User talk:Drmies/Archive 19

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

Sorry...[edit]

Yes. LadyofShalott 03:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hehe. No need to apologize--thanks for helping with those things. I really only put em there if I can copy them from other pages that I know of. BTW, do you remember working on those lighthouses, List of lighthouses in the Netherlands? I added another one, prompted by the Dutch news, Vuurtoreneiland, a very prosaic name. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a .txt file with a lot of them in there that I keep open for copying and pasting them, Want a copy of it? Of course I remember that. I'll check out your new one. LadyofShalott 03:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you stick it in a sandbox or so? A copy is helpful, but I'm running around with three computers--if my netbook comes in tomorrow morning! Drmies (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:LadyofShalott/Templates - that looks hideous, but not so much if you look at it in the edit window. The ordering is fairly haphazard - some combination of how frequently I want it/when it got added/where the cursor was at the time. BTW, I'm jealous. LadyofShalott 03:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks very helpful. Don't show it to Mandarax, he'll start drooling and will want to ask you out. GEEK! Yes, well, what can I say. I'm doing a writing-intensive class next year for which I'll have to sit through four classes--for $100 each, which I can spend on technology. And netbooks are cheap: I'm getting a Toshiba with a case and extra memory for less than $300, and on the company card, bwuhaha. Jealous--did I tell you we're going to the beach for a week? Drmies (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • heh Geekiness is good. A week at the beach - now you really are trying to make me jealous! Oh I left an edit summary question for you at that island article, but I'm thinking now I did get it wrong. Should IJmeer be in IJ, which is a disambiguation page? LadyofShalott 04:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandarax is of course welcome to my list if he wants it... anybody else as well for that matter. LadyofShalott 04:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, well done, thank you--sloppy on my part. On the dab page? I don't know--if so, then double-bulleted under IJ (bay), I imagine... Drmies (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A propos of nothing much... do you speak any of the Frisian languages (just curious)? LadyofShalott 06:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three things Doc:
  1. It takes 5 minutes for me to load your talk page. Sign up for automated archving already!
  2. Did you ever get your book, I still haven't.
  3. Netbooks are great, I have an Acer, great for traveling, but I also thing my iPad 2 is the bomb, except for editing Wikipedia.
--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Butter, bread en griine tsiis, we't det net sizze kin is gjin oprjochte Fries. But I probably misspelled that. Ucucha 00:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"'Good butter and green cheese' is good English and good Fries"... or something like that (and I'll make no attempt on the Frisian spelling. LadyofShalott 00:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Brownlee[edit]

Would some WP:REVDEL be in order for Gerry Brownlee since you blocked 203.97.216.137 ? Mtking (edits) 04:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not the worst I've seen, but I'll err on the side of caution, since my opinion may not be shared by everyone, including the subject (no doubt). Thanks--good call. And thanks for keeping the house clean. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Mtking (edits) 04:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another lighthouse article[edit]

Groeten Drmies, since you got me thinking about Dutch lighthouses again, I added Groote Kaap from the Dutch. Would you please check for inaccuracies? In particular I don't trust that I got prepositions all correct, and it makes a difference if you say "in" or "near" a place. Dank u, LadyofShalott 12:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The translation looks good to this Dutchman. Ucucha 00:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ucucha! LadyofShalott 01:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lady, I am proud of you. Thank you, and thanks to Ucucha as well. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Sippi and I climbed to the top of a lighthouse yesterday: Cape San Blas Light. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmies. Comments like that will make me have to do more lighthouse work. I've been to the Cape San Blas Light, but I didn't know you could climb it. I think it must have been closed when I was there. I think there was a fence around it, but it's been a while! Did y'all have a good time? LadyofShalott 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Sorry, probably happened when I cut and pasted the information box adding it to a wikiproject. I was just being sloppy, and will watch closer in the future, thanks. l santry (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a problem. Thanks for your response. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help: Algeria related articles (again)[edit]

Hello,

I started a discussion on ANI about what seems to be a new SP of User:FAIZGUEVARRA. I would be grateful if you can intervene since you are aware of the FAIZGUEVARRA case.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry Omar, I'm slowly catching up here. I saw the thread at ANI; thanks for keeping me posted. You are much more aware and knowledgeable of this issue than I am--you can smell that editor a mile away. Going to ANI, or updating the SPI, that's the way to go. I'm pasting the link to the SPI here as a reminder to myself: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FAIZGUEVARRA/Archive. Thanks again Omar, and keep fighting the good fight. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
No prob. Btw I can not smell him miles away, I'm just aware (since I'm a little bit more involved there) of the same issue on the French WP since he got more than 40 sockpuppets there :D
Thanks a lot btw, I hope that you enjoyed your week ;)
Omar-Toons (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May you agree too[edit]

Hello Drmies,In Literary Career and bibliography section,the book "De Wijze Weg" has been translated into "The Wise Road",actually User:Brianhe,Had translated, "The Wise Way",on my request he changed it accordance with your translation.But in my opinion,Brianhe's tranlation was more appropriat,because the book,De Wijze Weg has also been translated in to English (yet not published) with same translation,as Brianhe did,(The Wise Way).What do you think sir about it?.I have asked the User:LadyofShalott,but she has put the burden on me to do,now I am asking you to consider it,which is more suitable translation,two opinions are for "The Wise Way".Looking forward your editing on both places.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:MiszaBot III[edit]

Consider using this bot, please. ;-) Also I have a photo I took for you once I get it onto Commons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer doing some things by hand, Ed. I hope you are pleased with my archiving activities yesterday. BTW--photo? Nice! BTW, I wonder where this came from (I found it in this article). Drmies (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also BTW, I am typing this on my new Toshiba netbook. It's great, small, light, though getting used to the keyboard is not so easy. I can't believe what $300 will buy you these days. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't blame you; I do the same thing. And actually, I don't have to upload it. It's just the sign featured here -- I thought of you when I saw it. I also got a photo of the "Polish-American Heritage Highway" signage on the same trip -- that one's for my Grandma, who's a full Pole. :-) $325 bought me a 42" HDTV last year, allowing me to replace my puny but bulky old tv... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GBooks[edit]

I am having a rather tedious conversation on my talk page with someone who is under the impression that GBooks works everywhere, just the same. I have tried explaining that it does not but I get the impression that it is not sinking in. Somewhere I have seen an article/essay about this issue but am blowed if I can find it. Any ideas? - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it courtesy of a TPS. What a nightmare: 18k+ edits and they seem to think it is ok to use snippet view and that the whole world can see GBooks exactly as s/he sees it. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for removing those additions out of the Glosa article. It seems I'll have to get it on my watchlist. Xabadiar (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TPS alert[edit]

Drmies is messing up the Florida coast, where internet access is spotty. See you in a week. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slacker! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're having fun! Don't let the kids eat too much sand. LadyofShalott 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second Mandarax. Try not to get too burned. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on RS for Celtic F.C. supporters[edit]

Hi again Drmies. I wonder if you might have time (yet again!) to look at this [1] on the RS Noticeboard and give your opinion. Thanks Mattun0211 (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of football in Tibet[edit]

Hello fellow Dr. Can you translate this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy International Beer Day![edit]

Happy International Beer Day!
I am certain that you will be taking the time to participate in the following traditions of International Beer Day:
  1. Gathering with friends and enjoying the taste of beer.
  2. Celebrating those responsible for brewing and serving beer.
  3. Uniting the world under the banner of beer, by celebrating the beers of all nations together on a single day. -- kelapstick(bainuu) 08:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa! I missed it--but I didn't. Let's see--I think we drank a big bottle of Sierra Nevada Special Reserve. And some Sweetwater Extra Pale Ales, to wash down a dozen Apalachicola oysters. Thanks K! Drmies (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:99.248.60.99[edit]

FYI, you blocked this IP last week for vandalism. He's up to it again, committing several vandalisms today, and it looks like a vandalism-only account.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  23:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Obviously the same twit, so I've prescribed a two-week Wiki-break. Favonian (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Favonian! Drmies (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J Greb[edit]

J Greb is an admin. He also has been reverting my edits on List of Batman television series characters because of a lack of source. The info I have been inserting is true. Tell him to stop. I am a huge fan of said TV series and know obscure facts about it, which makes my info seem reliable.--76.236.0.168 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the information you are taking from IMDb - you comment on that here, other sources you are unwilling to indicate in edit summaries, or your own original research?
- J Greb (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your additions won't seem reliable until they are validated by reference to reliable sources. Please see WP:RS on what constitutes a reliable source. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End credits of the episodes.--76.236.0.168 (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)
At this point, sadly, that's going to need a third party reviewing the characters and actors listed in them.
And that does not cover the non-credit related edits.
- J Greb (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since 76 has taken it to ANI, there'll be various other opinions forming. LadyofShalott 20:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really need to look to find a reference to WP:BOOMERANG? I saw that J. Greb had already applied protection. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion, please[edit]

Is there any reason for Shaman (Finnish band) and Korpiklaani to be separate pages? It seems to me they should be one article that chronologically discusses the two styles/names. Do you agree, or no? LadyofShalott 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How odd. I am inclined to agree with you. But you can play it safe--there's a couple of editors who are in the know, much more than me--I'm thinking of User:Blackmetalbaz, User:Dabomb87, and User:Malconfort (formerly known as Cannibaloki). Drmies (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll drop notes on their talk pages... tomorrow probably. I'm getting to that point... LadyofShalott 04:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need your rest, my pretty one. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you flatter me. ;) LadyofShalott 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My User Page[edit]

Hi!

