hopper. All IPs trace back to the same general area in Virginia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this time it came with a reference... Drmies (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that one after I posted here. I wish the anon would have done that first off instead of relying on OR, but what are ya goin' do? :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

Did you realize that you edited a fully protected article without talk page consensus?

Eyes and brains needed[edit]

Hello Drmies,

I was wondering if you, or maybe a member of your fan club, might take a look at Robert A. J. Gagnon and especially its talk page. There is a relatively new editor who has spent weeks trying to add a large and poorly referenced "controversy" section to this brief BLP. Several editors have tried to dissuade this editor from this path, but the new editor is convinced that all the experienced editors are completely wrong and that the new editor is 100% right. I have been accused now of incivility, so maybe fresh voices might help, or then again, maybe not. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BRAAAAAINS!! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Election[edit]

Close but no cigar. Very, very respectable showing I might add. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge please[edit]

Could I kindly ask for a history merge of User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox from [35] to the new Dragon Ball Z page? The conflict seems to be over, with Lucia backing off, new 3Os and continued improvements to the article as a whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... you mean it is not an easy thing to hist merge or... what? I'm confused. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand you all have been fighting over dragon balls for months. I just need to know that there is consensus for your version to be merged into the existing version. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I've been waiting for months; its been suggested by commentators like Indeath to give it a shot. As the only one working on the article, I don't see how "my version" can be in dispute because they did not make a competing or contrasting page at all. The argument of undisclosed or tiny content details are a red herring to recreation as GNG and all other issues of DETAIL and SPINOFF seem to be met; even TokyoGirl admitted that while it is a bit unbalanced for the English dub history, she explained it was an acceptable content fork for readability even if it rehashes some of the material in the main article. I noted that was intentional because Dragon Ball will be altered to remove said redundancy and address it in better summary style. I guess I'll wait a bit; its not that critical and can be histmerged later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand, and neither did I. Your sandbox is essentially the same, except for the cast list (removed by Ryulong). I thought it was an entirely different thing. Anyway, it's hypothetical since the only way in which I know how to do a history merge (via deletion of the original article) can't be done--Dragon Ball Z has more than 5,000 edits, so only a steward can do it... Sorry, Drmies (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... that's a bit "whoa" right there. 5000+ edits, yikes! Ryulong is doing a good amount of copyediting and tinkering on the article right now; so I'm not going to intervene or make any fuss until he's done; it needed a good amount of tinkering because I had to resurrect the page from that terrible 2008 one. Thanks for the heads up; I guess I will wait till everything has settled before trying to track down a Steward for this. I didn't do a few edits or anything; so I believe the substantial changes and work warrants the histmerge. Didn't think it'd be so complex though... Thanks for informing me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BCA topic ban?[edit]

Drmies -

The problems at breast cancer awareness are back in full force. I am willing to reopen the possibility of a topic ban (for the both of us, obviously). Is there anyway I can contact you in private? Please. We really need an admin here and I am willing to be topic banned, but I would like to explain the situation to you in private if that is okay.

Oh, and by the way, this is Charles. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U question[edit]

I could have sworn I saw a FAQ for RFC/U guidelines, but I can't seem to find it now. Quickly, since you seem to have some experience with this. I started one, it's been endorsed by multiple users (including two others who made mediation attempts), but the subject has declined to participate. What happens now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP[edit]

Please be careful to check whether requests are the same as the existing protection (such as semi vs. full). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but if you try sometimes... Zad68 17:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do have moves like Jagger. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is 25 years older than you, so I'm not sure that is a good thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, so that's what musicians looked like back when we cared more about the music than the "stage presence". CorporateM (Talk) 04:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used to listen non-stop to Love You Live. But hey, they had presence alright, as well as good tunes. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugly people can be popular, too, CorporateM. See?. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your work at WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally irrelevant question[edit]

