Could you check my translation of "Consideratiën over den tegenwoordigen staat van de Ned. O.I. Comp."? I have it as "Considerations on the Current Condition of the Ned. O.I. Comp.". Still dealing with Brianboulton's comments at FAC. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the second batch of those comments, with the promise of more. Your translation is fine, but shouldn't you translate the Company's name as well? Drmies (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea... now what would the full name be? I'm thinking Nederlands Ouest Indies Compagnie (sp?), but... that would mean India, I think. Confused. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Thanks. I'll put the full title. Reading our article on Dutch West India Company, it appears that it meant "west of India". Clearly the VOC in this case. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you are looking for a new, easy expansion... Jan Jacob Rochussen is 336 characters... the man served as both Governor General of the Dutch East Indies and Prime Minister of the Netherlands, so there should be a plethora of Dutch sources. And a free picture. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a typo in the Wiki link to the guidelines of my edit summary in the Aston Martin article: it should have been per WP:WPACT automobile conventions. The guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner or some movie or TV show—such facts belong in the article about the owner, movie or TV show. Thanks for your cooperation, CZmarlin (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I left you a note on your talk page before I saw this. Thanks for your clarification, but you're going a bit too far, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I've always thought of Judith's cultural importance primarily as an inspiration for Renaissance artists to do some really gruesome paintings. I can't ever remember a rabbi or a learned Jew mention it in a discussion of Hanukkah, but there is much that I've forgotten. My favorite part of the Bible is the Book of Ruth, which shows what a sentimental softy I am. It's probably also because, like Ruth, I wasn't born Jewish but just hung around persistently until I got accepted. I've sometimes commented to Catholic friends that it is ironic that they accept Maccabees as canonical, while we don't. On the other hand, we celebrate Hanukkah while they don't. Next time, I will throw Judith into the conversation, so as to better simulate erudition. Thanks, hanging around professors does wonders. Cullen328Let's discuss it 21:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fascinating reading material--I've taught an Old English and a Middle English version and am working on an article (a real one) on the topic of teaching that text. I'm always surprised to find myself in a world (the South) where she is not accepted and people don't have a clue. Look at Judith and Holofernes--she's obviously a great topic, before and after the Renaissance. But real life is always more gruesome: see Artemisia Gentileschi. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Waah, Drmies has archived. So, my apologies for butting in here but - yay - I got some of those doughnuts/donuts yesterday from Feinstein's. Three of them even survived the journey from the shop to my home <g> - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I just had a look at The Malleus Case, which isn't even named for him, and that kind of took away my appetite. You'd think that they'd call a spade a spade at that level--that they would find a more 'civil' title than "a way to get rid of MF" stands to reason, I guess. The sight of vultures made me kind of sick, and I'm going to put this WP thing down and have a beer and watch some football. Yuk. Thanks Cullen and Sitush, see you next time. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for The Kingdom of the Netherlands During World War II[edit]
This is a very interesting article, Drmies, and it seems to me that it is worthy of significant expansion "as time goes by". Reading the current version prompts many questions in my curious mind. On another matter, I wonder if Sitush will give us a more detailed report on his research on the sufganyot subculture in London. Sitting with bated breath. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I did some clean-up on Colander a long time ago, and just checked back in to see what became of it. I have a question about one of your edits. Viscerally, I get the idea of not using Amazon.com as a reference (after all, it's a store), but I was wondering if that's an official rule or more of a generally-held belief. I ask because I could see that in certain instances it might be useful to use it as a source. In the case of describing the types of materials colanders can be made of, referring to a site with pictures might be helpful -- even though that site is a commercial one. Thanks. (P.S.: Someone I know spotted a Blue-Footed Booby in Calabasas, California recently!) Bourne (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, in almost every case, a non-commercial site could be found that would meet the need. In this particular case, a few minutes photographing colanders of various materials, and then uploading the photos to Wikimedia Commons, would be a far better solution than linking to Amazon's gigantic colander sales department. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cullen. Yes, Bourne, for all kinds of reasons such links are discouraged, besides the obvious spam issue (even if the intent is not to spam, the effect is). For instance, the Amazon search engine is baaaaad and produces tons of unwanted results. Isn't there a Federal Society for Colanderists? Your news on the booby is appreciated: they are wonderful creatures, and perhaps User:Bongomatic, Wikipedia's resident authority on boobies, is reading this. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's going to new your admin powers to fix this. I moved a Hungarian article. I was thinking it was listed in Eastern order when it was already in Western order. The article is Mary Zsuzsi. It should be Zsuzsi Mary. Mary is the surname. Bgwhite (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Hartley Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montgomery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What got me started in the arbitration case was partly because of Malleus calling someone a cunt directly. I posted the diff on the talk page of the evidence. I'm going to leave it alone from now on because I have better things to do. I might be biased because I have said things that made editors call out for me to blocked or banned even though I never was. I call someone a dick, I get sent to ANI. I am a deletionist in software AfDs, I get brought to ANI with false accusations from multiple editors. I keep on replying to someone's delete in an AfD, I am reverted and called a troll by an established editor. An admin says that I am sexually attracted to feces, oh well. The Arbitration with Malleus does look like a witch hunt and it will be even if I didn't participate. I might just remove my evidence. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your note, SL. I have no knowledge of or opinion on your interactions with him and have no interest in finding out; if you feel you were treated unfairly by him, that's well possible: he's ruffled a lot of feathers, and despite what you may think I don't feel the need to apologize for him, or to be 'against' you because you two had a disagreement. Incidentally, it took me a few years to get used to him. But the whole thing disgusts me, the uncalled-for block and this division into camps for instance. On both sides I see editors I have worked with and whom I respect, or respected, and this ArbCom case only reinforces these lines. It is possible that I'm partially blind, or biased, or whatever--that may well be, but I don't remember ever calling for a net-positive contributor to be banned, for instance. I don't know Hawkeye7, but that block is under scrutiny for all the right reasons: I think it was a terrible block. I think the indef-block was terrible as well, and for years I've gotten along well with Thumperward. I just don't see myself ever making a block like that (like either of those two) and I can't really understand why we would.
Re:witch hunt, I think it will be much harder to go through MF's contributions to prove that he has been incredibly helpful to a lot of contributors--that's not the kind of thing that easily shows up. But he has helped me becoming a better writer and a better editor, and I think I'm not the only one. What he did for that hospital GA, that's just an immense amount of work, and all that for no reward. I'm an English teacher--I know what it feels like to have contributions, advice, rewrites, suggestions, research tips, bibliographical hints be called "copyedits." For those--and that's a lot, I know--who don't like his style, well, they can try to stay away from him as much as possible. There's a couple of editors (and I won't name any, but you're not on my shitlist, haha) that I stay away from because they rub me the wrong way. And there's some that I couldn't stand two years ago that I see in a different light now. That doesn't mean I agree with them, but I can live with them and value their effort and good faith even if I think they're wrong. (Go through my RfA and you'll find someone with whom I have butted heads for years...thankfully, they turned out to be generous, and I hope I can repay them the courtesy.)
OK, TLDNR is calling. My desire to improve the project is harmed a bit, so I'm going to play with the kids. All the best to you, and I hope you can see where I'm coming from. Thanks again for dropping by. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have my eyes on three more (only one of which is me, haha). Thanks Mandarax! The pool looks great now that I got the underwater vacuum cleaner working, and you're welcome anytime you like. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! But if you're not careful, the house could end up being designated some kind of historical landmark, with lots of associated rules, limitations, and obligations. Thanks for the invite. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies and TPSers: NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation[edit]
Hey Drmies! Would you happen to have time for User:The ed17/NARA, where I'm hoping to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help the National Archives ExtravaSCANza? My hope is that the success of this event will ensure that others will be organized in the future, even without Dominic as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, so we all benefit from the high-quality, formerly non-digitized media uploaded to the Commons. :-)Ed[talk][majestic titan] 10:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, speaking of scans, whatever happened to that palindromic codex scan you were going to do? Hey, I'm not hassling you; I was just asking! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think of that all the time since the book is on my desk, Mandarax. You can't imagine the guilt I feel every time I see it. Problem was my scanner wasn't working. Now that it is I realize that it's way too small. Our department's copier/scanner doesn't do a good job and I can't edit the PDFs it produces. But I'd love to get it done and I will. Keep yanking my chain please. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
En? Waren ze echt zo goed? (Ik heb de test gelezen, een paar dagen terug.) I'm making a batch this afternoon, with Chimay Tripel. Enjoy, SpeakFree, and I hope you have a wonderful 2012. Voorzichtig met vuurwerk! ;) Drmies (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wacht 's effe--jij ben een Rotterdammer? Eigelijk mag ik niet me je prate, goochem! Hehe, Drmies (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amsterdam, waar leg dat dan? ;)
Ze zijn erg lekker maar ik heb wel betere geproefd. Zo'n test zegt ook niet alles, hetzelfde geldt voor de haringtest. SpeakFree(talk)(contribs) 19:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gelukkig Nieuwjaar! What, Dutch Wikipedia has an article about the oliebollentest? Ucucha (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's run by a national newspaper, the Algemeen Dagblad. Happy New Year to you as well! Oh ik zie dat je ook een Nederlander bent, never mind, gelukkig nieuw jaar!SpeakFree(talk)(contribs) 19:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Ucucha is Frysk. Lokkich nijjier! U, how am I doing in the WikiLove rankings? I can't seem to find them. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're slipping! You're currently number ten. I haven't investigated to discover your highest rank, but a few random clicks around the history revealed that you were number three in July. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urmm is there a page to keep track of that? If I send every vandal or troll my WikiLove will I end on top? being a "nuchter" Dutchman I don't get this WikiLove thing, I've worked for an American company and they insisted on giving out awards for nearly everything short of managing to piss in the toilet instead if pissing next to the pot. At least we have this in common with the British who generally don't like that touchy-feely thing either.SpeakFree(talk)(contribs) 00:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you will! You might even be able to beat Drmies, who used to be a top-three WikiLover, but who has been unable to maintain his standards of lovingness. A few months ago he was gloating about his ranking. You can see more of his achievements at Special:Search/Drmies intitle:Wikipedia:Database reports. I agree, by the way—they give awards for everything in America. Ucucha (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do they give one for topping the WikiLove rankings, ie: an award for giving the most awards? All the best for 2012, all. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niets wekt de mannelijke plaszucht zozeer op als een boom.