Thanks for the question. I have had a problem in that area for a while. Originally, I started writing an article there on the production of human protein before I knew the limitations of my user page. I've tried moving the text to another media, but it's too big. Can I move it to a subpage without a problem or better yet break it up into two subpages so that it's manageable? Every time I try anything the result is an error message from Wikipedia saying they're having a computer problem and the article remains as it. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see why. It took ten minutes just cutting and pasting it into three chunks: User:Marshallsumter/human protein1, User:Marshallsumter/human protein2, and User:Marshallsumter/human protein3. The individual chunks are already at the upper limit of what we (that is, most of us mortals and our machines) can comfortably handle. I think the bigger question is, what is it? Is this a future WP article in the works? Because if it's not, you really should move it off-line. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It originally started out as an article but there is obviously way too much material, plus most sections are fairly well covered by the respective articles included. They were usually not explicit enough regarding the human genome. Let me take a look at each part and maybe I can finally get the pieces into the other media offline. I really didn't want to lose any of the good info. Thanks again! Marshallsumter (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. Keep in mind also that a peer-reviewed publication counts for about ten thousand Good Articles in most universities. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic F.C. supporters[edit]

Hello Drmies, I'm not sure why you have decided to take an interest in Scottish football, and I would encourage you to learn about and contribute to the greatest sport played in a country with one of the greatest histories in football. But I am not happy about your edits on this page. To be honest this feels like WP:WIKIHOUNDING as three editors have now gone from the Green Brigade page to the Celtic supporters page and even if it is not I do not see why you get to deem sources as unreliable for no reason.Adam4267 (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if you'd care to look up the page, you will see that I was asked to look into the matter. Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass for Scottish soccer, being an Ajax fan, born and raised. I don't see where you get the Wikihounding part--who am I supposed to be hounding? But in regards to the reliable sources stuff, the burden is on you. I encourage you to partake in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Celtic_F.C._supporters, where you should have left your comments in the first place, and where you are welcome to explain how Celtic is itself a reliable source for information on its fans (for instance, [2]), or how this can reliably verify that 80% of Honduras soccer fans support Celtic. In other words, I have very good reasons for deeming these sources not reliable. Thank you for your comment, though. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your very welcome for the comment, why don't you frame it and put it on your wall. I am not going to assume that your unwillingness to show how the sources are unreliable is you sublimally saying that your wrong. I'm sure you have a very good reason for rejecting sources for no reason and without explanation. And please remember Drmies that veiled, petty comments don't help contribute to productive discussion. If you don't have anything nice to say, why don't you try saying nothing at all. Adam4267 (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise! Or, if you got nothing useful or nice to say, don't say it on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not continue to leave warnings on my talk page. The first time you warned me was fair because you warned three users who were all editing and I was as well. The last two times you warned me were completely unjustified, saying my edits were vandalism when they were not and threatening to block me is completely unnacceptable. You have still not shown how any of the sources used are unreliable and undoing edits without participating on the talk page is more akin to vandalism than what I am doing. If you would like to continue editing why don't you try participating in talk page discusions and explaining your reasons for edits rather than just leaving vague statements which don't really mean anything and threatening to block me. Adam4267 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not threatening to block you. If you continue to remove valid, sourced information, and if you continue to insert unreliably sourced information (how many times do you need to be told that sources are to be independent of the subject?), I will ask for someone else to block you? You throw around nonsense like "POV edits", well, I explained yet again on the talk page why this is nonsense. I'm done with you. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. I am sorry to bother you but if you could comment here I would be appreciative. Even if you support the proposed topic ban I would like you to comment. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get involved - just tell me how it is[edit]

Have I done the wrong thing at User_talk:MangoWong#Wayback_Machine ? No need to get involved in it - just tell me how it is. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you did sounds fair enough to me. It's a bit tricky for me, since I have in the past removed dead links without checking that Wayback Machine--but links that I remove are usually websites or otherwise not so notable things, not newspaper or magazine articles, which is what I think you were talking about. In other words, if there is a citation with a dead link, removing the citation because of the dead link is not OK, in my opinion. Removing a dead link if there is nothing else that comes with it, so to speak, that's a different matter. Mind you, I've never looked at that DEADLINK guideline (I assume it's not a policy) before and I'm not about to right now, but I think that, as usual, you are going about this the right way: patiently and in detail, even if they don't want to hear it. In fact, I'm jealous of your patience. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above. I am quite concerned about what the person is doing but reluctant to get further involved. At least in this instance I have someone who has reviewed. And thanks also for your edit at James Tod. I am half-minded to run it through GAN (which should not be a problem) and then progress to FAC, but the whole idea of FAC scares the bajesus out of me. A little work to be done yet, but I have the feeling that it is already close to FA status. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I am the villain of the piece. Only that nobody bothered to check the Dennis Rader article to see if i actually deleted the link or not. At how many places did you make this claim? What are your other false claims?-MangoWong (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to this article?[edit]

I think this has material I need for Chris Norman (flautist), but I can't read it. Can you? LadyofShalott 03:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Check your email. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! LadyofShalott 04:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well shoot. I was hoping there'd be more. He's in one lonely footnote! Oh well, I can use it. LadyofShalott 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Celtic F.C. supporters. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all we arent chummy being members of the same project is a different matter. Also if you want the truth i agree with you on the matter but you have reverted his edits four times he has only reverted you three so is nnt yet in breach of the rule. This is an edit war you have done the correct thing now stating why on the talkpage which he has asked you to do earlier. The problem is the article had a lot more refs on it which were removed in agreement on the talk page which is how it should have been dealt with this time. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are incorrect: I have not reverted him four times; my first edits were to remove improperly sourced information. I have reverted him three times, as he has me. There is indeed discussion on the talk page--but there is nothing there that suggests that there is a consensus among editors that improperly sourced information should be kept. There is only one editor urging that the page be kept as a puff piece for the club, and that is the editor whom you still have not warned for edit warring. If you agree with me on the content of the edits, then why not say that clearly on the talk page? It is obvious that the editor is not listening to me. BTW, I am not obliged to explain every single edit on the talk page--the other editor should be capable of reading individual edit summaries, and you should note also that I have explained, in my first series of edits, for every single statement why it was not allowed. Can you leave that editor, besides a warning, a note asking him to read the edit summaries before he starts blindly reverting, without explanation or edit summary, without a note on the talk page--in short, without proper manners? If you do that, I will gladly believe in your good will. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
either way given the nature of the subject and the talk page is already open thats the way to go on this. Given the nature of the article its going to be impossible to get everything fully referenced. If you look at previous versions of the article then you will see the proposal were taken into account and the article has been changed. I will speak to adam and tell him to take it to the talk page but it shouldn't be turned into an edit war.Warburton1368 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fact remains, I explained, and I have policy (WP:RS, for instance) on my side--he simply hit revert. Also, I'd like for you to acknowledge that I did not revert him four times, and that you templated me (and I think I'm a regular), which is a very different treatment than my counterpart seems to get from you ("I will speak to [him]"). Drmies (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing to do is take to the talk page he asked you to explain why you were reverting and you now have. I have warned adam the same as you now it should be left alone until consensus is reached. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bios - Reply[edit]

Hey mate, VASCO here, hope all's fine by you,

i'll have a look at Jorge Nuno Pinto da Costa and see what can be done (bet there's a lot of vandalism there, a LOT!). Regarding Florentino Pérez, of course there's no need for a list of signings in my opinion (that's nothing more than a populist move on the part of whoever wrote it).

No, not a Porto fan, have nothing but utter despise for teams that start/end a game with ZERO national players, as that and S.L. Benfica - just to name a few! - hope Porto gets thrashed by FC Barcelona in the 2011 UEFA Super Cup, "honestest" of truths, and i'm Portuguese as you know...

Attentively, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ZERO?? You're kidding. I don't think Jean-Marc Bosman could ever have foreseen how influential his ruling was going to be. And yes, I know you're Portuguese, and I envy you for it! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at the 2011 Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira setups (Vitória de Guimarães is also "fine", with three in 11, after its three replacements, Porto played nearly 10 minutes with ZERO Portuguese players, Rolando is Cape Verdean, and that is not racism, he was born there, of Cape Verdean father and mother, what is he?). You may also want to see the rosters of C.D. Nacional and C.S. Marítimo here at this great site, chilling; did you know that Brazilian players do not count as imports in the Portuguese League? Must be our remorse for all those years of plundering their land and ruling their destinies...