Can you suggest a good Dutch idiom that would translate to "Idle hands are the devil's playground", i.e. "a child that is not kept busy will get into trouble"?—Kww(talk) 22:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally irrelevant answer: The former translates to "Idle handen zijn speeltuin van de duivel" and the latter translates to "een kind dat niet bezet wordt gehouden zal in de problemen komen"...at least that's what Google Translate says. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate is the Devil's tool. I find idiomatic Dutch to be a nightmare of expressions that seem like they should mean something completely different, and I suspect they feel the same about English. I know that I used a literal translation of "turning a blind eye" one time and wasn't certain whether the woman I was talking to was going to laugh or vomit. Their actual expression for "purposefully pretending not to notice something" translates to "peering through your fingers" at something, which, of course, means something entirely different once again in English.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Template talk:Track listing.
Message added 20:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Please could you clarify your earlier ANI comments regarding this issue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Run, chicken, run[edit]

Oh my goodness, it's not just Nick Park's mad imaginings, it's real! Geoff Who, me? 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, yes! You'd do great as a vegetarian. Even the dog on your edit notice seems to be saying "please don't eat animals!" The chicken harvester seems to be not nearly as bad as what I expected; I thought it would be doing what the article euphemistically refers to as "subsequent processing". As for the article, it's got fewer than 1000 of the 1500 characters required for DYK, but that never stopped anyone from making a nomination. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's short, Mandarax--just cause I eat meat doesn't mean I'm totally stupid, you know. There's plenty to be found, I'm just not sure if my contract allows me to work with NorthAmerica. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to sit down and study formal logic. I think I will start by analyzing these sentences. But I may well be too stupid. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

its not refusal to get the point[edit]

Unless the point is, "we dont have the answer, but we rather not say it outloud". Refusing to get the point shouldnt apply to people who actually want answers. If you analize the discussion more objectively, youll notice a lot of question dodging from multiple editors. And this is AFTER I proposed a compromise that would benefit both sides, in which still havent brought an actual reason why the compromise wouldnt work.

And I know you as an involved admin enough to know you dont see me as any other editor, but rather you get tired of my typos (your words not mine) and dont believe a smartphone edit could cause autocorrect. So I ask you, to see both sides. The only advantage other editors have is bringing up links, in which I cannot because I dont own a computer. I only have a smartphone in which would take literally an entire day to prove that im not the one throwing the first punch, or that another editor uses strong consensus gaming methods.

Maybe you could explain what point im refusing to get? If not, maybe a more impartial admin (in this case an admin that doesnt get irritated by me so quickly to prejudge a false ANI on me, which ended up only reverse blocking the accuser). I think it sounds completely fair. This isnt like a unified consensus where 1 strongly opposes while the supporters have countered them. This is supporters that dont even want to bother answering a relatively important question. And you can see how well Andy has dodged in the "compromise" section, when demands answers about the compromise but doesnt want to answer back.Lucia Black (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cant provide proof the direct way. I can only provide the whole conversation, and even then, I can only point to you which one it is. Thats what im trying to say. Many admins ask for links and dont bother to look at what I can prove.

Regardless, im not saying your involved in the subject to be bias, im saying with me. You claim to have no strong feelings, but your comments and actions dont seem that way. you talk about how irritating it about my bad grammar. You prejudged an ANI about me because it was me and not review the situation. And you dont believe a smartphone edit could accidentally autocorrect a word. (The last part gets me the most).

but why dont you explain it to me. What point am I refusing to get?Lucia Black (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia, that's a lie. "Autocorrect" has to have an error to correct and you and other editors have made enough grammatical errors that an "auto-correct" function would take action and you would have to disable it. You changed a valid word to its complete opposite. I don't know why you changed it, but the fact remains that you did change it. Blaming anyone but your smart phone or other editors for you own problems is not going to fool anyone. Drop the "auto-correct" line and just admit your own error, because every time you assert this bald-faced lie you dig yourself deeper. If it really is an auto-correct function, you would have "autocorrected" your lack of commas, hyphens and had "analize" auto fixed to the first option of "canalize" instead of "analyze". Your "justice" issue and actions were reviewed independently by three admins; perhaps it is time to admit the mistake? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