<--Yes there are awards for just about everything. I haven't gotten one in years, though--but SpeakFree, you'll be pleased to know that I don't need a fly to aim correctly. BTW, Midas Dekkers still needs an article. Oh, in the hallway at work we have a couple of those posters that look like the promotional posters that aim to increase team spirit--but they say things like "Work. You're not being paid to believe in the power of your dreams." Hilarious. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got an editor, User:Bruno Meireles, making new English pages. But, they just copy the reference templates from the Portuguese wiki pages. Reference templates end up with stuff like "|publicado=Globo.com|data=17 de abril de 2011|acessodata=15 de dezembro de 2011" and it doesn't render on the English pages. I've asked him twice to convert it into English, but still refuses. Any suggestions? Bgwhite (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bg. I've warned them as well, and that's about all I can do right now. Consider ANI, or drop me a line again--but I'm about to be out of commission for a little bit. Hey, Happy New Year! Drmies (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked on a couple of their contributions. Sometimes inept, but not in bad faith. I'm leaving them a template about edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a self-proclaimed POV-pushing SPA regarding the Hala'ib Triangle. He writes on his user page:
Abd Elhamid Elsayed or exactly Abd Elhamid Mahmoud Abd Elhamid Elsayed Habsa is an egyptian citizen born the 13 july 1952 in the village of Kafr Elbagour - Menoufia - Egypt , and living in USA. My main mission is to show the whole world that Halayeb (Hala'ib) triangle is egyptian. All the maps circulating worldwide showing Halayeb triangle as disputed territory should be disposed. A true researcher has in the world wide web an enormous source of information and could find by himself all the historic facts about the egyptian claims to the triangle to be true. A lot of historic maps do show the triangle to be egyptian , none of them has showed it to be not egyptian.
Because of this, he has been told over and over again that he should not be editing the article, and that iff he does, he must use the best possible sources to support his edits [1][2][3][4][5][6] -- but the guy just won't stop editing it. He add sources that do not support the facts cited (as with his current edit, [7], which says nothing about Egypt withdrawing its forces in the same month), or adds "facts" with no sources intended to show that the Triangle belongs to Egypt - as with his current attempt to change all references to "Sudan" in the article to "Anglo-Egpyt Sudan". I've been dealing with this guy for what seems like years now, and I'm sick of it, he will not back off.
I was going to bring it to one of the boards and try to get him topic banned, but I'm not up for the drama right now -- would you take a look when you have the chance and see what you think? Maybe a strongly-worded comment from an admin -- or just someone other than me -- might get the message through to this really annoying person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His latest response to me, in which he states that he is "ready to fight" and gloats that "hala'ib is still under the egyptian army control and whatever you write here in wikipedia will not change one sand on the soil" [8], and my reply [9]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, same to you! Mine started off well--we got to sleep in a little bit and it's a pretty day here. I looked at the editor's contributions just to make sure that it's an SPA and it is. I propose that you take this to ANI or AN the moment it gets out of hand. In their latest edit they instated (or reinstated?) a link to this boundary study which seems fine to me (though I didn't look to see what it was supposed to verify--maybe that's not clear to begin with, since the editor is linguistically challenged in English), but I take it you take issue with the adjective they keep adding. Now both of you are edit-warring and you should stop. I'm going to give both of you a warning; I think you understand the spirit in which that's handed out--fairness. If push comes to shove again and they either start soapboxing (I'm going to warn them for that as well) in article or talk space or reinstating tendentious language in the article (that is, continuing the edit war and/or the POV editing), take it to ANI with the request for an indef block--this is an SPA who treats WP as a battleground and a political platform. I am not going to take unilateral action since I think this might well end with an indef block or a ban, and that should be a community decision for a case like this.
Sorry, that's a lot of words, but I'm trying to go by the book. BMK, I'm off to your talk page to warn you; in the meantime, I got coffee waiting for you here. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I could use it!
The cite was fine in regard to the general boundary situtaion, but the place where it was put implied that it supported the withdrawal of Egyptian troops within a few months, which it didn't actually mention at all -- so I expanded it from a bare URL and moved it up to the place where it made sense, in the previous reference spot, supporting general facts about the boundary dispute. Otherwise, yes, it was the repetition of "Anglo-Egyptian" that was problematic. The colony was indeed "Anglo-Egyptian" at that time, in that Egypt was under British control and through Egypt controlled the Sudan, but "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan" was a description, and not the name of the colony. The editor was, I believe, inserting it to show historic Egyptian hegemony over the Triangle.
I don't know why I get involved with these things, I had never even heard of the Hala'ib Triangle before I got sucked into this months ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year drmies, and have a Buche de Noel on me; not sure what they have in the Netherlands, but since I had something similar for my New Year's dessert...
And my, those oily balls are oily. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you Crisco! You know, I have about a dozen left over from yesterday, and that's after I dumped plates full on the neighbors. Yes, they are oily. The frying pan is in the dishwasher right now; I can't wait to get rid of the smell (it always reminds me of fish-frying--and to think that I fried them outside under the carport). All the best, Drmies (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, your FAR is still going well--so far it's mainly copyedits. Let me know if you need me. (I got van Hoevell up for GA.) Drmies (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's going okay; hope Wehwalt is able to continue the GA review. Did you notice my DYK suggestion up there? I added the portrait, but I'm betting most of the sources would be in Dutch so... Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did, thanks, and I might get on it. To tell you the truth, today is the first time I'm really doing anything since the Malleus farce got started. Maar wat in 't vat zit verzuurt niet--so thanks again. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at that... I don't envy anyone on the Arbcom. Looks to be touchier than Betacommand/Delta Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fascinating! And have you seen Jon Klassen? The bear ATE the rabbit! (Sippi figured it out before we did.) Drmies (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"What rabbit? I haven't seen any rabbit. Don't ask me any more questions!" (Everybody in at least two departments has been passing that one around.) LadyofShalott 03:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need a bit more for DYK. Do you have anything you can add? Drmies (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that one word doesn't really help you. Maybe I can find some more tomorrow. I've hit a limit tonight though. LadyofShalott 04:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Natti natti! Drmies (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid edit-warring, help? Self-explanatory; people who don't get the meaning of "history" when compared to "current events." Care to weigh in? [10] and Talk:History of Montana. Medicinal pot "historic?" Montanabw(talk) 06:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, but I don't see what I can do there. It's a content dispute that needs cool head and the assistance of knowledgeable editors (that's not me, in this case). I tend to agree that the pot thing isn't really historic, but I think the talk page discussion looks promising. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you call such beautiful prose "tripe"? Who do you think you are, an English teacher or something? Cullen328Let's discuss it 08:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Guilty as charged. I thought you'd appreciate the pun. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
message of user abdelhamidelsayed to user beyond my ken[edit]
Wikipeia is not a reliable sourcehow you say this : Wikipeia is not a reliable source so if i post it حلايب and it is from a sudanese governmental website, would you change it? if you go to http://nec.org.sd/new/dawaier/red_sea.pdf and search on page 5 you will see the word حلايب and in the document there is not mention of the word حلائب please note that this is the sudanese website of the national election commission best regards Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed
hope you watch and take action
Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed[reply]
I am sorry; your message is not clear to me. Moreover, my Arabic is lousy. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
dear user , the difference is between
حلائب
and
حلايب
i provided a SUDANESE GOVERNMENTAL WEBSITE to assert my claims.