Again, kind regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken version[edit]

I think by overturning Zythe's attempt to halve the size of the BLP page, you have returned it to its doubled size. I am still seeing a problem. It began here. The page takes forever to download now. Bielle (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • But I'm sure Zythe wasn't trying to cut the page in half! Drmies (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He did do so, regardless of his intention (though I disagree with you there; I think he was looking for a solution) and then you reverted that edit. Of course, one of his previous edits is the one that originally doubled the size (the one I linked above). And the problem remains. The page is over twice as big as it should be, and it is almost impossible to download. (See here. If fixing it is beyond your competence (and it is most certainly far beyond mine), could you redirect me to someone who can do the fix? Thanks Bielle (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see now what happened--and just as I'm about to do it by hand, another editor is already working on restoring the proper content. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, i'm so sorry. It was an accident. I'm a long-time editor and I've never been behind a mishap like this before. I can assure you it wasn't intentional, I feel humiliated like I've just broken a friend's TV by letting go of the Wii remote. I was kind of upset by the post on my talk page accusing me of breaking the noticeboard to further my agenda. I don't care enough about some temporary thing to jeopardise my account and reputation way. Thank you and whichever editors have worked towards fixing the issue...Zythe (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zythe, it was a joke! I'm sorry if you didn't get it and if I offended you. I didn't repair anything, Off2Riorob did. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Dear Drmies, Thanks for your messesage explainig the problesms with my submissions.

I have prepared a new drafts and put them on my talk page.

May I request you to please review them and help me out.

Your assitance will be highly appreciated.

Thanks once again for your timely assistance.

Blessings, Pramod Vora Pramod Vora (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your note. However, you probably should drop User:Huon a line--they are much more familiar with your work than I am. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies,

I have been posting my discussions with User: Huon on my user page. But we have not reached a consensus on the 3 pages I had recommended editing and bringing the information up to date to the year 2011:

Anti-Aging Limb Regeneration (Fingertip Regeneration) Stem Cell Research

May I request you to kindly go through these proceedings and let me know what you recommend me to do further in this matter.

There are many other topics on which we have been researching at our Center, but I have withheld sharing anything further with Wikipedia at this point of time till the outcome of these pending discussions and my further understanding of the situation I have landed myself in.

Your help will be highly appreciated.

Blessings, Pramod VoraPramod Vora (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message[edit]

Thanks, yeh--it's him I was talking to. AtomHearted (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Join the club--see the talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks on Chateau de la Motte, Joue du Plain[edit]

Hello Drmies - thanks for the improvements.

Image on left was leftover from a bad effort to make the intro more compact and less airy, nothing more. I'm new to this and not sure how different systems interpret the layout and images.

The chatty notes were an attempt to record history. I have interviewed a number of aging survivors of the War about the experience at the Chateau and Resistance stories in general. The RAF museum has asked me to record them, since it often involves downed pilots. I thought if I could work out a way to do it in Wikipedia, perhaps more people could use the results. Since interviews are not allowed then I thought notes might be excepted. Any ideas? MlaneMlane (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mlane, thanks for your note, and for your contributions. Unfortunately, what you describe is original research (WP:OR), and encyclopedic info needs to be based on reliable, published, secondary sources. If it gets published, then it can be included here, of course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Nuno Pinto da Costa[edit]

Hi there MIES, VASCO here,

have finished (hopefully!) upgrading the article, added some refs. However, i found out immediately after ending, upon checking the "piece"'s edit history, that some of my additions were also some of your removal. I tried to add some refs, none were available in English (strangely enough, as it is a worldwide known club), hope you like the new version.

If not...hit that cut button! Dankiu vel, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vasco! I saw you readded some of the material, but the balance in the article is much better thanks to your good work. I noticed that there was little in English (besides mere mentions of hiring and transfers and such), which is one reason I called on you. Thank you so much--the article is much better than it was before. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THanks![edit]

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyPBailey (talk • contribs)

Roll Tide[edit]

If you search for Drmies in the search box it suggests that you might have wished to search for Dummies...Coincidence? Hoyt burrass (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm. "Hoyt burass" suggests "hot burns", which suggests "hock burns". So you ain't going nowhere either, buddy. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Till then I have no financial condition to live in this borough. For our comfort, a cup of coffee for you and a glass of Coke for me. P.S. I love cats! Malconfort (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Coal balls?[edit]

So do I. I've asked the copyright holders of an existing image for permission, or maybe I can draw one. --Σ talkcontribs 05:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Video Sources[edit]

...rm some all-caps, redundant italics, redundant white space. also trimmed content: not everything in here was of encyclopedic value. BTW, this YouTube sourcing, it's not good. that album--was it released?

Thanks for the tips Drmies. What is Wikipedia's policy's on sourcing videos. Its seems to me, in the case of biography's, there is NO BETTER SOURCE then to hear it directly from the persons mouth with sound and audio (as oppose to citing abstract websites or even news articles). Please explain why "this YouTube sourcing, it's not good." please and kindly, so I can myself become a better Wikipedia editor. Thanks TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(refimprove tag. article relies (almost) exclusively on videos, whose reliability can be questioned)
The article references many different video sources from different years, not just one video, which is what I spent the last week going watching and sourcing so please reassure me that my time was not wasted. How can video footage not be the best source material? It's much more reliable then hypertext, no? What is the policy on sourcing the same video? Is there a method to keep the same source for multiple paragraphs without adding double sources? TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Video sourcing is not a good thing since there are problems, inherently. First of all, I have not looked at the videos--loading them and browsing through them takes too much time. But I can say confidently that I have doubts about the reliability of those who published the videos. Moreover, you take quotes from those videos--writing words from sounds is, really, a kind of original research (WP:OR). Published sources are always best.

    As for "there is NO BETTER SOURCE then to hear it directly from the persons mouth", that is erroneous, simply put. Encyclopedias should rely on secondary, not primary material--see WP:PRIMARY, a subsection of the original research page, if only because a subject does not necessarily speak the truth about themselves, and because whatever a subject has said isn't really important until someone acknowledged (preferably in print) that it's important.

    Finally, for your question about using the same source multiple times, see WP:CITEFOOT, on the "ref name=" function. I hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make great points for a typical Encyclopedia - however Wikipedia also has a huge catalog of living biographies which automatically show up first in Google search results making the information on the page accuracy much more important - which is an entirely different ballpark from a traditional Encyclopedia where its more accurate to cite reliable sources and scientific journals. You yourself, as a moderator, don't have time to watch all the videos - but fans of the band will over the course of a year watch them, the article will be further and further refined because of it. Good citations in videos can be reliable when many people are viewing the video multiple times - your seeing and hearing the information first hand, it isn't being filtered by an editor or news agency. That kind of information is more reliable in the case of say, a band interview. In the case of living biography's and band biography's this is more valuable information to fans who are interested. It should be a combination of different sources which we agree upon, which is what im trying to do, but I just want to make sure that 5 days worth of citations doesn't go down the drain because I think fans will find the information valuable and as a result it will be a better article. Do you agree with that or no? TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hate to be a stick in the mud, but WP:V, and related to that WP:RS, are really essential... Drmies (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry Drmies, I'll stop harassing you now. Is just nice to have a real person answer questions as oppose to dealing with bots. You don't always get good answers from those help files. Ignore that last comment I posted about citing existing Wiki pages, I'll do more comprehensive reading on the policies, thanks! TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and Twitter[edit]

BEFORE On May 21, 2011, The Birthday Massacre announced via their Facebook wall, and their Twitter profile,[1] that Imaginary Monsters, will be released on August 9, 2011 through Metropolis Records.

AFTER On May 21, 2011, The Birthday Massacre announced that Imaginary Monsters was to be released on August 9, 2011, through Metropolis Records.

QUESTION

Here is an example where you edited out Facebook and Twitter links, leaving the reader to question where the information was posted and thus causing the document to be less sourced. Why? If its Wikipedia's policy to not include direct links to Facebook, this I understand and try to abide by - but why edit out valuable information for the reader - ie. they can just go check the Facebook profile or Twitter profile on the date posted and check for themselves. Thanks for answering my questions good sir - or mam. TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, the announcement of an album is hardly relevant, certainly after the album comes out. Second, if something is sourced only to Facebook and Twitter, chances are it's not encyclopedically relevant information. The general idea here, besides the inherent unreliability of those sources, is that not every factoid is relevant and of encyclopedic value. Sometimes factoids do rise to the level of importance--if, for instance, your band is Guns 'n Roses and your album has been announced for a decade--but those are things that are reported on in mainstream publications, that is, secondary sources, and can thus assumed to be at least somewhat relevant. Does this help? You could consider browsing around for your band in Google News, not the regular Google Web. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gottcha, I think, so in other words, if it's already cited elsewhere in the document, there is no sense in repeating it. For example, once there is already a citation to the bands Facebook profile, it's not necessary to repeat it again unless its encyclopedic relevant information. TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusively on Videos[edit]

17:47, 10 August 2011 Drmies (talk | contribs) (39,186 bytes) (refimprove tag. article relies (almost) exclusively on videos, whose reliability can be questioned) (undo)

35 videos sources out of 86 total sources is 51 non video sources. I'm citing ALL available sources, including video, Im not singling out videos intentionally, so why do you say "relies (almost) exclusively on videos". How many video sources is too many? TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because I did not include the multiple references to MySpace and other unreliable sites, such as social networking sites and Twitter and such. Moreover, many of the 'other' references are not to reliable sources: I see just added a reference to Dose (magazine), for instance--there is no indication that this magazine is a reliable source--see WP:RS. This one, this one, and this one, to grab just three links from the References section, they are not reliable sources.