autocorrect on smartphone doesnt offer removal of hyphens or commas. In fact, not even on computer. Also, i previously had a mytouch 3G. A smartphone with a keyboard, and it was the smoothest smartphone i had when it came to editing wikipedia. Which i originaly refused to upgrade because of that alone. But now i have a Galaxy S 4, and this phone offers auto correct options already as you type and as you move the curser.oh and it gets worst, if the text is too long, it wont allow me to paste in any links. And it gets worst, due to low internet connection, despite the edit box being mostly loaded, if i type in and it eventually does load, it pushes the cursor midway. And for that momentary jump, i may accidentally edit someone elses by accident. And the worst is if im discussing, i have to edit at the bottom of the page. And because of that it also will jump the cursor to the middle of the entire discussion. I have to manually drag the cursor back done, which is why i dont bother correcting.

So with all that you can see how easy it is to make such a mistake. And it all boils down to why would i even want to change someone elses post? rhe not/now was incredibly small. Even if i wanted to change someones comment, i knew the penalty would be block, so why throw myself in a suicide. Im happpy to take responsibility for any mistakes, but as mistakes, not as vandalism, which banning was completely irrelevant. The unblock system is flawed in the sense that if one was falsely blocked, the process to getting unblocked would be based on the editor sucking upto another.Lucia Black (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lucia Black, I am a friendly talk page stalker. I too do most (but not all) of my Wikipedia editing using a smart phone. Mine is the Droid Razr, and I too have commented to Drmies about the difficulties. My spell checker tried to change his username to "Demise" and that's not a good thing. On my phone, the auto correct displays the word it thinks that you are typing, plus a couple of options. I watch that and click on the right option. If it inserts the wrong word, I backspace and correct. Plus I have the option to add a word I frequently use but the general public rarely uses to the database. For example, my unusual last name and the name of the business I own and the odd names of little towns I do business in.
I have found that smart phone editing requires patience and a willingness to proofread before hitting "save". I go through my edits and capitalize properly, and correct spelling and punctuation. Even then, I may miss a few typos, so I proofread the saved copy and go back and correct typos a few more times until it all looks good. But then again, I am not a professor of English literature like certain people I know.
Occasionally, I make a bad mistake. Then, I correct it myself promptly if possible, or ask another editor with better tools to help me out. I always apologize and never act defensive about it. I take 100% responsibility for all my mobile edits, and am very pleased to have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia using that method. If I was in a dispute with another editor (which very rarely happens), I would never, ever blame the situation on my mobile editing. I take responsibility for all my edits, mobile or desktop.
Mobile editing is the wave of the future, and the Wikimedia Foundation knows that. Those of us who edit that way have to be responsible, learn all the features of our pocket tools, and be team players. That's how I see it, at least. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that I wa snt lying. And taking responsibility doesnt mean block for an accident and then refuse to unblock for insignificant reasons unrelated to the actual situation. But beside the point, I want to know what point im refusing to get? iI feel like refusing to get to the point is too subjective, prolonging a consensus that doesnt actually answer consensus changing questions, shouldnt be seen as disruptive simply because one is the minority. Especially if the minority is actually begging for answers because their willing to support if theres enough reason.Lucia Black (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No autocorrect will change the word "not" to "now" as you did.[36] It was your error and your assertion that its "not my fault" falls on deaf ears. The switching of blame is a false statement; to it bluntly, a lie. Auto correct did not make that change for you, even if you deleted the end character the word would be fine. You make such edits so frequently. You can't even keep yourself from doing it in your unblock request. You made it again just after your post about it! [37] Honestly; you need to control your phone and take responsibility. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Black, your response to me is filled with typographical errors. If you are going to edit using a mobile device, you have to take responsibility for proofreading and accuracy. For example, why would you type the word "I" or any variation of it, without capitalizing? Please proofread carefully and take full responsibility for the accuracy of your edits. This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris, im ignoring you now. You come to stir even more trouble even after an editor has had similar problems? Not going to happen. You talk big and say no auto correct happens, but im not going to argue with you for something you dont actually proven yourself. So either get or even borrow a galaxy s 4 and edit, or dont nother me again about the subject.