what do i have to do more than this, if the user beyond my ken is not willing to have wikipedia in arabic as a source and wrote in the page of the ::::: revision history of hala'ib triangle the following :::::
wikipedia is not a reliable source
thank you for you message and best regards
Abdelhamidelsayed ([[User talk:|talk]]) 04:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed
Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed[reply]
I've answered this on BMK's talk page, I think. Your edit is likely to stand, if only by default (the original change was not properly verified). Drmies (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hi i saw your comments here and noticed that this user does not seem to understand english very well. i also noticed the BMK can come across as very confrontational, that's why i know who he is actually. maybe someone should explain to this other user what is going on, and suggest to BMK that they are not always right, like the language that caused the other admin noticeboard incident that hes involved in. you know a lot more than me but i think someone should help this other user at least a little. wikipedia can be very harsh on new users. Bouket (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at User:Abdelhamidelsayed's contributions, you will see that they've been editing here for over 3 years, so he's hardly a newbie. Yes, I would agree that his English is not very good, but if you'll read Talk:Hala'ib Triangle you'll see that I've reiterated basic Wikipedia policies to him over and over again in very simple and understandable ways, and yet he continues to edit in a way that violates those principles. The only possible conclusions to draw are that either there is a question of competenceor' that the editor means what he says on his user page, that his "main mission" is to show that the Hala'ib Triangle is Egyptian. Even a cursory look at his contributons will show that he has no other interest (other than trying to brand Hosni Mubarak as a "dictator") except editing about the Triangle. This makes him a single purpose account editing with a pont of view to push. I suggest that before you criticize my interactions with this editor, you try dealing with a POV SPA for over a year and see how cool, calm and collected you are after that Chinese water torture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bouket, this is indeed not a new editor, and they have had every opportunity to learn the rules of the place. If their English isn't good enough to play along, that's really too bad, but that doesn't excuse non-neutral editing, for instance. As for BMK's supposed confrontational style, I don't see that at all. BMK has tried and tried, and I think they see the AN thread as a last resort. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry maybe youre right about this editor, but i feel like BMK was very confrontational with aditya which is why i reacted this way. sorry if im incorrect in this case. and also maybe hes right about the capital letters when talking with that IP on his talk page but still he seems very self rigtuous in his updates like "this way is better" without explaining and never starting something on talk pages. Bouket (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to avoid conflict of interest in all that I do here, and get nervous when I work on articles in areas where I'm involved professionally. Usually, I comment on talk pages and let other editors make substantive changes. I value my reputation here and would not want to have anyone think that I am editing for the purpose of advancing my own interests. That being said, I have been working on a draft of an article in an area that relates to how I earn my living. In believe that the topic is encyclopedic and of worldwide interest, and that I have complied with the guidance in WP:SELFCITE. However, it says, "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." So, I am asking for your opinion. Please take a look at User:Cullen328/Sandbox/Oxide jacking and do not hesitate to let me know if you think I have crossed any lines. The draft article is a work in progress, and I will continue work on it only if other editors approve. If you feel it appropriate or useful, ask other editors for their opinion as well. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind my interjecting - it looks like a good draft on a needed topic, and you should certainly proceed. LadyofShalott 09:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SoRRy, I made a typo when I corrected a typo. Article and sourcing looks fine to me. This Jack Harris, though, needs standardized naming--Jack, J.E.--and I assume that "Jim Heaphy" is the same as "James Heaphy." Say, DID YOU KNOW...that rust burst has damaged St Paul's Cathedral and Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth House? (I picked vdR for reasons the Lady can guess, haha--speaking of COI.) Nice work, Cullen. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ThaNks to both of you. As for the standardized naming, Drmies, it seems Harris used J.E. for academic writing and Jack for the mass market. Which should I use? And as for Jim and James Heaphy, they are a father and son team, and both have the middle name "Cullen". One is a Wikipedia editor and the other plays bass in several rock bands and has a delightful girlfriend, so that one has much better things to do than edit Wikipedia. It seems that one possible path to success in certain circles at Wikipedia would be to write DYKs containing the name "Mies". I will do my best. Cullen328Let's discuss it 00:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good work indeed. That is a nice article. Re: naming - do you not have a redirect in place? I am concerned that you are concerned about your reputation - don't be. Whether or not you may have a professional interest, that piece seems to be a decent piece of writing. BTW, Drmies has seen a photo of me on one of what on my talk page you call "wilderness trips" (& I call "going to the pub"). Taken atop Eagle Crag in the Lake District, there is an unfortunate blast of wind that gives me the appearance of being strangely attracted to sheep. I mention this here because you probably don't watch the crap that goes on at my talk page. And I don't blame you!
Drmies, have you at least partially rebuffed your demons vis-a-vis the ArbCom thing? It is a mess, I disapprove of it but the thing has become so partisan and entrenched that I worry about even posting a message of support on MF's talk page, lest I become tarred with the ludicrous brush also. Clearly, I am not a man of principle. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As have I, Ed. ;) Sitush, why bring that back UP? No, that demon is still there. Am I being tarred and feathered? I haven't looked in a day or two, I think. I don't know how MF feels re: support. Sometimes I think he's a loner in many ways, but he's always appreciated those who actually contribute--and I think that includes the regulars here, at least I hope it does. I have to say, I don't look that much at talk pages anyway; I'm a terrible friend in that regard. And Cullen, won't Mrs. Cullen mind if you refer to her as your girlfriend? Please give her my regards! Drmies (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aiaiai instant fail--first sentence uses the serial comma. MF is from frigging overseas, pal! (Whoa, there's "super-dreadnoughts"?) Drmies (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aiaiai I like serial commas, they'll deal with it. :P Yeah, here's a quote for you: "What made them 'super' was the unprecedented 2,000-ton jump in displacement, the introduction of the heavier 13.5-inch (343 mm) gun, and the placement of all the main armament on the centerline. In the four years between Dreadnought and Orion, displacement had increased by 25%, and weight of broadside had doubled." Suddenly you can see how fast naval technology was changing at the time. ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<--Hey, I tried to rain on your parade. I HATE "center around", but unfortunately the OED does not agree with me. Reality is a bitch uncooperative entity. Oh, I left you a question in an edit summary to your dreadnought race. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you saw. Good. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hmm, what would be a better construction for it? I'm open to changing the wording. I fixed the question – it wasn't clear enough before. Nice catch. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"even after the 1891 Chilean Civil War." You mean that even a civil war could not distract the country as a whole from this arms race? But that would suppose "during." Did the government change drastically as a result of the civil war? That might suggest an additional phrase. [And keep your center as it is--I see it everywhere. I'm just an old...well, you know.] Drmies (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the Royal and Japanese Navies in "Argentine–Chilean boundary dispute"--were those wikilinked already? Drmies (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Brazil's fade and reemergence": Armstrong is a manufacturer, I suppose? They're wlinked in the table lower on the page; here it reads like it's a government big shot. BTW, that is one gigantic article. I guess you didn't have your in-laws over for Christmas. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Catalyst: Brazil's dreadnoughts": you wlinked 'dreadnought' in the lead. I personally am not opposed to repetition of links after mention in the lead (I always consider that the article proper starts with a clean slate, certainly one as long as this one), but I don't know if the FA reviewers like it.
"fretted over their possible destinations": what's the antecedent for "their"?
"They even discussed purchasing the ships in March, July, and September 1908"--they discussed in those months, or they discussed a purchase to take place in those months?
"...after Brazil had canceled its third dreadnought multiple times, and the election of Roque Sáenz Peña": rephrase--not parallel and a bit awkward. Maybe also drop the comma after the previous "constructing the ship." In fact, I challenge you to remove every fifth comma in the article!
OK, all the way at the end of "Response: Argentina and Chile's dreadnought orders" I find a wikilink for the Royal Navy and the full name (and descriptor) for Armstrong: these are the second, not the first occurrences in the article, so move links and descriptor up.
Skipping to the end, under the images: Minas Gereas class is singular, but Rivadavia class is plural. Maybe I'll get to the rest of your super-dreadnought article later. BTW, impressive work. Did I say that already? Drmies (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made changes based on most of these. I originally defined Armstrong Whitworth in the lead, which is probably the source for those issues. Thanks very much! I'm going to be honest and say I forgot you were a professor of English... guess it was a good decision to post a link to that article here, eh? ;-) A lot of the text is drawn directly or obliquely from my other South American articles, and probably 80% of the research was, so it wasn't as difficult as it looks on first glance (shh! Don't tell anyone!). PS the new section title is awesome. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Construction and trials of the new warships": Keel laying again wikilinked. And I note, you clever boy, how the first time a keel was laid you wikilinked keel. Are you sure you don't have a keel fetish?
Is "munitions" the going term?
"Third stage: another Brazilian dreadnought": the parenthetic "—relations with Argentina were warming—" isn't so elegant, since it breaks up "political and economic reasons" (sure, that's a matter of taste).
"After much negotiating and attempts": not grammatically parallel (ditto).
"fourteen 12-inch guns": not sure why "fourteen" is italicized. Is this fourteen 12-inch guns rather than twelve 14-inch guns? Perhaps better to spell it out rather than letting the reader figure out the inference from the emphasis (also since 16-inch guns were also mentioned).