    There is no set limit, or set ratio, for video and other sources vs. things that count as reliable sources--but in this article, the balance is completely off. This may count as a source for chart information, and this is a decent and helpful article from a reliable source--but those are the only two that I found among the 88 references. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies! Dose is a popular Toronto Magazine and so is Rouge Morgue (which has its own Wikipedia page too). Obviously not every source can be known , I myself don't recognize the 3rd link, what makes something a "reliable" source. If it has the information people are looking for and isn't marked as a harmful site, don't you feel its better to include the link and allow readers to make up there own mind?TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From your experience then, out of 100 sources, when does it start becoming too much video sourcing? Again, don't you agree video is more reliable then hypertext? For example the last citation I added (dose) there is currently no way to direct users to the bottom of the page where the citation is located - where as in video I just give the time signature and BAM the information is right there. I reckon you will be seeing much more video citation in the future don't you think? TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not my band, im just a fan. :-) TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. ;)
Well, that argument of placing it precisely at the right moment, that doesn't work for everyone. It doesn't work, for instance, for the deaf, and in most cases it's hardly a problem for readers to be asked to look at an entire article. But more importantly, I think that most of your videos are interviews with the band--and that's primary material, whereas (as I mentioned above), we should write based on secondary material, if only because sources need to be independent from the subject. A release date or who plays what instrument, that's one thing, but the importance of an album, or style, or whatever, that's different. Besides, if you asked Ozzy Osbourne who plays on Blizzard of Ozz in 1980 and in 2002 you might get two different answers, and in 2002 Daisley and Kerslake might not even be mentioned. (Just read the article and you'll see what I mean--third paragraph.) And in general, written material (not the same as hypertext) always gets preference over visual material: we encourage links to for instance newspaper articles, not to video from television programs.

As for reliability, readers making up their own mind is not really the issue here. If something is linked and cited in a WP article, then the appearance is given that this is a reliable source. Verifiability using reliable sources is not an option here--it is a requirement. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, in the second paragraph already. Also, that a website has a WP article doesn't mean it's a reliable source: we don't cite tabloids for important information, for instance, and that a website is notable doesn't mean it's reliable. One can't start citing Perez Hilton, for instance. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again great points Drmies, thanks for taking the time to share, I appreciate it as im garnering a bigger interest in editing articles. You've convinced me about secondary material, and the increased validity of such sources. I'll make note of this in any future articles I edit. The only point I wanted to stress was that - sometimes its more about the content and less about the validity of the content. For example, Secondary material is important for factual information, but for questions such as "why did you join the band", that's a subjective answer that can only be sourced by the subject in question, but yet is still important information for the reader, so it all depends on whats being said. I'm just trying to write a base article that people can improve on over time. I only used a couple quotes for prose and the rest is all factual information. All im attempting to do in this article is build a base in which the rest of the fans can take over. If you view the article from a week ago it was barely a stub. I just tried to source as much reliable sources as I could, while making the article interesting, again, just to lay down a base. Thanks! TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting about Wikipedia:Verifiability - See in my mind this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rue_Morgue_%28magazine%29

Should then render this reliable,

http://rue-morgue.com/blog/archives/2010/08/25/festival-of-fear-preview-the-birthday-massacre-to-premiere-their-in-the-dark-video/

Especially after the viewing the wiki has a long history of existing. Granted I realize moderators dont have time to check all this stuff, but it would be nice to have a system that automatically detects the match here since this is a good source, a really good source actually compared to other sources in the article. I mean, I can't think of any other way to demonstrate to Wikipedia that the source is reliable then showing a page like this with a history to it. And -

'That a website is notable doesn't mean it's reliable.' - Well that can go for the New York Times too. Any website really isn't totally reliable. TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the NYT is a newspaper, not a website. They have a website that gives access to their articles. That's a huge difference. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have articles about a lot of extremely non-reliable publications, websites, persons, etc. Just because there is an article about a Charles Manson, Kim Jong-Il or Stockwell Day, does not mean we should trust a word they have said. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm--I was not familiar with the latter. He's not a bad-looking fellow, though. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rue Morgue is a magazine. They also have a website that gives access to their articles just like NY times. I'll do further reading to find out how to turn this site into a reliable source unless you can direct me to how I can do this. Im not pulling your chain its actually quite a popular magazine in Toronto, Ontario Canada. TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure--but the question is, can you prove that, using reliable sources? (I'm not kidding--that's how it works!) Drmies (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a discussion at WP:RSN could help. (Others may know of useful sources that show the reliability (or non-reliability) of the magazine.) LadyofShalott 21:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, how do I prove it, that's the question. This gets tricky dosn't it. Here I have a great source but no Canadian moderators to vouch for me. Orange Mike? You must be Canadian? Its probably going to be too much work for me to track this info down when all I want to do is write a decent article for the band I like. Perhaps in the future Wikipedia will implement a better system of verifying sources. I mean, if you can't see from the wikipedia article and the site itself that its legit, well, I don't stand a chance of convincing you. Can't you just go with your gut? Does it look shady? Anyway - Instead im forced to let a good source slide but that's ok because im learning. Have a great day guys and gals.TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
btw - thanks for the improvements! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBMforeverNowhere (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Com' on Drmies[edit]

(?Violet (2004–06): added a reliable source. rm a URL link to a non-notable director and redundant info about a DVD (not every fact is relevant))

Does having two videos both with over 2 million views make you a non-notable director? That's 4 million people who have seen your video. Who do I have to prove notability to - you? Are you arbiter of notability? Ok, please Drmies, I'm trying to edit this page into a decent article and I don't want to just play tag back and forth with moderators. I know your not making this difficult on purpose but in two seconds you're deleteing away hours of work and research just because you've never heard of the band? Think about how much work im putting into this, do you think I would add some stupid irrelevant fact? Come on. Of course not. Look at all my past edits and make a educated choice. Do I look like im vandalizing the page? This is important info. Go look at the original page. Do a simple search for Dan Ouellette, this is not a nobody, he's a world famous illustrator and painter. Not so much a director but he has also directed too. Do a Google search. Check out his imdb page too. Are Wikipedia moderators ever convinced of anything? Just because he doesn't appear on wiki doesn't mean he doesn't exist or isn't notable or relevant, am I right? The grammar and punctuation fixes are great but this kind of behavior and editing, quite frankly, chases away what would otherwise be valuable wiki editors. TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a moderator. There are no moderators here. I'm just an editor, that's all, but as it happens I am an editor with a certain amount of experience. 2 million views? who says? The bottomline is, such information ought to be reliably sources, not linked to the dude's personal website, and if it can't be reliably sourced it can't be included. That's how an encyclopedia works. And if Wikipedia is wrong in not having an article on him, go and write that article--but don't include him if the very fact that he did the work isn't verified, and if it isn't verified that the work he did was notable. "Notable" means "noted by others"--especially those who write for magazines and newspapers and such. I tried to show you what a reliable source is by including the article from The Village Voice, which is now the third reliable source in the article. BTW, I never said you are vandalizing the page. I also never said I never heard of the band. I also don't think that it takes hours of work to add the director's URL to the page. I am trying to help you. If I wanted to strictly apply the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I could, conceivably, trim 3/4 or more from this article and say "not reliably sourced". Instead, I have already put a lot of time into this article that I could have spent somewhere else, doing the dishes for instance, or playing with my kids. I am perfectly content to let it go--I will leave your article alone. But the tag, for instance, must remain until the ratio of reliable to unreliable sources is better than 3 : 75. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what your saying Drmies, its just a little frustrating to spend days sourcing all this stuff, only to have it deleted within the click of a button(the nature of Wikipedia I suppose). I agree with the points your making and taking notes. I'll go back and add in the director, but this time cite better sources such as his imdb.com profile and other press I can find. For a minute there I thought you were just picking on me as a simple Google image search will load a plethora of results for Dan. For interests sake, here are his two most popular videos, he has a similar style to Adam Jones of the band Tool. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp1FRKc24Zk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SREZ-ggSDjM I will also take your advice and start a new page up for Dan since I think it wont be that difficult to source his work, but not tonight, another day. :-) Sorry if Im coming off abrasive but im sure you can relate to spending a long time on an article, I think I need a break anyway. I know the sources arn't great but I was just trying to get as many citations in there as I could and purge it all later. Thanks Drmies, have a great night TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anaphora (linguistics)[edit]