@cullen, im sorry but I cant afford an edit conflict. I could if it was on pc, but not on phone. Copy and pasting is incredibly difficult and it leads me with 4 more edit-conflicts. So for fast paced discussions such as these, I cannot be patient for it. However dont confuse how I handle myself in discussions with how I edit articles. I have less chances of edit conflict in an article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucia Black. I know about edit conflicts, and have dealt with them countless times myself. Please don't tell me how "incredibly difficult" it is when I am a mobile editor myself. So, post your comment quickly in a fast moving conversation. Fine. Then, go back and proofread your comments, if you expect people to take your comments seriously. That's what I do. That's what I recommend to you. Just a friendly hint. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC) @Drmies incredibly judgemental to believe such a mistake would be done intentionally, and I know you know better than to believe it was intentional especially if one editor is strongly trying to tell you that it does happen. Even cullen agrees, so dont say "no one here believes you". Its demeaning, disrespectful and simply not true. But the worst of you not believing is you judging me by not believing a very probable truth. Which leads me to believe that this isnt impartial. (Unless you disregard everyone who ever said such a thing, then it would be worst, because thats a speedy block ready to happen without even able to defend themselves).but you know what? It will be discrimination everytime you block an editor and not give benefit of the doubt when it comes to this until you actually use a smartphone to edit wikipedia yourself. Im using the Galaxy S 4. Try it out for a week or a day or maybe even an hour and then tell me straight out you had no issues.[reply]

@Cullen, eventually typos get disregarded in the process of a discussion. If an editor focuses too much on the typos and not on what the editor is actually saying, itll go nowhere. For example: currently a trademark discussion and its going quite smoothly into my favor despite the troubles of typos (and in case chris believes im using I win/lose wording, when I say in my favor, im just trying to clarify consensus is leaning toward my view, not that its a game and im trying to win it).Lucia Black (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucia Black. If you truly believe that you have no obligation to try to correct large numbers of obvious typos in discussions, then please be prepared to deal with people who will think otherwise. There is a big difference between an occasional typo, and a swarm of them that interferes with comprehension. Eventually, that raises basic questions of competence. Again, please note that I edit mobile too. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Maybe they have too much weak faith. Honestly, I do try to edit, but im not looking for a lecture of responsibility when it comes to typos. I understand the issue, and find it important, but I dont like to be told how important, because I already know. But still, I can only go so far when it comes to fast paced discussions.Lucia Black (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock[edit]