"In the tension building up to the First World War": I think you phrased it as "World War II" earlier. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keel laying and keel will be separate articles eventually or else I'd agree. I do try to not reveal my fetishes on Wikipedia, though. Fourteen is italicized because that was an obscene amount of guns to have, especially when they were all on the centerline (able to fire to both sides of the ship). Is there a better way to show this? The only "World War II" is in a blockquote, which bugs me but I can't do much about it! Thanks Drmies, this is much appreciated. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 08:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I thought you meant something else with that emphasis, it's probably best to rephrase. Also, "obscene" is soapboxing, and your desysop is in the mail! I'll get to the rest soon; great work Ed. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hush now, as long as my opinion stays out of the mainspace, we're good. ;-) Thanks Drmies -- again, I really appreciate it. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hi drmies thanks for your advice. i did not respond to his comments on my talk page but i responded to them on the ANI thread. then he went back and changed his comments. that seemed sneaky to me since by then i already knew what he was talking about, and what i said on ani was that his comment was not very helpful. maybe i overreacted but he did seem to be trying to make me feel stupid and kept accusing me of things. Bouket (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the changes were minor--they added diffs, and didn't change any of the wording. If you would take a poll I think you'd find that no one would have a problem with those particular changes. Listen, I'm not trying to get at you, but it seems to me like you're in a hole and you need to stop digging. Anytime someone seems (note, seems) to follow someone else around, esp. someone who has been a valued contributor for years, suspicions are raised. Now, it seems like you're trying to pick on Todd, who is also a well-established editor here, and an admin to boot. What I'm saying is a. your accusation of REDACTing isn't really on solid ground and b. it does not help you to (appear to) go after him. Surely there are better things (and more fun things) to do than to hand around ANI... Drmies (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yeah you are right its hard not to get sucked in when you think people are acting inappropriately. Bouket (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't always win. Sometimes it's best to walk away, though I know it's hard. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yeah but i feel like if i walk away it lets these other people win and they always win by just making other people walk away. Bouket (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did a partial removal, so to speak, by reverting their addition, so UP#CMT does not, in my opinion, apply. The second, NOBAN, would apply to your editing Todd's comment. Now, editing one's comments after they have been responded to, that's an entirely different matter, which is why I pointed out that you hadn't responded on your talk page, directly. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yeah. but since i did respond elsewhere does that mean it wasnt as appropriate for him to change it? Bouket (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That will probably always be a judgment call. I would not fault anyone for having adjusted their talk page comments in that way, and I think a lot of editors/admins would agree with me. Either way, you saw that it seemed to be a moot point at ANI--no one was interested in following it up, which I think proves my point. You are, of course, at liberty to remove the entire section (and all other sections--but not parts of sections) completely... Drmies (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hi i want to thank you for being what i think is one of the more reasonable people i have interacted with lately in the past few days. Bouket (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks, I appreciate it. On a good day Mrs. Drmies might even agree. Sometimes disputes need someone uninvolved to come by. I haven't run into you before, but I have no reason to assume you're trying to derail the project or shaft another editor. I hope you see where BMK was coming from: quite often they deal with long-term disruption, which, after a while gets to be frustrating to the point where to an outsider the discourse may seem particularly abrasive. But I'll tell you this--dealing with editors who just don't listen (we have an acronym for them: WP:IDHT) is no fun, and the editor in the triangle dispute showed some hallmarks of that. I hope they listened to what was going on at the Admins noticeboard; I've tried to explain on their talk page. All the best, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
are you talking about aditya? i thought he got complete consensus on the talk page he was involved in. did i miss something. its easy to get confused with all the different editors involved in disputes. the ani was about bikini. Bouket (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, no--I had it wrong. I was thinking of a thread on AN involving BMK (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_for_User:Abdelhamidelsayed), whereas you had commented on ANI. My apologies. I am in fact blissfully unaware of the particular dispute that was the subject matter of the ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i dont know if you care but it might explain to you better why i thought the way i did. thats where i first ran into BMK. its mostly on the talk page and history of bikini and its pretty simple involving him reverting aditya's changes. Bouket (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Drmies. I noticed this one in the new pages - Bodo_Sandberg. You read/speak Dutch, no? Figured if this one has a chance, Dutch sources would be needed. What's your opinion on notability? It looks like it was written by the subject's son, so maybe it's not worth saving. The Interior(Talk) 05:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason that name sounds familiar. It's a pretty cool first name, though odd for Dutchies, and I'll have a look. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connexus Ecosystem, I've considered your comment and made some changes prior to it being deleted. If I should direct my problems to deletion review, please let me know, thank you Kelliott14 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kelliott. I did look at the article before deletion, and I just looked at it again, and in the state it was in it didn't stand a chance. For instance, there isn't a single reliable reference that says anything about the company. I will userfy it for you; you'll find it at User:Kelliott14/sandbox in a moment or two. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your problem is but I would like it if you calmed down and stopped harrassing me thankyou. I undid an edit after I found a section deleted by Wiki13, you have currently undid that and I expect you to reinstate the previous article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)I think you're getting a little carried away here with your reaction to this. Calabe1992 04:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Collingwood26 - Please examine the history of the article closely. An IP deleted 3579 bytes, which Wiki13 reinstated. Your edit then re-deleted that chunk, which Drmies put back. It's easy to momentarily get confused about which side is which on the diff display -- I do it myself occasionally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think everybody else knows what my problem is. Examine again, Collingwood: Wiki13 made only ONE of the last 1,500 edits to that article, this one. There isn't anything there about "2006 Dutch/Australian Offensive". Now, you claim I'm not calm and I'm harassing you? I claim that you aren't reading very carefully, you are wrong, you falsely accused another editor of vandalism, and I could go on. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collingwood, please take a deep breath, and look at the article history again. Wiki13 did not vandalise the article, but you did in fact reinstate the vandalism that Wiki13 undid. No one is harassing you, but you do owe an apology to Wiki13 and, now also to Drmies. LadyofShalott 05:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind what I said, I didn't mean to upset anyone as I thought I was undoing an edit that I thought deleted an article. I'm not sure how its happened then, if it wasn't the anonymous user then I have no idea who deleted it. My apologies to Wiki13 and to Drmies for my actions. I am also completely new to undoing an edit, so I had no idea there was vandalism on the page I reinstated. Thankyou.--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. And no one was upset, Collingwood, but I just wanted to make sure that you knew what had happened. Being able to look at the history is indeed a good thing. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! I hope this time we make a nice and friendly one, haha. Tomorrow's Rosie's birthday; she wants a princess cake. Sunday it's Sippi, and she's getting a waffle cake (which will be invented the day before, I hope). Drmies (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awww, happy birthday wishes for both the girls! They'll give good lessons in friendliness to the new one. Sippi couldn't have been any more welcoming than she was when I visited. What do they think of the news? LadyofShalott 05:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't know yet... You're the only one I've told, Lady. ;) Drmies (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delightful hints here. I've raised some blueberries myself. By the way, Drmies, not just the Lady reads your talk page. Let me add birthday greetings to your daughters. Cullen328Let's discuss it 16:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought this was private! I deny everything I ever said here. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And so you deny ever saying thanks to people? Oh my. And I thought Andy was supposed to be the grump. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please re-read the Mark Thompson quote, it's a well known statement that got a lot of coverage and is even used in other Wikipedia articles. (there's a minor formatting error in most of the sources which may cause confusion).--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct: I responded at ANI. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cook? Drmies (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does someone as smart as you entirely miss the possibility of using just one cup to see if it works, and if not, add another? ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never killed anyone yet! Although baking isn't my speciality (I like the eating part though). I'd go with one cup (no girls) as the recipe says it will make 1.5 cups and it's unlikely that 4 cups could end up as 1.5, whereas 3 might.... But then being a brit, anything to do with cups seems a bit stupid - how do you account for the packing density of your hazelnuts and the temperature of your sour cream?! Just realised that Mandarax has come to your rescue anyway! G'luck. SmartSE (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, have you ever cooked something? (Don't answer that--ramen noodles don't count.) There is a HUGE difference between cracking, blanching, and grinding to get one cup of hazelnuts vs. two. SmartSE, I can't say anything in favor of the American system; it's ridiculous. I remember standing in Bruno's one time having to ask someone how many ounces went in a pound. I'm not dumb, but sheesh, divisible by ten is so much easier than...well, twelve, or sixteen, and fluid vs. the other ounces, which are abbreviated oz. anyway. It's a mess. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please take a quick look at the actions of User:MC32 on Kim Kardashian? Insists on inserting August as the month of marriage but provides no sources & the extant sources say it was October. Furthermore, some basic math(s) tells me that subtracting 72 days from the (sourced) divorce petition = October, not August. - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--look at this. She got married August 20, it says. Feel free to add the source... Drmies (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've screwed up and spotted it when Tgteam reverted LoS. I have just apologised in one place and will spend the rest of the week apologising elsewhere. Quite how that error has survived for so long is beyond me. I may go to the fridge, find a bottle and hit myself over the head with it. D'oh. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hit anything. Have a drink, and next time...well, we've all been there. Not the Lady, mind you. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't drink it - am on the meds again. Gosh, I am embarrassed. I'd better check my edits for the last hour or so. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, don't I wish I could claim that was my first screw-up here. Sometimes it feels like I can't get anything right. LadyofShalott 02:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a crisis of confidence now. Could you please check my recent reverts of MC32 at Tara Reid and Katie Price? This will teach me to keep away from celebrity crap. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tara Reid: I don't know what a non-legal spouse is, so that looks fine to me. Katie Price--I can't tell. I looked at one of the sources (The Sun), but I gotta tell you, as far as I'm concerned all those tabloids should simply be cut from the article. Maybe the Lady has an opinion. In the meantime:
It is because of the tabloids that most celeb articles exist. I would happily see 75% of them go. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, bigamy would probably be a non-legal marriage, at least in the world of legal semantics. - Sitush (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...can make up for your slip by helping me with a little project: improving John Pierson (musician). Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow, yes. I am pissed off with myself right now and am going to take my dog out for another walk. He will be surprised, but grateful. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What tbe devil is "meta-fictionalized" supposed to mean? I took that quote out, and you put it right back. Is that really better than saying it's a novelization of the history? LadyofShalott 02:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oooooh that's what happened! Sorry, I thought it had gotten lost in some database error. Hehe, yes, I stuck it back. I kind of like it; it sounds funky. Plus, it's a direct quote! Also, see metafiction. But if you feel strongly enough, revert it... Drmies (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link... interesting. I am not fond of the quote, but I'm in kind of a foul mood (wiki and otherwise) and won't revert anything else tonight. What I might think tomorrow, I don't know. Nor will I touch ANI tonight either. (Sometimes, it's best just to shut up, ya know?) LadyofShalott 03:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you and Sitush should get together and open a bottle of something. Sitush can at least smell it. Why don't I go to ANI and block everything in sight. Hey, we got a ton of princess cake left over--why don't I send you two some? Drmies (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the grumpiness... Did Princess Rosie have a good birthday? LadyofShalott 03:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aw gee, you really didn't have to do that. I was serious about not making any further determination on it until tomorrow. I didn't mean for you to go self-revert. LadyofShalott 03:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. She brought Dutch birthday snacks to school: a cube of Gouda cheese with a piece of pickle on top, pinned together by a toothpick with a Dutch flag on it. And the princess cake was tasty too. We'll have a bit of a party on Sunday, I reckon, but nothing big. Hope you feel better soon! And when you do, come baby-sit so Mrs. Drmies and I can go out on the town! Drmies (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you two can see more regarding Mr Pierson through Google etc than I can. All I seem to be getting are blogs/fansites and people who share his name/pseudonym. I will try again later today. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have tried. And I am not getting any further. This concerns me with regard to notability (& bearing in mind that systemic bias in this area is far less of an issue than in my current haunts), and so I will give it another on/off day of trawling. It might perhaps have made things easier if he had adopted a pseudonym such as Bertengle Dinckhumper. - Sitush (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That person certainly is not notable, Sitush. Say, that might be a good name for your karaoke act! Thanks for trying, Drmies (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, you do not want to hear my karaoke act. I cannot hear it myself, but you definitely do not want to <g> - Sitush (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, if you want a karaoke track that I might be suited to, I am the one on the right. - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope tomorrow's party goes well. Is the waffle cake made? I'm trying to take it easy. I watched Going Postal tonight. It's fun, and they did a really good take on Pratchett's novel. LadyofShalott 04:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, could you take a look at 97.119.195.53? They've been blanking content and removing warnings from their talk page, but it doesn't seem like all their edits are vandalism, so I wasn't sure if I should report them to AIV or not. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see they're blocked already. Blanking the talk page (removing warnings), that's not vandalism, but the rest of their edits were apparently enough. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have my next FAC nomination pretty much up and ready: the singer Chrisye, with an article almost twice as long as 1740 Batavia massacre and much more expensive to write. If you could have a look and leave feedback I'd be much obliged; I may be too much of a fan to see what others see. Hopefully it can pass FAC by the 5th anniversary of his death... Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What am I, the new Malleus? I'll have a look after I messed around with some of my own thingies and Ed's FA. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you aren't, I'd hate to see an issue regarding you at Arbcom. I just thought you may be interested in reading it, even without any editing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, what a classic education--Beatlemania and playing along with records. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you'd like it; he couldn't even read notes. Thanks for fixing 'arrangement'... not sure how its used in music. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pickpockets at the funeral...ha, we had robbers at our wedding; they broke into two cars and stole the wedding presents (including, apparently, a fine set of steak knives). The note about his clothes (the ditch comment) is very charming. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I don't regret paying an arm and a leg for the 30-something offline sources; there was some good stuff there, including more specific dates for the releases. Seeing how Blonde on Blonde doesn't have a definite release date, I guess I won't either. Thanks for looking into this, and sorry for bothering you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bother? No bother. I bought BoB on someone's advice but I'm too thick to get it, so I'm still listening to Permanent Waves. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I've quite honestly never heard of them (and I'm a Canuck!) Perhaps I'll take a look at them. After writing "Kehidupan" yesterday I found out that some Indonesian riffs can be good too. Interesting intro. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<--i worked on an article about an Indonesian guitar player who went to NL in the 1950s or so and with his band caused quite a stir--they toured Europe, stood on the side of the double bass, he played behind his back, etc. For the life of me, I can't remember his name, but I saw some b/w footage on YouTube which was amazing. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guitarist from the 50s? Hmm... I wouldn't know. The oldest song in my trusty "150 Best Indonesian Songs of All Time" edition of Rolling Stone Indonesia is like 1955, and that's by a pianist. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think you need a QPQ for The Fool. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you removed a few of the entries under "Artists who use Suhr guitars". Some of them were unsourced, and I have no issues with those (I was the one who added {{Ref improve section}} to the article), but you also removed two of the sourced entries. Back in 2009 when the article got started again, we kept Reb Beach listed although the source is his own website, and I was just wondering if there's a meaningful difference there, e.g. that Reb Beach is well established and has a signature model, while the two players that were removed are less well-known? Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nettrom, I don't believe we've met--pleased to meet you. I'm glad someone in the guitar department is taking an interest in sourcing! I've removed it because it was referenced to his own website and as you know that may well be a part of marketing. I think this is a bit tricky--a signature model can be sourced to the company website, since there is no reason for the manufacturer to make that up (so to speak), but the use of a (non-signature) model to someone's own site is not, IMO, reliable enough. Now, if he indeed has a signature model, then surely there is a company link, which would warrant mention in the text rather than in a "Notable player" section. For instance, Toni Iommi has an Epiphone signature model (which at $200 is a steal) but I'm sure he doesn't play it. Does that make sense? Drmies (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if a reliable source points out that for instance Beach actually plays his signature (like Mark Whitfield plays his Marchione archtop), that's a different matter--but that really requires a third-party source. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about returning late to this, wanted to say thanks for the clarifications, I believe I now understand some of the subtle differences and what we should aim for when it comes to sourcing claims and which players to report as notable. Will keep that in mind as I keep updating some of the articles on my watchlist. And thanks for the greeting! I think I've come across your username a few times as I've been working on articles, and I tend to learn a bit about how Wikipedia works every time, while the articles end up getting improved. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm glad you did; I had forgotten about it until I read this month's Guitar Player, which has a test of sixteen distortion/fuzz pedals, and I wondered what that might mean--though it's not exactly what you were talking about it's related, maybe in a roundabout way. Here's what I thought up--see what you think: a decent review of a pedal (by "decent" I mean in-depth, not just a mention in the margin) is sufficient to warrant the individual pedal being listed in the manufacturer's article; it does not warrant a standalone article (the MXR Badass 78, for instance, is now reviewed twice, and at $80 it's a steal), but it certainly helps the manufacturer's notability. (The MXR Dyna Comp is notable in its own right--it has history and coverage.) So I'm going to add that to the MXR article--but I won't add every individual pedal they make since we're not a directory of products. Some Keeley Electronics pedals have also been reviewed recently, so we have reason to write that article. Now, Keeley may list all the artists it wants, and they got Brad Paisley hawking their products, but that's not enough reason to add him as a "notable user" even though they have a promo picture of him on the back of every other Vintage Guitar.
BTW, these articles need a lot of help. They tend to either not exist or be little more than an unverified list. Even articles on Gibson or the Fender amps, for instance, are terrible. I've tried to write a couple of decent ones (I had The Fool on the front page a little while ago) but especially the bigger ones are a lot to handle. I've decided, for instance, that individual signature models of guitars do not warrant their own article (and usually they only come with a link to the manufacturer), so I've been merging those--there were a couple of Fenders a while ago. Good and notable products deserve articles, and we need to have more articles that are more than just manufacturer's blurbs. I've also written up some blurbs on luthiers (see David Harvey (luthier), for instance), but there's a lot more to do--please help! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what you describe it sounds like many of the articles about guitar-related products/manufacturers share the same kind of issues, both with regards to how to handle use/endorsements to make sure it's not an advertisement, and also how to source claims properly. I'll see if I can add some Wikipedia time to my schedule and get to work on them. Noticed you stopped by Floyd Rose and cleaned it up a bit, in much the same way I would do myself (I've kept a slight distance after I walked into a revert war around when I rewrote much of it in late 2010). It's reassuring to see experienced Wikipedians identify the same kind of needed improvements that I myself think the articles need, makes it easier for me to start looking for sources and rework articles. Thanks again for the clarifications and nudge, I'll see what I can do! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the customer service section which you have un-deleted, this criticism I think is quite unfair to have listed in an encyclopedia (even if verifiable) due to how old it is and the context of the actual complaints - The comments re-instated in this section each relate to a SINGLE PERSONS experience of using the company from 2006 [Link 6 - The target webpage for this link no longer even exists to verify this complaint, error 404!!!], 2006 [Link 7] and 2003!! [LINK 8]. This section unduly makes it sound that complaints on these peoples issues are "Extensive", which the complaints referenced don't indicate?! To have entries from 3 single customers complaints from so long ago mentioned in this blanket manner is not a fair reflection of the customer service the company has ever offered (or ever would be for any company, let alone 6 to 9 years later!!!) Also the review website listed [link 5] has complaints for 1000's of companies, it would be unfair to allow it to be referenced in the manner it is for this companies entry alone - Can this section not be reviewed to be worded more fairly please or removed as its quite unjustified / miss representative???
Also on my entry of the 20:16, 7 January 2012 I amended a paragraph which already existed but had incorrect / incomplete information which has been reverted, I also added the link which confirms this http://www.parcelforce.com/help-information/about-us/our-hubs.
CURRENTLY
"Parcelforce Worldwide operates a "hub and spoke" collection and delivery system with two hubs based at Coventry, adjacent to the airport. One hub is for UK parcels and the other for international parcels. The UK hub, one of the country's largest buildings, is a highly automated tracking and sortation centre covering 43 acres (170,000 m2) which can handle up to 40,000 parcels an hour.[3]"
THE CORRECT INFORMATION IS AS FOLLOWS:
"Parcelforce Worldwide operates a "hub and spoke" collection and delivery system with two hubs based at Coventry, adjacent to the airport. One hub is for UK parcels and the other for international parcels creating a site covering 43 acres (170,000 m2). The UK hub is one of the country's largest buildings, covering 24,000 square metres and is a quarter of a mile in length. It handles up to 58,500 parcels an hour. The International Hub covers 12,500 square metres and processes 35,000 parcels (import and export) per day."
Could this paragraph not be amended as well please???