First, I'm glad you added "contrasted" - I was going to ask about that, but then you fixed it before I could. Anyway, if I'm reading the nomenclature section correctly, defintion 1 has anaphora + cataphora = endophora; definition 2 has anaphora = endophora = all of the above. Yes? LadyofShalott 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. And thanks for the which, which prompted me to look for a good book. Pity it costs $85. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, well I saw your edit summary about the company tab! LadyofShalott 03:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Anaphora'/'cataphora'/'endophora' - each of these is being treated as a singular noun. It looks to me like they are meant as collective nouns though for the class of linguistic phenomena. The use of 'anaphor' to refer to an individual instance would seem to bear this out. (More informally, but what actually started my thinking along these lines, is that 'anaphora' just sounds plural to me.) Is this similar to data/datum, or am I way off base here? LadyofShalott 03:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, an amphora is a vase - a single vase. Maybe I am full of it ('it' there is an exophora, right?) with my singular/plural musings. LadyofShalott 04:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it could be--but I think it really depends on how idiomatic the expression is. If "it" simply stands for "shit", then we're dealing with a euphemistic kind of substitution, not unlike example 8 here, but without the first part, so to speak. See also this late response on the talk page. "It" in this sense is certainly never used anaphorically (in the strict sence). I think I would stay on the safe side and call it idiomatic, which (in my opinion) does not require intra- or extra-textual cohesion of the kind mandated by anaphora (strict or loose). Drmies (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're all regular singulars of the first declension. Muse on, Lady, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Thanks. (Now I feel sort of silly. Oh well.) LadyofShalott 14:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That all makes sense. Thanks again for indulging my questions. LadyofShalott 14:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current members of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

Sorry, but either you or me is blind. You say that in this article, Oregon's 1st Congressional district is vacant but it isn't.--77.49.154.248 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Brown[edit]

Hi. With reference to the Ian Brown amendments, these have come from Ian himself! If you would like verification I will gladly post something direct from his facebook page! (natniss) (----)

Re your message: Sure. I've added it to my watch list for a bit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what a 'reliable source' is. His label? I have already requested they deal with this through their Digital team. Thanks (natniss) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natniss (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've suggested to you that you have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You'll find that his label is not counted as one. We are an encyclopedia, based on secondary sources--not a press release site or a publicity vehicle. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For a creating and improving numerous articles and for indulging my questions. LadyofShalott 20:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw them. I appreciate your adding the clarification. LadyofShalott 20:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current members of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

OK, I done it myself. It was easy--77.49.154.248 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks to Tod[edit]

I notice that you tweaked Tod again recently. Thanks for that. I have just GAN'd it and got a shedload of criticism from Fowler&fowler regarding the lead. I didn't actually write the lead, which is a combination of what was originally there when I found the article + a lot of (appreciated) work by ErrantX.

F&f is not the GA reviewer but if you have the time to take a look at the lead then it would be appreciated. I have put myself on record umpteen times, including with one of Malleus's GA reviews, that I am crap at writing the things from scratch. But F&f's comments seem at once valid and extreme. I am developing a split personality here! And fed up. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, don't worry about it except from the project's point of view. Going to bed but I think that I have had enough of this palaver. I am been accused of that many different things, attacked here and also off-wiki, dealing with complete idiots, finding socks all over the place, been falsely warned, kicked about, messed about, wikilawyered to death, treated as some sort of moronic know-nothing. Oddly enough, the death threat I got rather amused me, as did the blog thing but this is all just getting silly now. There are seriously incompetent people running around in this roost & they appear to have an endless supply of rope. If I get something wrong then I apologise; if they get something wrong then they just move on to the next attack. I am not burnt out but why should I bother? - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines[edit]

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel it going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adminly heads up[edit]

I just deleted Wild Adirondack Cow as a hoax (I suspect it may be some sort of scouting joke), and in the process I smelt some possible sockpuppetry, COI, and things like that involving Tmercaldo (talk · contribs), Billuconn11 (talk · contribs), Bajekj (talk · contribs), and Thomas Mercaldo. I don't have time to investigate what exactly is going on now (I'm leaving for Bonaire early tomorrow), but perhaps you or one of your TPSs can take a look. Sorry to bother you with it. Ucucha (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I see you even got the blame for deleting the article about the polar bear hybrid in New England, but Beyond My Ken's response there is very appropriate. Bonaire is indeed loverly. I visited Curaçao, but didn't make it past the airport, and didn't see any Johan. I'll visit that same airport in two weeks; perhaps I'll have more luck then. Ucucha (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am so incredibly apologetic![edit]

Although I have not edited alongside you, I did notice your good faith in the past on the mentioned article. I absolutely feel horrible and suppose after being beaten down by the other named editor and others (one named as a sock who was literally taunted me for months) have effected my judgement of decency. Offending innocent people such as yourself- Not purposely of course has me feeling simply horrible. Again, my sincere apologies. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I removed you from the SPI- Of course. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Adirondack Cow[edit]

I am new to wikipedia and admit to not understanding how everything works. My intent is to add meaningful content that is not currently available. I was surprised that my addition of the Wild Adirondack Cow was removed as a "hoax." The existance of this animal aka the Wakiti, is long established in Indian tradition. The pages on thunderbirds or Sasquath were not removed even though there is similar controvery on whether these creates were in fact real creatures. I believe they were as do others who have written books on the subject.

I acknowledge that there are limited referencable items on the web regarding the wakiti, but there are two books (johnson and Mercaldo books) that I referenced that I could send to someone to demonstrate where some of the information I posted came from. I also acknowledge that perhaps I cast the article improperly as pure fact when I should maybe have discussed this as some indians belief or it is our tradition, etc. I would like the original article moved back to my user space where perhaps I could recast it like the thunderbird article rather than stating the existance of these animals as a clear scientific fact. I understand since only limited bones samples have been found that this creature may be proven as simply a hybrid, but nonetheless in the traditions of my people there is no question of their existance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billuconn11 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: Perhaps you might contact the Yale Peabody Museum in New Haven, CT that has the skeleton remains of one of three known specimens. Or perhaps you can read the article that appeared in the Hartford, CT in 1845 about the attacks on the McCormick farm in Burville, CT. It seems you believe you know better than I and you believe all human knowledge exists in google. There are many Indian legends and traditions you will not find on the web and there is scientific and secular evidence to back these up. Even if there were not as in the case of the thunderbird, reference to this animals is in my view encyclopedic. The genius and species information I posted was from the Johnson book. Whether that information is generally accepted is another matter but I am not a scientist and this is not my work. I will find another forum to bring forth information regarding the Wakiti, I do however wish you would email me the information I put together as it was created in my userspace. Despite you assertions, I invested a lot of time in trying to make the article interesting, accurate and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.17.58 (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Mongolian death worm could totally take a wild Adirondack cow...Any day.--kelapstick(bainuu) 01:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Billuconn11: There is indeed specific information that is not online, and therefore would not appear on Google. I would not be surprised at all not to find a usable reliable source about a subject on the borderline of the mainstream, but it is exceedingly unlikely that any particular subject will not have any mention somewhere that would appear on Google. Given that, it is your responsibility to provide reliable sources to support the existence of such an animal or the cultural belief in one. A newspaper from 1845 isn't going to cut it, and if the Museum stuff isn't in a catalog somewhere -- online or off- -- you're not going to able to support the contention. So rather than beefing about it, your task is to go find some citations from reliable sources, avoiding any original research (i.e. don't interview tribal elders or anthropologists yourself) and then ask an admin to e-mail you the text of the deleted article so you can revise it with your newly found citations and re-upload it. That's my advice, anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't want to beef about. I understand that the editor has determined the article unfit for publication. I accept that. My only beef if that the 5 days work I put into researching this and putting all the information into the article is lost. I am new to wikipedia, I guess next time I will know to save information on my computer. But I would like to receive back the content, while it is not valuable to anyone at Wikipedia it had value to me.

I would also like to say one more thing about google. In 1987 I lived in Dalton, Ma. Several articles appeared in the Berkshire Eagle about a farmer who's claimed his sheep were being stolen by a wolf. Everyone dismissed this as preposterous. Late one night I passed the farm and witness the wolf dragging away a sheep. Still these claims by the farmer were ridiculed until the farmer shot the wolf in his yard and produced the dead carcus. Then all of a sudden he was credible. Evidence of this incident was published in the berkshire eagle. Today if you google for information about this incident you'll find none. In fact you will find contrary information in articles about a similar incident in Sheffield, MA that is reported as the first such incident in wolf sighting in the berkshires in 100 years. My point is a simple one. Just because there is no evidence on the web about the 1987 incident it doesn't mean it didn't happen. And just because an article appears on the web it doesn't mean its correct.