Drmies, SL93, a user with a previously clean block log, lost his rag when he was baited by User:Scott Martin. It's obvious that SL93 was particularly outraged because an admin was speaking to him like that, and I can't blame him there. Please unblock him, or I will. Bishonen | talk 18:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, pish and tosh. It was SL93's choice to turn up on my talk page and start making veiled insults. And no, that wasn't "baiting", it was ridicule. Teenager-grade insults are only worth being laughed at. — Scott • talk 19:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Martin, that was admin misbehaviour. You have caused an editor in good standing, with a previously clean block log, to be blocked. The dialogue between you and him reads exactly as if that was what you were going for. As an admin, you're supposed to know better than to bait a user like that, and also better than to respond to Drmies, Worm and Kumioko as you did on your own page. Especially, you were supposed to learn something from this request for arbitration and the following motion. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I've already commented elsewhere on the nature of SL93's behavior on my talk page, so won't repeat myself. But I must state for the record that your reading of that dialog is completely wrong. That needs to be said aloud, because your suggestion is a slur on my character. Not a deliberate one on your part, I'm sure, but an aspersion nevertheless. For what it's worth, I also think that Drmies overreacted badly by blocking him. If it merited a block, I would have found some other admin and asked for them to make a block. I don't get upset by name-calling, so didn't do that.
SL93 also appears now to have quit the project. I will not have that held against me, because it's not my fault. Okay? I hope he changes his mind after sleeping on it. — Scott • talk 22:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did somebody say it was your fault SL93 retired? Not that I've seen. I say it was your fault he was blocked, that's all. But thank you for acknowledging my criticism more fully than with pish and tosh. I'm sure it, my criticism, is lucky to be on this page and not on yours, or it would be blanked by now like the others.[38][39][40] I note especially the uncomprehending edit summary with which you removed a collection of rebukes from highly respected users: "Some people need to read WP:TPOC more clearly". For all the world as if the original small WT:RFA incident had been still the issue at that point. It wasn't; the issue was, and still is, your baiting and your own need to read several sections of WP:ADMIN. I don't think you need to worry about Drmies' and Worm That Turned's ability to read policy "clearly". Bishonen | talk 23:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
For the record: I overreacted badly? Two people overreacted, and none of them were me--don't try and deflect anything on me. Scott Martin would have found another admin? I am another admin--in fact, I'm a whole nother admin, given DrKiernan's warning. I am beginning to question your abilities as an admin. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not deflecting anything. You exacerbated the situation with an unnecessary block, that's now going to sit on SL93's record (until such point as the developers finally allow us to correct block logs). I'm glad that you've apologized to him for it. I didn't see this warning that you refer to; I was having a stupid conversation with him - which I've also already apologized for, as you've seen - and then he was suddenly not there.
I love this "abilities as an admin" business. The last time I performed an admin action was a week ago, when I did a history merge. And last month I did some speedy deletions. My "abilities as an admin" didn't feature in this kerfuffle at all. And by the way, if I was going to block someone for things they were saying in a conversation, I would consider it good form to inform the person they had been speaking to, rather than leaving them hanging when the other person vanishes. Even if that other person had been saying rude things.
Best wishes for your future endeavors on Wikipedia. — Scott • talk 01:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC) (still awake, evidently)[reply]
Let me quote you: " Mmm, misreading much"--I didn't apologize for blocking him. I am, however, sorry to see his block log no longer blank. As Bish said, if the block was unnecessary, you could have undone it, but you chose not to. And--you're suggesting that I should have spoken to you about what SL93 said? Sorry, but you're not that important. In my opinion their comments were over the top. Your feelings don't come into account. The warning is on SL's talk page, BTW, under the heading "civility warning". Thank you for dropping by. Remember that none of this would have happened if you had not escalated the matter yourself. My future endeavors will be fine, thanks, and I hope yours will be too. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to belabour this further, in fact I'm going to bed now, but Scott has also written on SL93's page that it was a complete surprise to him when Drmies blocked SL93. It's a complete surprise to me that he'd say such things. If Drmies overreacted badly, Scott, why didn't you support my request for Drmies to unblock? You were nicely positioned to. For that matter, you were nicely positioned to do the unblocking yourself, if you didn't hold with the block. Instead, you wrote this just below my request. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Because you wrote directly to Drmies "please unblock him or I will". That seemed pretty unequivocal. And I wrote what I did because you had, as you have been all through this, accused me of "baiting", which I am still waiting for you to retract. — Scott • talk 01:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to keep waiting then. Worm has offered to go through a blow-by-blow look at how you escalated the situation, and if you want me to substantiate what I've said, I'm also prepared to do that. I wouldn't much enjoy writing it up, and I think you'd enjoy reading it even less, but say the word and I will. Then you can repeat your suggestion that I retract. Bishonen | talk 06:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Bish, you know Drmies is not one to rush to the block button for rudeness. Half the people who stalk this talk page would be blocked if he were, but how can you possibly defend actions like these [41] [42]. More to the point however is that instead of threatening to sumarrily undo the block yourself, a block review at AN would be far more appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Dennis and Beeblebrox, but I'd like a response from Drmies here as soon as possible. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • I support the unblock. I'm afraid I set the whole thing off by correcting the grammar. I did not mean anything disparaging by it, it was just annoying seeing a header with that mistake. I would ask that he be unblocked. It's enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting as well. I don't think Drmies erred in the block, but I'm not sure it is needed now that he has time to reflect a bit. It is an unfortunate situation for all involved. I think we can handle this outside of WP:AN, personally. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can. Scott Martin needs to be dealt with, and quickly. Eric Corbett 23:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Crap, two edit conflicts, are you people ever gonna stop posting? Yes, there is a history.) What could possibly be more fun than the swim team at the YMCA? I hope it was synchronized swimming. I dunno, but perhaps you do know Scott Martin from Adam, if you click on the links in my second post above. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