Sure; thank you for your message. I've removed a part of the section since the sources weren't reliable by our standards. However, you deleted all that stuff without so much as a by your leave, and included what can gently be described as non-neutral information. Also, I suggest you start using edit summaries. Moreover, another editor seems to think you have a conflict of interest, and judging from the edits I reverted I'm inclined to agree with them. You may take issues up on the article talk page, but I suggest you include reliable sources for your information. One wonders, for instance, where the information in the edit suggested above comes from. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, remember this one from ANI - removing valid nationality categories and refusing to talk? He is still up to it and I have been advised to take it to RFC/U, but we need two users to certify the dispute. Would you be willing to be my second? Regards, GiantSnowman 11:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the old ANI discussion? Drmies (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've posted on their talk. Keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll start the RFC/U later on today when I can give it the time it deserves, and let you know when it's done. Thanks, GiantSnowman 09:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. Actually, it does seem to appear as if it may be possible that some editors might be systematically searching the encyclopedia for schools to delete. Nearly 200 AfDs over the last 2 weeks or so would seem to point in that direction. In the past, such actions have not been favourably regarded by the community. Do you remember why the BLPPROD came about? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. If such alleged behaviour is going on, and if it is in some way contrary to policy/guidelines, then feel free belated to warn me for my past efforts in the Indian caste sphere! There have been times when I have "searched to delete", in the interests of removing cruft. OTOH, I would agree that imposing a limit of, say, 30 nominations per user per week in this area might be sensible ... That is an arbitrary figure, of course, and if more and more people jump on the alleged campaign bus then of course the total that are at AfD at any one time may still be the same, or even higher. What is needed here is a full-blown RfC, not some tinkering around the edges at ANI. Disclosure: I have commented at the schools thread on a few occasions this year. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, yes I do. But that involved more than a few hundred nominations, and this is a matter that should be raised at AN or ANI--is it already? And two hundred in two weeks, mwah, that is a considerable number and more than I could nominate, but you can also see it as a dedicated effort (of course one who is guilty of "deletionist ideology" or whatever it was called) by an editor of good faith. I will give Epeefleche the benefit of the doubt, and I think that if this is really of such concern it should be dealt with in the appropriate forum. FWIW, I appreciate your links to the OUTCOMES, I just happen to disagree a little bit, not a lot. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop leaving inappropriate messages on my talk page like you recently did. Leave your remarks on the relevant AfD and keep them there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing your insults on your own talk page is perfectly appropriate (speaking of inappropriate: please adjust your tone; I don't have to follow imperatives from you). That's what a talk page is for--look it up on WP:TALKL: "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user". Please add that page to your reading list, alongside WP:KEEP. I have yet to see an apology of yours, but I'll look to see if you left it at the AfD or on the nominator's talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, to atone for that sin you'll need to eat a teaspoon full. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then I'm in trouble, because I have no intentions of engaging in that idiocy. Would you accept my dragging the punishment out a few sprinkles at a time? LadyofShalott 01:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not acceptable. Sorry. (You know I am going to have to try this.) Drmies (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does Mrsmies condone such shenanigans? I'm going to be sexist here: this seriously has to be something only a guy would do. LadyofShalott 06:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fifty years ago, my sister bet me a dollar that I wouldn't swallow a raw egg. I did so and then insisted on being paid, which enraged her for some reason. My punishment after all these years is to have to sit silently when my younger son, age 22 and with both some learning disabilities and also with a fine sense of irony, watches Man v. Food on TV. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question being, are you talking cinnamon or cinnamon? In Europe, it is the 1st one. In the U.S., it is the 2nd. I personally get Saigon Cassia as it is stronger. Saigon Cassia has more volatile oil content. Saigon Cassia that I get is up in the 6% range compared to around 1% for cinnamon... more of a punch and more flavour. I want my french toast to actually have a cinnamon taste. Bgwhite (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: are potato crackers (complete with ruffled edges) Dutch, something odd from here, or... Anyhow, crispy and would go good with kielbasa... or the American cinnamon. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bg, I get what you get, much more flavorful than the rest. What I get is grown in Vietnam. Crisco, I'm not sure what potato crackers are--does that answer your question? Drmies (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just ordered my spices online a couple hours before my reply on cinnamon. My wife's favourite spice is cinnamon and I had to order double the amount. So, herbs and spices was on my small brain. Besides Manhattan, I live in an area with the highest amount of people who are from a foreign country or lived in a foreign country. Interestingly, there are no Dutch/Indonesian restaurants. There was a restaurant that had babi panggang that would dream about in my sleep. Sadly the place is no more. Bgwhite (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, that answers it perfectly. I'd have expected something like that to come out of Europe, but I guess not. (Potatoes were introduced by Dutch / British settlers, right?)
@Bgwhite: Mmm... (sounds Balinese). Yeah, the only Indonesian restaurant in NY I've ever heard of was the Ramayana, and that was open in the 70s. As for why I know of it... let's just say I hope the article can reach the main page on 30 March. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies! And in the spirit of Chaucer's shitty shepherds and clean sheep:
Yt ys wretyn wyth a colle, yt ys wretyn wyth a colle,
He þat schytyth wyth hys hoyll, he þat schytyth wyth hys hoyll,
But he wyppe hys ars clen, but he wyppe hys ars clen,
On hys breche yt xall be sen, on hys breche yt xall be sen.
I'm intrigued. What did Middle English look like to you when you first came across it? Badly spelled Dutch with blobs of bad Latin? Frisian with lots of badly spelled French? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't remember. My ME teacher was Henk Aertsen, a redlink that should be a blue one. I took those classes with him after having taken Old English, so it certainly looked a lot more familiar. Since I hadn't taken Latin yet, your second option is probably closest to the truth, but replacing "Frisian" with my native tongue (I suppose), the West Frisian dialect. Pronunciation certainly was not a big problem for me. But I had read Middle Dutch in high school, particularly Mariken van Nieumeghen (I need to work on those names--this is not correct), so I was familiar with odd/old spelling. Hey, thanks for the note--you gave me a few things to work on! Drmies (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did they also give you Karel ende Elegast? Het was op eenen avondstonde, toen Karel slapen begonde, tingelem op den Rhijn, or something like that. And Hebban olla vogula nestas hagunnan, of course. Is Mariken van Nieumeghen still considered Middle Dutch? I never got to read it. Ucucha (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember--maybe chunks. I remember "Heer Walewein zong een liedekijn, / Al wie dat hoorde wilde bij hem zijn." I don't take responsibility for spelling (see above!). Re: Middle Dutch, that's a fair question. I hadn't thought about that, but I'm on it. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah, dude! You got to learn Middle Dutch in High School?!? Where I went to school, all we got to learn was boring "life skills" ... like woodwork, how to fill out Unemployment Benefits claim forms, or how to plead guilty to get a lesser sentence... . And as for that red-link that should turn blue, when I took Middle English it was along the Arthur Clare Cawley lines. (Golly, golly gumdrops, it's now all so post-post-post stucturalist.) I can't find an online biography for Henk to unredden him. Is he currently a Professor (in the UK/European sense)? At what university? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went to a very strict school. I just found out that Aertsen retired from the Vrije Universiteit last year; another professor in that department is looking for a copy of his retirement lecture. I don't think he was a full professor in the US sense--he was "hoofddocent" or something like that, which is a shame, since he is an outstanding teacher and a fantastic scholar. But the Dutch have an archaic system that's also plagued by the need to save more money every year on Letters. I'll look around some more; certainly JSTOR should produce some reviews of his books (he wrote this with Rolf Bremmer, and there's this one. He was/is also an associate editor for the MED. Yes, "Shorte our ende and mynysshe our payne; Let vs go and neuer come agayne". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Tnxman307's talk page. Message added 16:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I saw it. The prose can be handled between the different editors who offered their services and I'll be glad to help. So the lead needs expanding--that's a matter of sitting down and looking at the article as a whole and writing a summary, basically. As for comprehensiveness, that's not so easy. I also think the article is a bit slim, but I am used to looking at FAs that are significantly longer. Are there sources that support expansion? Drmies (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably beef it up using the fire department report but I read on WP:FACR that FA's should also not be unnecessary detailed. The Rugrats FA I mentioned to you a while back is about the same length as this article is, it prints at 5 pages the same as Hotel Polen fire. SpeakFree(talk)(contribs) 00:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I saw Auree's last comment. Perhaps withdrawing it (for now) is the best thing to do. FA reviewers can get impatient if they feel like they're doing too much copyediting. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK If I withdraw will that mean it also loses its GA status? SpeakFree(talk)(contribs) 00:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. It just means that you'll resubmit it later. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is "Behalve zijn optreden bij den Chinezenmoord was een der voornaamste beschuldigingen geweest ambtsverkoop." In 1740 Batavia massacre as "[Valckenier was] tried for his involvement in the massacre and for selling the office of the governor-general". Could this be related to the sugar/coffee snafu of 1738? Brianboulton says that it comes out of left field, and I must admit after looking over it I agree; this could be a result of bad translating, so I'd like you to give it a look. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means "Except for his performance at the murder of the Chinese, one of the most important accusations was selling an office". So whoever-it-was was accused of involvement in what I presume is the 1740 massacre, and of selling some office. Ucucha (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially not misinterpreted from the source; would "corruption" would be a good alternative? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a broader term; the Dutch literally means "office-sale" (where an office is a position, not a space). Of course, that's a form of corruption, but in general it's better to be specific. Ucucha (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... shame there's nothing in the source as to how Valckenier came to be charged with "office-sale"; Valckenier did send too much sugar and too little coffee in 1739, which apparently led to some big losses. According to the source:
5 Dec. 1738 besloot de Raad van Indië, op voorstel van Valckenier, tot extirpatie van de helft der koffieboomen, uit vrees voor overproductie. Het gevolg was, dat in 1739 niet kon worden voldaan aan den eisch van bewindhebbers, welke daarop de geraamde schade verhaalden op Valckenier en den directeur-generaal; de eerste moest toen niet minder dan ƒ 168.493 betalen.
I don't see anything that looks like "office selling" in the source though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he made the Council decide to kill half of the coffee trees because he was afraid they'd produce too much, and then they produced too little. Sounds like good management. I don't see anything in that source that specifies the piece about office-sale. Ucucha (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh... time to hope Google has something. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This and this look really interesting, but I have no idea how to access the full book. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The URLs have a pattern; just change the two instances of "240" and "236" to a different number to get the other pages. You can also find the full piece by going to http://www.elseviermaandschrift.nl, the January–July 1895 issue, starting on p. 209. The citation is Stellwagen, A.W. (1895). "Valckenier en Van Imhoff". Elsevier's Geïllustreerd Maandschrift. 5 (1): 209–233.. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: What in the world is "Het vervalschen eener resolutie;"? Gtranslate gives "The decay of a chen resolution;" which I can't make heads or tails out of. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forging a resolution. Ucucha (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I leave my netbook at the office for one evening and this is what happens. Thanks Ucucha! You all are some nice stalkers and I really appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(stalker) As noted at T:TDYK, the nomination process is considered unfinished until you do all three steps. As such, it would probably be quick-failed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as smart as some people, and I screw mine up all the time. I guess you did what I've done too: not add the template to the list. Correct? Crisco, if this editor goes through all the steps correctly, can their contribution still be eligible? I know DYK overseers have a certain latitude to operate in. My love, I can't say much more since I'm not quite sure what the problem is, or what can be done--if anything. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the reviewer, but since the current instructions have text in front of them saying "Please read the following instructions completely before nominating an article. A nomination is not considered complete until all 3 steps of the instructions below are completed.", with the third step being posting the review to T:TDYK... I'd fail it, and I know at least one other would do the same without hesitation. Sorry! Speaking of DYK... look up, Drmies... Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It doesn't matter. Thank you for explaining. My love is love (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, My love--I am much less active at DYK than I was before, and that was before the new system was in place. Crisco's opinion carries a lot of weight with me. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You marked the Provident Loan page for speedy deletion last week and I have revised to be more encyclopedic. Can you look at it before I repost? Thx:
The Provident Loan Society is a nonprofit organization created in the 19th century by a group of powerful New Yorkers as an alternative to the usurious loan sharks of the day. Founders include J.P. Morgan, Jacob H. Schiff, and Cornelius Vanderbilt. Today Provident Loan provides short-term cash loans for gold and jewelry but does not purchase or sell merchandise.