I will continue to research my article, as this is a topic that is of great interest to me. I am of indian ancestary, and what is hoax to you is to me a long standing cultural belief. And at least one scientist saw fit to write about it. I do hope that the work effort I put into this topic is returned to me rather than disgarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billuconn11 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI case[edit]

I will try to take away some of what you have said and use it to be more productive in discussions and conflicts in the future. I am certainly not angry that you opened an ANI case and do not hold it against you at all. I'm sure that if you want to continue editing on these pages we will be able to work more contsructively in future. Thank you for posting on my page, it was helpful, and may I say lovely use of the football analogy there very well done. applauds. Adam4267 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know, that just came automatically--I'm glad you noticed. BTW, the Celtic-Aberdeen cup match (1937) had the record attendance at a cup tie. Surely you can use this somewhere; I'm still looking for more general numbers. Thanks for your note. All the best, Drmies (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's already in the records section on the Celtic page and I think that already has all the records covered. Adam4267 (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That's too bad. I'm trying to find sourcing for those improperly sourced statement about general attendance numbers. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you could get them, the SFA's database does have them it's just the user has to choose the right season. Adam4267 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one would think that at some point a paper or a book would remark on it, in general terms, not just in terms of how many visitors last week. For instance, football clubs have ups and downs, and a general publication might have commented on that by looking at attendance figures. In the Netherlands, numbers were down in the 1980s across the board, and newspaper stories (from what I remember) used to give such statistics. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you want in that section? Adam4267 (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd like to put in the supporters article, properly verified, that it's the best-attended side in Scotland, which I think was your point. Now, if you reinstate part of that, with the link to the database, but leaving out the "third-best attended in the UK" thing (because that's an OR comparison), I think that would be OK, as long as you insert, for instance, the years for which those numbers are validated. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. TBH I don't see why the "UK" attendance matters because in footballing terms it doesn't exist. Obviously attendance in Europe and Scotland make sense though. Adam4267 (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

I took rollback on a test drive and it is one of the sexiest tools on Wikipedia. Joe Chill (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup. Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a small nonserious joke on the rollback page. A member told me that jokes are not allowed on such a serious page like rollback even when they don't insult anyone. If I made a mistake, can you tell me if jokes are not allowed on serious project pages? Despite me being an experienced editor, I am not sure because everyone is usually so serious all of the time. Joe Chill (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're bad for you, speaking from experience. --Σ talkcontribs 19:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My joke was nothing compared to that, but I thought that some jokes are allowed since there is the barnstar of good humor which I received by posting in an AfD. I have honestly only made three jokes since I first started editing in 2008. Joe Chill (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's an average of around one joke per year. We'd better keep an eye on you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well someone likes to live it up! Atomician (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) Uh oh, I make jokes all the time. I guess it's time to retire or get blocked. More seriously Joe, find the people you can make jokes with and continue from there. Talk pages are normally okay for jokes, but it depends on the specific conversation; every once in awhile you will run across a very serious discussion or certain people who don't take jokes well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I average about six serious edits per week, not counting indef blocks of course. Joe, I'd keep the joking out of article content, but Sigma's talk page is fair game. Keep in mind also that some people have no sense of humor, not even at their own RfAs. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • BTW, The Ed has a wonderful sense of humor. You should ask him to tell you the story about how he woke up in Missouri in a mini skirt, with his boots full of vomit, and a 1:12 scale model of the Bismarck in a place that's usually "exit only." Drmies (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh please, if you're going to tell it, can you at least get it right? The model was of Yamato. <--also note the use of italics. Geesh. Anyway, I'm going to waddle off to work now... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ed, feel free to give me a templated warning, below, for incorrect comma usage. I see that some stick-in-the-mud admin already gave me an NPA warning. BTW, Joe, I saw your nonserious joke--that was probably not the best place, since the editor in question might take offense. There's a time and a place for everything, and now you know. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Incorrect *italics usage. Also please tell me you got why I'll have to waddle to work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Is it that Majestic Titan you're carrying around...? Looks mighty cumbersome... :/ Atomician (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No, he has a 18.1-inch gun in his pocket. Nine of em, actually. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Pardon me, The Ed. Thou art correct. As for the waddling, I'd thought I'd be discreet, and really, nobody wants to think about what that looks like. After all, the Yamato has what has been described as an "enormous hull" (TWSS!]]. Alright kids, enough of this: it's naptime. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I thought you liked images like that. My bad. Also, naptime?! You must be a lot older than I thought... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will only use jokes that may not offend people like in this AFD that I got a barnstar for. It was an anecdote about why I thought that the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I participated in around 10 of those television schedule AfDs and it got boring throwing out guidelines and policies, so I decided to explain my position by using a story that did not offend anyone in the debates. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much do you know about bots?[edit]

I have an idea for a bot, but I wanted to take it to someone and discuss it first to see if it was a good idea. I'm not sure how to have it implemented or if I have enough coding knowledge to script it... before I go on (and waste a load of your time), would you mind helping me or discussing it with me? Atomician (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I'm not the one. My friend User:Mandarax, however, knows most everything--perhaps you can run it by him. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already[edit]

Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at User talk:Drmies. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to you being blocked from editing. Here's a trout for you, pal. Please don't make fun of other editors on your own talk page, not even with true stories. Next time you won't get off this lightly. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish I had a tiny drone which would report back the conversations the two of you have at the mirror. Don't change a thing, doc, and never take the warnings seriously, especially from that mies guy! Geoff Who, me? 00:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't like him a bit. I'm sure his kids feel the same way. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To say nothing of the dog. Geoff Who, me? 01:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination[edit]

Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Please take away my rollback. I have posted on my user page about what I will not do anymore which includes mostly every major function of Wikipedia. This is not some temporary deal. I got rid of my Schuym1 account in order to start anew and show other editors that I am an asset to Wikipedia. I am not so sure anymore. I will not retire, I will only do edits with way less disputes. Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you sure? Have you had complaints about using rollback? I didn't see them--and having rollback doesn't mean you're a more "automated" editor. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is just that I am officially scared of the major processes of Wikipedia. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (talk page stalker)Joe, then simply take it slowly, and always ask for help if you've got any questions or concerns. You've already found one very helpful editor here (Dmries), and I'm always willing to answer a question or five (or even seven). When I finally broke down and made an account, even after years of being here as an anon, I still had a lot of questions, and the same worries as you. I found a couple dozen wonderful editors (non-admins and admins alike) who've helped me along. Even to this day, I do (Dmries, will respond to your answer in a bit, thanks again). I'm sure you'll make such connections too. So, if it's just a matter of making a mistake, then ask first. If still, after considering this, you feel you're not up to the task, that too is fine. Everyone contributes in their own way. Do whatever you are comfortable with - but dont simply not do something you seem to enjoy because you think it's a bit daunting; find people who'll help instead. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am done with it. It is frightening. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • (another talk page stalker. They're everywhere!) Take a day to think about it, after which if you still don't want it, ask again, but it's just a tool and you've not abused it. Atomician (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am done. I have been trampled on by editors ever since I was Schuym1 with editors tagging my copvios and saying that I was probably a vandal because of that. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That example and stuff like Talk:Miracle Dog: How Quentin Survived the Gas Chamber to Speak for Animals on Death Row was how I had to teach myself. Mostly everything that I know now about Wikipedia was self taught with insults and bad faith accusations along the way. Joe Chill (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wait a little bit before having it taken away. You just called it one of the "sexiest tools" on Wikipedia and you haven't gotten in trouble with it. So hang on to it. Use it only when you are sure what you are reverting is vandalism, and it should be fine. It seems you are reacting to an unrelated incident, and rushing to have this tool removed. Also, add me to the list of people you can ask questions. LadyofShalott 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not sure if I should keep it. I will not go on a vandalism reverting spree. A case from today with Sphrilbrick had him say that he was very unhappy with what I did and that he would end the discussion in order not to say anything that he will regret. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • (edit conflict) Oh, you can add me to that list too if you like, I may look new but I've edited here for years on a prev. account and I'm always willing to help out any way I can, but please don't repress to minor edits because you feel attacked by other people in some way, just bear through it and be courageous! Atomician (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Beauty is, you can keep it and simply decide not to use it... then, if something really nasty happens (some vandal does something really bad to an article) it's there if the need arises... or later on you can decide to use it solely for very blatant stuff (can't get into issues with other editors for that). Whatever you decide, you've now got a bunch of people who'll be there to help out if needed, including in the event of a problematic editor trying to trample on you without good cause. (Side note, LadyofShalott and Atomician are def two others you can count on; I've turned to both at one point or another in the past... as are most of the gang who post on my talk page) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will keep it. Joe Chill (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice, if you have any questions or need to talk, feel free to ask or talk. I promise to at least be more patient than your former adopter, Atomician (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Antonio de Rivas[edit]

Mmh...perhaps. I don't hang out there much these days. And I can't speak Spanish. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, hit up Raystorm. Tell her I sent you her way. LadyofShalott 22:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did; thanks Lady. Now, Ser, what the hell? I have to make sure IPs don't get to see the light of day, I have to conspire against every different kind of religion and book, I have to piss off and drive away good content editors, and I have to make sure that no one takes Wikipedia seriously anymore. AND I am supposed to write these articles?? Drmies (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request (Verzoek)[edit]

Ref: Ehsan Sehgal

Hello,Drmies, op dit moment is het weer hier mooi,maar dat kan elk moment veranderen.Ik heb al u artikelen op wikipedia gelezen en wil u daarvoor mijn complimenten geven,voor het vele en goede werk.

Here is one of my quotes,in Dutch from De Wijze Weg,and in English,

  • "Er is niets mis met het uiten van je eigen talenten.Het niet onderkennen

van andermans talenten is een ontkenning van eigen talent."

  • To display ones talents is not objectionable.How ever denial of other's

talents is tantamount to denying your own."