DYK for Chicken harvester[edit]

Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna comment on how incredibly fast this went through, and discovered that it didn't yet. It's currently in Prep 2. So it's still gonna be very fast, but just not that fast. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Montanabw, that template is usually added by a bot when the article actually makes it to the main page. If promoting from T:TDYK to prep you don't need to worry about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, I was surprised myself. As a matter of fact, I went to DYKSTATS to see if it was one of the high hitters for May. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm humbled by my error! All the DYK queues were empty and only one prep set was built, so I tried -- for the first time ever -- to build a prep set. Had fun finding the articles (figured that collection would be a hit) Then I got confused by the instructions, because it sounded like you were supposed to do all this stuff. Thanks for everyone's patience with my flubs! Montanabw(talk) 16:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chicken harvester[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 11:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Very high overall! Geoff Who, me? 16:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remak[edit]

Beste collega,

Betreffende deze edit: zie hier. Maar of dat als bronvermelding kan dienen weet ik zo niet. In ieder geval klopt het wel. Vriendelijke groet, Spraakverwarring (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tozé Marreco[edit]

Quite an "iconic" figure in my country's football, mock petitions for him in the national team, folks with too much time on their hands if you ask me...

My request is the following if you please (as i "may" have told you already i'm a simple man, so my requests will always be about the same subject): i added several refs to the article, two in Dutch. However, i did not like what i saw in the Google Translator ("trekt" or "aantreken" - i suppose that's the correct verb form - being translated to "draws" or "attracts" or even "affect calculation"; "duiken" or "duikt op" getting "diving" or "emerges" on the other end), left the wordbattle a bit dizzy to say the least.

Also, i think there is a great possibility that mention of him being the second best Portuguese player abroad that season is plain 'ole vandalism (more mocking for the poor guy), he scored his most goals ever in a year that's a given, but the comparison with "The Special One" Part 2? Hmmm...

Kind regards to the lowlands, RIP Ray Manzarek! --AL (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only two things that money can't buy[edit]

Money CAN buy pork ribs, however. I'm sill using this smoker, btw.

Envy me. Eating a fried green tomato (no breading), just picked off the vine, along with a single slice of bacon. That is as close to healthy as I care to be today. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone I once wrote an article about (long since deleted) told me "y'all is singular; all y'all is plural...if I invite y'all over for dinner, only one person had better show up" LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cranked up the smoker today (shown) and did two racks of ribs, plus some bacon and a couple pieces of that hot Italian sausage that I didn't cook the other night. Went great with beer. Too bad you guys don't live nearby. And yes "all y'all" is the plural of y'all, although sometimes "y'all" can be used as a plural as well, just as "you" can. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cripes, Dennis, do you ever not tempt a guy who lives in a place where pork is both hard to come by and not as tasty as in the US/Canada? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said before that "y'all" is singular, but not in my language, and I don't know anyone who uses it that way. Y'all refers to two or more, and all y'all refers to three or more. There can be an additional distinction of meaning: "Are y'all going?" = asking the group if they are coming (even if only some of them might be); "Are all y'all going" = "Is every single one of you going?" LadyofShalott 16:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady is right, as usual. As a lifetime y'all-er, I would know. Theopolisme (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia[edit]