History
The Provident Loan Society was created during the financial panic of 1893. The panic caused many Americans to seek alternative ways of getting cash. Loan sharks and pawnbrokers took advantage by charging extremely high interest rates. [1]Pawnbrokers and loan sharks had a long history in Europe and flourished in New York City at the time with its large immigrant population.
As a result, a group of powerful New York bankers and financiers pooled money together to establish a not-for-profit organization to provide short term loans at a lower rate than the loan sharks. The leaders included such famous powerbrokers as: Solomon Loeb, Alfred B. Mason, J.P. Morgan, Gustav H. Schwab, Jacob H. Schiff, James Speyer and Cornelius Vanderbilt.
The New York StateLegislature passed a special act in 1894 incorporating The Provident Loan Society of New York.[2] At its peak in 1962, the Society had 17 locations around New York. [3]
Present
Today, Provident Loan states that it serves approximately 100,000 people annually. The maximum amount that the institution will loan is $50,000 for a term of six months at an annual interest rate of 26%. New York State laws governing pawnbrokers allow pawn shops to charge up to 48% annually. [4] Provident Loan, however, does not buy or sell merchandise, only holds it.
Well, I see neutrality issues (a matter of tweaking) but you can get better advice at WP:AFC, where I suggest you submit it. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 12 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jon Klassen, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in Jon Klassen's 2011 children's book I Want My Hat Back a bear eats the rabbit who stole his hat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jon Klassen.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Could you revoke talk access here. Thanks. Calabe1992 03:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What an --------. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was interesting. Calabe1992 03:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, that's nothin'! Someone once replaced my user page with thirteen thousand copies of the Nazi flag. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax, sorry I only saw this two weeks later. My apologies on behalf of mankind. So it goes. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page. Message added 16:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Drmies, I somehow missed a post from you and wanted to ensure you had a chance to see my reply. [11] A pardon would preclude my feeling badly for the oversight. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Strat. Keep on rocking, and thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that I have seen people post requests for someone uninvolved to close/summarise this or that RfC. I cannot spot anything at WP:RFC to indicate this. Where can it be done - WP:AN ? - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never done that, but I see those notes on WP:AN. (Maybe that page still has a short note on a new system to evaluate Wikipedia articles--you might find it amusing.) Drmies (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love your six-year-old's idea. I'm telling the Foundation. :) For him, a ton of yellow markers. He just needs to help this little guy get them off the cob! Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thank you! She will be pleased. (Yes, I'm bringing girls to Wikipedia.) Drmies (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is too cute. I love her scheme! You should ask her for ideas on what articles are needed - I bet she'd come up with some good ones. LadyofShalott 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think our Barbie coverage is fine. I just loved the grammar of "I'll color their Wikipedia blue." She's obviously never read WP:OWN, though she'll know all about Genesis and creation when she's done with her new AR book--from her public school. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Public school? She's at the US version of Eton? More seriously, are you saying that they are teaching creationism in mainstream, public funded US schools? If so then that sounds a little scary unless they are abiding by WP:DUE. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. <sigh> LadyofShalott 02:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, teaching...they have the books in the library. A six-year old walks into a library, walks out with a nice colorful book, and then takes her AR-quiz. "Who created the world?" "Who were the first two humans?" Sitush, there is no DUE for a six-year old! Drmies (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there is for the adults who run the school. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<--Yes, but those adults have the power to suggest that the child attend another school. Freedom of speech my ass. Unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the politicians that dictate course content. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The local Board of Education, you mean, which is worse. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her latest acquisition from the AR section of the library of her public (PUBLIC) school is On Noah's Ark. And I'm saying that nicely. I wonder if they have any books by Christopher Hitchens. Or Muhammad. Or the Marquis, adapted for six-year olds of course. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Depends on your POV, I suppose, but some parental guidance might not be a bad thing. I mean, it is a great thing that she wants to read but she is too young to understand the implications of that sort of stuff. Maybe drop Wikipedia, keep the day job and start writing a book for her? I believe that some people have done very well out of splitting time between work and kid's books.
Mind you, she could be reading something by Ishwar Sharan. There is hope for her yet. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete the article? A copyright infringement? You must be joking! LegendK (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why must I? I mustn't, and amn't. Perhaps this looks familiar to you (the section on the Pistachio team was copied and pasted into Wikipedia--that's how it started). This may also be of use: Wikipedia:Copyright violations. You are free to recreate the article, if it follows our guidelines. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was delayed by a business trip (which led to an enjoyable detour through the High Sierra and Yosemite National Park), and an actual paid writing assignment. However, I have finally moved Oxide jacking to the main space, and recall that you had suggested a DYK hook for my draft. I haven't nominated an article for DYK myself since the requirement to review another DYK was instituted. Being clumsy with such matters and not knowing how to go about reviewing another DYK, I was wondering if you would be willing to give me some help with the process. Cullen328Let's discuss it 01:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just created Template:Did you know nominations/Oxide jacking, following the scheme on the DYK nominations page. Next: take it and paste it in the appropriate place, on Template talk:Did you know under the correct date (13 January? the date you moved it into mainspace). I'll be back later--gotta check on the kids. Oh, you can start tweaking the hook--and reviewing a DYK submission! ;) Drmies (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DrMies, I am a LEGITIMATE HISTORIAN, trying to post a legitimate historical website that has been on the pages I was trying to link to BEFORE. In fact, a few of those pages used my website (under its previous domain name) as a resource for their research! Stop accusing me of spamming! And stop deleting legitimate links! This is not advertising for a "product", but rather a historical research project which has earned the kudos of several noteworthy professional bodies, including the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, which houses the Balto exhibit!
Take it up at WP:ELN, if you like. And please stop yelling. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should also read up on WP:OR and WP:RS. We can't use your work directly. But if it's been published by a reliable source, we could cite the publication. Rklawton (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to clean up the 2012 election pages in order to make it look better, but Saturn keeps reverting. Keeping a favored minor yahoos up there with 'real" candidates and making things more complicated than they need to be. I don't know exactly what to do, he's threatened me, for crying out loud. I've worked on every presidential election article, and most of my stuff is still up there in one form or another. My sources are impeccable. What the hell is going on with him?Ericl (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter for my talk page but for the ANI thread. I encourage you to adopt a less combative tone: it's a pretty serious issue that's being brought up. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I've been here for years and I've never had this problem before. SorryEricl (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, I didn't even realize these messages were here. Yes, I know that there are some problems with the Black mamba article and I have contacted two mentors who have not replied to me as of yet. I've seen many GA articles that have some issues, not a single one of them is perfect. Believe me, I want the black mamba article to be as good of an article as it could be. I have not forgotten about it and I have taken Sandy's advice. I also respect and welcome your advice on the issue. Mike Searus (spelling?) was also giving me a lot of great advice when I was working on promoting Naja nigricollis to GA status. The article is a bit better then it was before, but it still needs some work. I am going about trying to find someone to help me with its problems. I just have been busy working on some of the Naja species articles. Many of them were/are in complete shambles. It all comes down to me being a novice here on Wikipedia. I still need to read and memorize some of the policies and criteria regarding Good Articles and how to properly conduct a review. I know now that I can't just nominate any article for GA status. I'm learning as I go and I think I'm getting better at this. Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 20:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I'd like to add is that the main issue with the Black mamba article isn't the material, it is more the prose. The material is accurate, the citations are in correct format, the references are sound, and the article contains no original research, it is broad in nature, and it has plenty of photos. The main issue is the prose. There might be some other issues, but for the most part it is good. Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 20:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Professor...as always, I show up with hat-in-hand. See this exchange. Can you help? Do you know anyone that's good with merges? The pay sux but they'd have my undying respect :) See ya 'round Tiderolls 23:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what's your issue with the empanada picture in a section about a restaurant that sells them? I would like to talk about it on the article's talk page.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have anything to do with the article. It's a frigging empanada on the article of a cultural center: you must be kidding. I can't believe that I'm having this conversation: one of us must not be an adult. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, the stub you created here over-wrote an existing redirect to James Breck Perkins. I think you should have added a hatnote to replace that linkage (and I've done so): otherwise you are removing a useful access point which has previously been provided. Thanks. PamD 09:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you so much for restoring that access point. Can I assume you added an equally useful access point to the other article? After all, the first black mayor of Selma is not necessarily so much less important than a dead white Congressman. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should move the mayoral article to James Perkins, Jr. (currently a redirect I created) and make James Perkins a disambiguation page. What do you think? LadyofShalott 15:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know, Lady--if "Jr" is the going term, then that's what it is. I'm not sure what the policies on dab pages are; I figured that hatnotes usually are enough if there aren't too many. I just created this mayor's stub because I was cleaning up a page of not always notable frat members, and this guy of course is notable, so I created a stub. I didn't think I'd be chastised for not having left a hatnote. Anyway, for Perkins, I grabbed the first article I could find (he was in the paper the other day) so I wouldn't have to cut him from the frat member page, and I can't judge whether he should be Jr or not. I'll find out. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, as usual. I moved the article and made the dab-page. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are some other JPs to add to the dab page. I've added one, but I've got to go for now. LadyofShalott 15:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Gibson F-5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bluegrass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax has fixed this for you. LadyofShalott 15:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax is a good man, but you're the best man. I really hope you're feeling better. Perhaps you shouldn't have been swimming in the buff while you were visiting here? BTW the pool looks absolutely gorgeous. Oh, I worked on electricity today in the shed and there's odd sounds coming from the fuse box. It's kind of exciting. Much health, Drmies (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm working on it. (Oh, is that my problem? Hah!) Noises from the fuse box? Hmmm... be careful! LadyofShalott 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though you think that Temple Run is not notable, it is pretty darn popular. Look at this page here [12], and see the numbers. --J(t) 04:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RS. The Wikipedia world revolves around it. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So Apple, the people who host this game and help make this notable is not a reliable source???!!! Great to see Wikipedia in this condition. --J(t) 04:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the iTunes store is not a reliable source for establishing notability. That's not news to anyone. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm kind of vague, please refer to the stars, with the hundred thousand digits. Is 500,000 rating a game notable enough? --J(t) 05:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, no offense, but don't talk to me aggressively like that, okay? I don't appreciate it, and I haven't to you, so don't do it to me. Show each other respect.