Now I request to you for helping two things,

1. In literary career, this sentence,"He also writes in the meter called Beher," is not giving clear meaning,actually this sentence was based on the comments of Mushtaq.A.Khan,The Times Of Karachi,-ref:,2,as,

"Ehsan has also shown mastery over the art of "Arooz" (meter).He has come up with some innovation in this regard which is very pleasing.Each Ghazal and Rubai in the collection carries the name of meter (Arooz) in which it has been composed.This is something unique and novel as I do not remember to have encountered any other book with this "Ehtemam".

See this.http://www.urdutoday.com/sites/default/files/03.jpg

Therefore,I reques that it should be a little bit in the direction of that comments,if you think that,it deserves the subject of article,if yes,then please mention in your own words a bit,and cite it with ref:2.

2.Now in all sections of article have been referenced,is it possible the tag on top should be removed?.

And last thing,Translation of De Wijze Weg,"The wise Road" or "The Wise Way",which is appropriate in your opinion?.I hope you will spare a bit time to help in this regard.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • See your talk page--I think those things have been addressed. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about the translation, BTW. "Way" of course alliterates, as it does in Dutch, but it also sounds a bit hokey in English (in Dutch, not so much). I see it was changed and changed back, but I don't really care either way--if you don't like it, change it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TUBE BAR ALBUMS[edit]

Hi Drmies,

I undid some of the albums based on refrences I found from allmusic.com and billboard.com but as we previously discussed I am NOT sure this is 100% wiki? So please review my sources and if you find any problems *please* let me know and feel free to undo what i did.

Thanks for all your hard work! Tyros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Tyros. I looked at Drunk, Dirty and Disgraceful. Like many articles on albums, it doesn't have that much information, but at least it's more than just a track listing. Unfortunately, the Billboard review really can't be called a review and wouldn't count as a reliable indication toward notability, and it's the same with the Allmusic listing. Both prove that the thing exists, but existence is not notability. Then, there's a press release and a link to the company site, so to speak. In general, I don't think that notability (per WP:NALBUMS, for instance) has been established, but I'm not about to nominate it for deletion--other editors might, of course, and that's something you might have to live with. ;)

    My prime concern right now is that the main article and the associated articles don't end up as repositories for commercial links, unverified praise, and original research (for instance, in extensive and detailed descriptions of unencyclopedic material). As long as that doesn't happen, I'm not about to cause trouble for you. Does that help? Thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Hi Drmies,

Thank you so much for your "quick" reply, very much appreciate! I very much appreciate your sincere and honest contribution to wiki (thank you).

Yes, I understand what you wrote and agree. Yes, thank you very much (you do us a great job - we NEED more like you!)

Thank you very much Drmies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

congratulations...[edit]

... in 2010, you welcomed 701 new editors on their talkpage, making you the 32nd most prolific welcomer on the English Wikipedia. That's pretty cool. that number only includes 'friendly' first messages - not vandalism warnings etc. Kevin (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoa, only 32nd? But Kevin, I read somewhere recently that new editors HATE getting those welcome templates (even more than they hate *not* getting anything...). Still, you got some WikiLove coming your way. I hope you're doing well out there on the West Coast. Don't take the blue pills; careful of the yellow pills--and don't eat the yellow snow. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which: did you ever hear anything about LGM again? Drmies (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure about the effect of welcoming templates on participation, although memory says the summer of research has addressed it. I don't seem to remember them having a negative effect though - I think the negative effect was templated warning messages as first points of contact, not templated welcomes. I'll check it out tomorrow. He appears to have gotten distracted by the French wikipedia in recent months. He does also mention having filed 73 (!!) complaints against french checkusers in recent times, although it's unclear to me who he actually directed them to. If I'm not mistaken, he also accuses the English Wikipedia of violating the geneva convention via the duck test at one point. He still keeps one of his blogs updated, with many thousands of words about the same content issues he always focused on, as well as the evils of checkusers and ducktests. He also explicitly mentions you at one point! I feel left out :( Kevin (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • WELL, what can I say. I am the man. If there's ever a court case, though, I'll shift all the blame to you. How'd you like to be my assistant? You do the work, AND you take the fall! Drmies (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait. Are you really telling me that you read this shit or this? With so much tripe to write, how does he ever do elementary physics? Drmies (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, you caught me at a bored moment. Plus, part of me finds that guy's mind, well... fascinating. Kevin (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "duck test" violates the Geneva Convention. WHAT??? LadyofShalott 02:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was sure a fun sockmaster! Kevin (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna say I miss him, but that's just nostalgia for its own sake. BTW, I couldn't find where he was talking about me. Is it exciting? Does he mention my pecs? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not explicitly named, but it has to be about you:
collapse the crazy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Une démarche qui soulève d'autant plus d'interrogations, que dans un article intitulé « Tenure awarded based in part on Wikipedia contributions », la Wikimedia Foundation avait explicitement mis en exergue la possibilité pour chaque éditeur d'obtenir un bénéfice professionnel direct de ses contributions à Wikipédia. Que devient, dans cette optique, le bénévolat ?

Kevin (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, that's really special, coming from someone who a. voluntarily submits his articles for publication in a non-notable, freely accessible webzine and b. expects to be rewarded for that by having other volunteers write him up or vote to keep his resume. But he's welcome to interrogate me--if he can ask a simple and direct question in less than 1,500 characters. Don't you miss his walls of text? and you even read them! Drmies (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post on MF's talkpage and...[edit]

Well, come on in.

Happy birthday! I hope you've done something fun! LadyofShalott 01:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Got a massage, lady, but I thought only of you the entire time. I swear. Woohoo! I'm supple now. I feel two days younger. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

!!!!!!!!!!!!! happy birthday sir! Kevin (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Birthday Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrefutable proof of the existence of extrasensory perception! I decide to check in on your talk page and learn that it's your birthday. A one in 365.25 chance. Well, that's if I looked once a year at random. Oh well, my math skills aren't up to the task. So, let me say "Happy Birthday!". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, folks. It's much appreciated. Cullen, please give my regards to Mrs. Cullen. Your math may be lacking, but I'm sure you're still a great dancer. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forget – were there 75 or 76 candles on your cake this year? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot too, Ed. Problem was, they were just floating around because I get my birthday cake liquefied, for easier transfer. I never cared for chewing anyway. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you drank the candles? Sounds nutritious. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the candles on your birthday cake obliterate all the frosting and set off the fire sprinklers, its time to stop counting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "Mrs. Cullen" is working on her first Wikipedia article. It has something to do with Amish folk art . . . Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Dykes[edit]

One of my favourite guitarists. Thanks for cleaning up the POV quotes issue, I had intended doing it myself at some point. I've expanded it a fair bit and added an infobox/photos.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Master Colony[edit]

  • Sure. I had drum lessons once so that's what I'll do! Leaves OlYeller on vocals. I think we should audition on American Idol/X Factor :)
    • The speakers look great, will save you having to dance, the vibrations will take you across the stage :)

Mascot[edit]

Gotta say... hate the new mascot. When I saw someone change it, I thought surely it was vandalism, but, alas, it was not. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What new mascot? Where? LadyofShalott 20:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's on there? (Lady, it's a puzzle--solve it.) I don't even want to look. I heard a few days ago, and I hate it, but I hate the other choices as well. Don't know why we didn't pick the Armadillo (my wife's suggestion)--or the AUMadillo. Plus, it's native to our area... BTW, Mandarax, thanks for your email message. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you gave it away. (I had though Mandarax was talking about some mascot for WP.) I know the point is to make them look vicious, but, really, why do schools need to have the ugliest-looking things for mascots? Of course around here people can't spell the word dog properly. LadyofShalott 21:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ew that's bad. The bird has no armpits. His face looks like an owl's. He's orange. His buttfeathers are too bushy. Now that I'm tenured I can say this moderately freely: that's one ugly fucking bird, and a dumb-ass mascot. Brrr. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's most important article needs your comment[edit]

As a contributor to the previous merge discussion you may wish to comment here.--kelapstick(bainuu) 00:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shortcomings, I have a few
But then again, too few to mention. <g> - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Yes, I know that it does not scan.[reply]

DIME[edit]

I wrote my first article: DIME(Dropping In Microgravity Environment) and it says that it needs to be reviewed. Can you do that, or get someone to? I have already posted a feedback request. Also, do you know where I can get information about wheat pollen on or off Wikipedia (grain mass, shape, and size, and process of pollenation)? The article about wheat does not discuss this. Robert 01:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Start here for the wheat pollen. Look also for palynology journals, such as Quaternary Research (well, it's not all palynology, but that's a component). LadyofShalott 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what really needs to be done is the addition of reliable sources (see WP:RS) a. to verify the information but, more importantly, b. to establish that this info is notable by Wikipedia's standards (see WP:N). Right now your article has no outside sources, and that's really necessary. And the problem is that the title of the competition doesn't generate a lot of hits, as you can see. In Google News, this is the only hit, and it's not one that really helps establish notability. So I don't really know what to tell you--not everything in the world is on Google, and not all reliable sources are searchable via Google News, but it's a pretty good indication. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

‎Happysinger1996[edit]