I am not conducting an edit war on the Silesia article simply reverting what I understand to be vandalism, the blanket reverting of a series of edits. I stated this in each edits summary. Am I in error about what constitutes vandalism? Rsloch (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then we disagree over what amounts to wilful disruption, but this wasn't edit warring just an attempt to follow the rules, however wrongly.Rsloch (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.A. Peñarol GA Reassessment[edit]

I wanted to let you know I revised the article and copy-pasted the text to Word so as to check any typos and spanish words that could have remained. I corrected every mistake I saw. I reckon its prose is good enough to be GA, though I think those mistakes had to be corrected. I have also taken away unnecessary flag icons. I've replied saying this same thing, in Talk:C.A. Peñarol/GA2, but just wanted to make sure to inform you.—Nuno93 (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shocker[edit]

Genuine
File:Ingres, Napoleon on his Imperial throne2.jpg
Fake

I came across an unusual, sleeper SPA. More than five years ago, they uploaded a Photoshopped version of a painting and substituted it for the genuine thing in an article. Then no edits until today, when they tried passing it off as the real thing in seven articles, including the article about the painting. I reverted them all, put a notice on the file, and issued a warning on the user's talk page. If you inspect the fake at full resolution, you can see that they've altered the "hand of justice" on the staff on the right. I actually came here to ask you or one of your followers if you knew what the hand gesture meant. But then I decided to try to investigate on my own. I checked the hand gesture article, and discovered that it appears to be a shocker. Especially in light of this, I think I may have been too gentle with my warning. I would say that this is a vandalism-only account. But I'll leave it to your immense wisdom and judgement to decide if any action is called for at this time. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question[edit]

What does "the unmediated knowledge the boys gain on Coral Island reflects both the tradition of Robinson Crusoe's" mean? Are we talking about the genre, in which case wouldn't "Robinsonades" be better, or are we talking about Robinson Crusoe himself, as opposed to the book? Eric Corbett 13:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Chossudovsky[edit]

Hello,

I'd like to discuss this article with you.

User 99.224.131.58 has now made 21 blanking edits to the article without reasonable explanation. He claims NPOV but doesn't acknowledge that he can't just delete 70% of an article's text, that is fully referenced and cited. The nature of the text appears to paint the subject of the article in a bad light - I would imagine that at 21 blanking edits claiming NPOV, the user was trying to censor this, Furthermore, the subject of the article and the IP user are both from Ottawa which could potentially infer they are the same, not that I am saying that but it is possible given what the IP user was trying to do. I made contact and invited them to check out WP:BLANK, WP:OPINION etc.. but there was no acknowledgement. I then invited them to discuss the issues they have on the article's talk page but again there was no acknowledgement, only more article blanking and a claim in the talk page that I am a bad user with negative motives.

Clearly, 21 blanking edits without acknowledgment of my attempts to help the user is beyond dispute and is vandalism.

They also deleted this message I placed on their talk page.

Consequently, I'd like to state that I respectfully object to your edit summary where you said "stop fighting, or I'll block both of you." At no time was I attempting to engage in an edit war, I was simply undoing massive section blanking and advising the user that there are policies they should read, policies to follow, and I invited them to discuss their issue with me on the article's talk page. I reported the user to AIV after his 13th blanking edit (and 4th warning, with the warning templates containing links to WP:BLANK, WP:CITE etc.. and an invitation to discuss their problems on the talk page) several hours ago but the user continued to make blanking edits.

Cheers,

Feedthepope (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24.212.195.135[edit]

Hello,

This IP keeps reverting my good edits. UEFA has reviewed the stadium.

http://www.astragiurgiu.ro/match/1001/ http://www.nk-domzale.si/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=979%3Aob-1300-bo-znan-prvi-nasprotnik-v-kvalifikacij-za-el&catid=44%3Anovice&Itemid=203&lang=en

and for the referee

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/coltescu/profil/schiedsrichter_1108.html

Yeiner Perez[edit]