It's an unquestionable A7 "I want to be on Wikipedia" non-article that would be crushed by a blizzard if taken to AfD. why not just delete the article and skip the tagging? --Σ talkcontribs 04:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Don4of4's talk page.
Message added 04:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~ Don4of4 [Talk] 04:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I replied.~ Don4of4 [Talk] 04:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol Deluna[edit]

Hello Drmies. You may or may not know but Deluna cited an article in Hispanic Business in the deletion discussion before voting delete. Here's a link to her facebook page where it can be accessed.[3] To what extent would it change your vote? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. It doesn't change it, given the nature of the publication. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. Jesanj (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to direct your energy elsewhere. You tried, and admirably so. All the best, Drmies (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inline refs at Morristown, New Jersey[edit]

I agree that the addition of inline references at the article for Morristown, New Jersey in this edit was less than ideal. However, given that User:Study2much is still a very new editor with just a few dozen edits, given that the edit was in clear good faith, as the article was genuinely improved by the addition of these links and as there was no policy violation, it's not clear to me why a revert was appropriate here. An editor this new is unlikely to read the edit history to see your explanation of the revert, let alone understand it. Some combination of contacting the user on their talk page to explain the issue, providing guidance as to how to format the links as references, or making the change yourself, would have far more productively addressed the issue and been a better way to get this editor to use proper reference formatting in the future. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point taken. Then again, what is the value of this or this as a reference? The first one is not reliable, the second is just an image. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Estella Warren[edit]

I added the DUI info back to the article since it concluded this week. Even though she avoided jail, 6 months in a residential facility is likely to impact her life. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That makes sense. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Help?[edit]

Any friend of the lady is a friend of mine! ;) Pleased to meet you. I've checked the link. There is not much info there, though. It literally says Poco sabemos de Manuel Antonio de Rivas (Little is known of Manuel Anotnio de Rivas). There is not much info on his life, but there is a study of the type of science fiction he used in his writings (which, by the way, I find totally cool -A friar that wrote Scifi!). I think some of that can be incorporated in the wiki article. I do not have access to page 32 though, do you? Maybe you could send it to me by email or something, so I don't miss anything relevant? Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

I've returned your nomination for Manuel Antonio de Rivas to the submissions page as the hook fact isn't cited and doesn't appear to be supported by any of the sources to which I have access (although I'm sure there is a good case for it being true). This makes a fairly casual claim that it was the first science fiction story written in Mexico, but I can't see anything that claims the Americas. Yomanganitalk 17:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iraqi artists[edit]

Hi Drmies, FYI I prodded the article per WP:LC -7. Cheers, Racconish Tk 20:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you'll find there's broad consensus that lists and categories can exist side-by-side; I think I remember that from earlier AfD discussions (years ago), but those were on individual cases. Don't be surprised if your PROD is removed for that reason. If that happens, you can always nominate it for AfD, where it's anyone's guess what might happen. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to give a hard time to anybody on this. If there is no consensus, I don't mind leaving it as is. Cheers, Racconish Tk 20:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, opinions change. I remember that I voted to delete one such list. Right now I think I'm on the fence; I don't know where the rest of the community stands. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One to keep an eye on[edit]

Just to let you know that Celtic F.C. supporters [[4]] has started up again, along familair lines. Mattun0211 (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh no. Why not go straight to WP:ANI with it? If there's a need to block for edit-warring or something like that, I can't be the one doing that, since I'm "involved" (as if that would impede my judgment...). I'll have to work up the gumption to look at the matter again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Manuel Antonio de Rivas[edit]

Calmer Waters 08:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C.[edit]

Thanks for your message. As per the link you posted on my talk page and BBC Sport, the transfer will only be completed once the plyer passes a medical. Wicka wicka has a history of pre-emptive edits like this and being rude to editors. His talk page history over the last 24 hours says a lot. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you read that article better than I did, then. Thanks for your note. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've reverted accordingly. A medical exam is serious stuff. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case Wicka removes the block notice again (and he has 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)), you might want to note that the current version of WP:UP#CMT says that it is okay for a user to remove an uncontested block notice, but that it is not okay to remove one which has been contested or on which a contest has been denied. Though there's a under-discussion tag on that point in the guideline, the discussion appears to have stalled at the end of last month. No criticism, just an FYI. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was unaware of the edits to that guideline, and the edits of the edits, etc. The way I read the discussion here there seems to be a (slight) majority for disallowing removal, though not a consensus. I wish it hadn't stalled and we would have clarity--I subscribe to OE's final comment in that discussion. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, I'm just trying to keep the folks who are trying in good faith to do the right thing out of trouble. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not interpret WP:UP#CMT in the way that [[User:TransporterMan] does, and also believe that WP:3RRNO allows reverting beyond the "bright line". JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, thanks. Look at what's happening at that user page now. TransporterMan, please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revisiting_familiar_terrain. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wicka wicka[edit]

"lol" GiantSnowman 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now edit warring to remove block notice. Perhaps this would be the time to remove his talk page access (and lengthen the block for edit warring on his talk page). JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, let's not--we'll only make it messier. If we cannot agree on the policy we should leave it be. But see this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revisiting_familiar_terrain. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your judgement. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Wicka wicka[edit]

Drimes, thanks for the note on my talk page. Happy to leave that one alone, but just as a note I reverted Wicka wicka once only. The edit warring was by other users (including Wikca wikca, of course). Best, Claviere (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Baray[edit]

Re your message: Now that you pointed it out, that they do. I blocked him. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can vandals also be girls? We like to think, don't we, that we can guess gender in such cases... Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they can, but I suspect that most are boys. That would be an interesting question: So after I blocked you, can you give me some demographic information to figure out who most vandals are? Thank you.
And as for your question, some people prefer a certain fish, but I was never one for that. How about a nap? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking advice from an extinct bird? Yes I am. But I got up too early--I'm going to need you to go over every edit I make today. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Because you're obviously just too brilliant to not receive a barnstar from me, Atomician (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why thank you! Drmies (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Careful your head doesn't swell too much Doc, might have trouble getting through the door.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • K, today I'm having trouble with everything. The beginning of the schoolyear always brings tons of unknown germs. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh, he's confined to his house because of it. Why do you think he edits? With love and mockery, Atomician (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mockery gladly accepted. Love comes only after a dinner and a show. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation issue[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your help. You left the following tag in the article "South America Life Quality Rankings":

"This article's citation style may be unclear. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (August 2011)"

But with no clear or specific instructions about how to solve that issue.

The article was build in a smart way with direct on-text links to either; the original mentioned documents (PDFs; and which are the majority of citations) or web databases (the less), to avoid those very inefficient bottom of the documents citations where people is redirected to the bottom first then they have to realize which is the citation number they want to verify and only then go to the source (as a 45 years experienced multinational general manager I found the last citation style very inefficient in the present world where everybody wants and needs to save time and go as soon as it possible to the link they want to verify or check, the most direct link possible)

There are only 4 bottom of the documents citations, for bla, bla, text, text which I could eliminate with no problem leaving just the more than 70 links to “real verifiable documents (PDFs) or databases”. Is that a solution to unify the citation criteria?

Please, I would appreciate if you make clear which are the specific modifications the page needs to be able to solve this issue.

Thanks in advance.


Southamerica2010 (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to jump in here to say that Wikipedia strongly discourages using inline links to external sites. Rather than get rid of the footnoted references, you should convert all those inline links to footnotes. Please see WP:CITE. LadyofShalott 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will proceed as you now clearly recomended. And I will notify you when the corrections were totally done.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Lady--I agree, and that is what I was pointing at. The footnote format is preferable for a lot of reasons--for instance, the typography of URLs linked in the text is distracting, and it is useful to see, at the bottom of the article, a list of the references and the sources they point out, if only for evaluative purposes. Thanks to both, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All inline links were converted to footnotes. Please check the article to evaluate if the tag still be longer needed. Thanks.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive118#Keith_Raniere:_a_challenge[edit]

I hadn't noticed this thread Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive118#Keith_Raniere:_a_challenge. Thank you for your help with that situation. I see you got no reply, but I would like to. I wonder if you have any advice, because it could be important for Wikipedia to get this right. With this post, now archived, you seemed at least at the time to be looking for some help, as if you didn't know what to do. I know the feeling, it is tricky. I guess we just follow proper procedure. I have collected the WP:RSs I could find there. I think we're pretty much ready to start transfering stuff to the article(s). I hesitate to do so personally. It might be best if someone else did. The problem is, most people don't know about it aren't interested, and but the more one knows about it, it seems, the less objective one becomes. Also, if we just follow proper procedure and faithfully represent the sources, we might run into problems with WP:BLP objections because it all pretty much portrays him as a villan, and so the article would. Which might be because the writer, influenced by the sources, is now biased against him/it. Or it might be because he actually is a villan. There are all kinds of people in the world and some of them just might be villans, and he could be one of them. I say just follow procedure and let the chips fall where they may. Chrisrus (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your note. I've looked at the article again, which now strikes me as better than it was before--but you will have noted that I made some changes. I hope my edit summaries are informative. I appreciate your interest. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ The Birthday Massacre's Official Twitter Profile |http://twitter.com/#!/TBMassacre/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_19&oldid=1138973188"