Hello Drmies and friends,

This young man had a bizarre public psychiatric breakdown, reported by reliable San Francisco media outlets. The article is at AfD, where consensus is to delete. Can someone close early? It would be a kindness to delete this ASAP, per BLP policy. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas[edit]

Hi Drmies. Based on a recent discussion, I have quickly drafted this. It is in no way definitive, but the effort is to keep it very simple and on track. You are welcome to develop this further on its talk page or tweak the draft until such times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to RfC space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glyn Colledge[edit]

Hi Drmies. User:Ning-ning/sub-ning has two images which might be of use. Ning-ning (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literature[edit]

Since you're so, like, into literature recently, I've decided to try and one up you. Where's your poetry anthology, Drmies? Mine's done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, okay, so poetry collection would be the right term I guess (blast me not paying attention to English terms). As to if they were written to be part of the book or for another reason, sources are very much unclear on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting... "in its eights edition", eh? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STFU Crisco; I've already caught it. I got a family to deal with here, and no one cleared the breakfast table forme. He also compiled an anthology of South-African poetry. It's odd that, as far as I know, he never looked to your side of the globe. Which reminds me that I've had a few dealings on the Dutch wiki with Spraakverwarring, who has similar interests to yours, and I've namedropped you on their Dutch talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my, namedropping (thanks). I think it's because little of the Indies stuff was in Dutch. I mean, S.E.W Roorda van Eysinga's "Malediction" was in Dutch, and I think some other Indo writers wrote in Dutch, but (if I recall correctly) Rob Nieuwenhuys in Mirror of the Indies is quite adamant that most of the poetry was poor (btw, our friend van Hoevell is in the book too). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me again[edit]

Hi Drmies! Do me a favor, please move the page Dhaka Film Festival to Dhaka International Film Festival per WP:COMMONNAME, it won't be a controversial move as I'm the only significant contributor on the page so far.--Zayeem (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buddy! --Zayeem (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection[edit]

The article Thuppakki has been nominated for becoming a GA. but the film's lead actor Vijay has such a huge fan following that it is his fans who keep vandalizing the page every minute of the day. That is why the article needs protection from IP edits for all eternity. further evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&action=history Kailash29792 (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is ANI 2.0, a stupid question ...[edit]

In simple English, how do I close an AfD? I know there's a template somewhere but the instructions start talking about removing templates from the article first and then get still more opaque. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synechron Technologies meets the conditions for early closure: the article could have been deleted A10, no one has spoken against making it a redirect to the pre-existing Synechron except those who simply want it deleted, and I plan to then AfD Synechron. I managed to do a histmerge yesterday! I am not ineducable! But it's almost as hot as Muspell here and folks keep yammering at me and my head is mush. Can you or a talkpage stalker explain it simply? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those instructions were the ones that flummoxed me. I did it, messily but ultimately correctly (spelling errors, "merge" when I meant "redirect", and I still don't know what they mean by "FIRST delete the three templates if they were added first ...." so I removed the template from the article first and ... yeah. I don't do scripts, because when I go to add one a warning comes up to the effect that I am about to irretrievably damage my computer, plus I reckon I would be incapable of figuring out how to use it. In any case this is probably all to the good, or I would be one of those people causing mayhem with inept rollbacking and so forth. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You click your heels three times and repeat, "I want to go off-wiki", while Jimbo, looking beatific in a beautiful gown, waves a wand over your head.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wand or some painter's "brush"? Drmies (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I, too, trade Wikipedia biographies of painters for paintings by those very same painters? And then write a Wikipedia article about my art collection? Please, pretty please? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cullen, you can do whatever you please, just like everyone else around here. After you've created your article, please tag it for speedy inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "America on the move-Bicycle helmet". National Museum of American History. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
  2. ^ Herlihy, David V. (2004). Bicycle: the history. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 368. ISBN 978-0-300-12047-9.
  3. ^ "America on the move-Bicycle helmet". National Museum of American History. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
  4. ^ Herlihy, David V. (2004). Bicycle: the history. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 368. ISBN 978-0-300-12047-9.
More