Romper is the only one being reverted by Other Users constantly over the last 2 years because he doesn't like the definition of "Anglo-Indians" under the Oxford Dictionary which supports the parts of the Article he wants out (or censored), and has simply reverted EVERY time we try and deal with him.
Read the Edit History Please. Don' go placing blame directly on an individual.
He is the Only one to revert over 10 users the last year FOR INCLUSION. Check how many times I have violated the 3RR rule on the page? 0.
Romper was violating the 3RR many times when multiple users were reverting him only months ago, so it wasn't A long time ago. Those are the FACTS.
Don't use all-caps please--it's quite rude. I have read the edit history. As for the rest: edit warring is edit warring, no matter whether you're right or wrong. You may not have noticed that the other user got a warning as well. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: That's still not a reason. You need to block User:Romper. Make some sense, goodness. --J(t) 04:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffwang, if you can't speak to me without insulting me, please stay away from here. Don't tell me who to block, and do read up on edit warring. It takes two to tango. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I see an obvious edit war here from both sides. Calabe1992 04:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Romper is censoring. That is obvious violation of the NPOV rules. --J(t) 04:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put that on the talk page. And it's not "censoring". Drmies (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Don't try and marginalize now his misdeed and say "all is equal". it's not. The facts are Romper was violating the 3RR MANY, many, times when multiple users were reverting him only months ago. Again, those are the FACTS. If you're going to be involved better to get the facts right, so people aren't mislead.
<--I see a whole bunch of people edit warring, and you are one of them (you've been blocked for that before, so you should know what it is). Charlesdrakew has reverted them, but April 2011 is hardly "recent". And User:MFIreland reverted Romper--they're not indef-blocked for socking. That's two legitimate editors, then. And I don't see you on the talk page: odd, considering that Romper at least explained their edits. But let me rephrase: you two have been doing this for a long time, without proper discussion, and you are both at fault for edit warring. If Romper reverts, they'll be blocked. If you revert in turn, you'll be blocked. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very concerning how your twisting many facts here. I said I was never blocked on this page, which is true. Pretty sure you have had a block before in your past on wikipedia for something, so don't throw stones at glass windows.
Secondly, it's not 1 user since April 2011 (about 3/4 of a year), you're trying to mislead everyone here because since over 1 year ago (since August 2010) you noticed, and purposley faild to mention:
Users: At least: MFIreland, Charlesdrakew, Goethean, and HonestopL (Me) reverting him because he doesn't want it in their and has shown 0 (ZERO) sources to support any of what he believes. And it's big deal when Romeper reverts over us at least 7 times in a day against multiple users? That's troubling....
And censorship has a big role in this, he's going against the Article stated sources given (multiple), and according to the definition in dictionary (which is the basis for this article in sources used), it states his removals are unwarrented.
Now here is the real question, If he removes it again without showing multiple sources (like we have all done for him), will you Block him and revert it back? Or is this a "Well now that he reverted it and he's blocked, it will be left this way, until there is a consensus". Because you're ignoring the fact that WE have presented sources and he has shown Zero in 2 years. Don't deny that.
It's funny to me how you blatantly fail to assume good faith. And for the record, his block history is empty. Calabe1992 06:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, Romper's block log is empty. Your block log is impressive: you have a whopping 627 edits and two blocks. I have close to one hundred thousand and no blocks, so let's not get into that pissing contest because you'll drown. Honestop, I'm getting kind of tired of your accusations. Censorship is bullshit, pure and simple. I didn't see Goethean, so what? "Purposely failed to mention" is yet another accusation and a clear show of bad faith. You have failed to acknowledge that one of your fellow reverters is a blocked sock puppet. "Your twisting facts"--if you are going to insult me, please spell correctly. You should be blocked for poor formatting and writing already.
As for your last question, "Now here is the real question etc.", are you completely blind? Did you read at all what I wrote? I will block. I have nothing to do with article content, except for--again--to note this: they have opened discussion on the talk page, you haven't. I don't have a preferred version; that's for another forum. I don't have any way to decide which version is better, but I tell you one thing, Romper doesn't come to my talk page to spout insults and show a clear lack of knowledge of what constitutes edit-warring. Do NOT bother to respond: I am no longer interested in your rants. The only thing you may leave is an apology, a promise to abide by WP:AGF, and a bunch of flowers: the rest is not welcome. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us a "tick" of approval that the article is has been approved for DYK?--Doug Coldwelltalk 23:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was working in the yard. Can't just drop everything. Please note the little edits I just made--I think your answer is right there, at least for now... I haven't read past the first paragraph. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "little edits." Every little bit helps. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
<--Please see the DYK template. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "little edits." Every little bit helps. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. You have a real interesting article here, and I hope you get lots of hits from the frontpage. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I disagree that it is, as you say a 'non-neutral' point. There is a Wiki page in which 'injun' is listed as a racial slur. Parents have a right to know when there is something within a film (like nudity, violence, etc) with which they can then have the freedom to make an educated decision. I am not a usual contributor to Wiki. Thus I didn't know how to document my comment...perhaps the appropriate location or wording to to use was incorrect. I however utterly disagree with your decision and if you disagree with my response I would like to take it further into resolution. I am also contacting the director, producers, the ratings board and Disney itself. While it is too late to repair this movie ...every person that watches it...or considers watching it, has a right to know that racist comment lies within. Due to the fact, I did not have this information, I had to spend time undo-ing damage that it caused. I wish I had known prior to viewing this film with my children. Please advise how I can escalate this to the next level or help me discover the better way to have the advisory placed on this wiki page.
PS. Wiki does have a racial slurs page...which I would like to cross reference to this film as well.
One further comment, your statement for 'no further comment' was highly offensive. I have just as much right to respond as you have to comment to me. You may wish to revisit how you personally approach contributors, especially us new or inexperienced ones. It come across as quite arrogant.
I am new to this whole thing and didn't know how to respond or contact you. I see others have responded on my talk page so I am fine if you don't respond here. thanks Mybuddyrobin (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the Lady explained, "no commentary please" means "no commentary in the article. No offense was intended. Responded further on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sending me the note about the Khalifa Al Dhahrani page. If I come across something similar in the future, should I just put on the advert tag, or am I allowed to revert it all the way back like that? HotshotCleaner (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the one you speedied, right? Yes, check the history, and revert all the way back to a version you think is more encyclopedic. You always need to be careful--you may undo some useful edits in the process but you can restore those. This is editorial judgment: if we entrust you with the power to nominate for deletion, we certainly will allow you to improve the article. Sometimes that means reverting, yes. Look in the history to see where I reverted to and see what you think, whether I missed a good edit or what. Oh, it's always better to edit and improve than to tag (as advert or whatever). Good luck, and go exercise judgment by editing: it's much more fun than tagging! (I never stop learning things in this place.) Drop me a line if I can help. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added 2 sentences to clarify amibguity in the text but you deleted my contribution unreasonably, so I returned them back. Wikipedia is about introducing the truth and the sentences I added are completely supported by references. Ambigious expressions like your lst sentence : "expounded for all" should be replaced by the clear expression "expounded for all disciples of the Buddha". If you do not agree, we can refer to Wiki sources to settle this matter. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever I do seems to be unreasonable, so I am not surprised. Two thing: NO, Wikipedia is not about introducing the truth. NO, we can not refer to Wiki sources, since Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can refer to one wiki source: comma splice. If you promise to properly use "however" and the punctuation around it, you can reinsert your edit. Now please stop signing your name in edit summaries. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. I didn't know that one should not sign in when editting. Not a problem. As for the subject of the Four Noble Truths - and in harmony with wiki rules for all articles - impartiality and including other views on the subject are required. For this reason I added "Other Views". If there are punctuation issues, comma, etc... this can be corrected but it does not justify deleting the whole entery. BTW, I meant by "Wiki sources", just "Wiki Rules" to judge in case of disputes. Regarding what you mentioned:"NO, Wikipedia is not about introducing the truth" - I believe that Wikipedia is not about introducing incorrect information - but probably you wanted to indicate that entries should be traceable and correctly referrenced - which I agree with. Regards. SafwanZabalawi — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafwanZabalawi (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attack in what way? It seems that you have a personal relationship with BGWhite, therefore there is a conflict of interest here. I have requested an independent third party request for guidance.--XLR8TION (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is Twitter a gossip site? Can you discuss that on the talk page of the article? I would like to hear your answer. LOL--XLR8TION (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read, please. "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid: ... Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." Find all the mediation you want: "Focused on writing articles on the atmosphere and wait until I file a dispute resolution request on topio. Question: Are you gay?" Good luck with that. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@XLR8TION: This is not a valid edit summary. Clear warnings issued to you are not vandalism. Calabe1992 14:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just in case it wasn't obvious, my comment accompanying my recent edit at the above article was not aimed at your minor amendment, but rather at the preceeding editor's contribution. Cheers, PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate it, but that much was clear to me. What I don't understand is the other changes (undoing "now-defunct" for instance, and that awful "medium-sized"). As far as I'm concerned the now-blocked editor was spot on with those edits, and you and the other editor reverting him are wrong. And why are you fighting over a comma after "cosmopolitan"? Why not just correct (if that is what it is) the one thing that they got wrong? I understand that this is an obnoxious editor, but "medium-sized" is not an improvement. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I confess that I hadn't noticed those other changes - an oversight on my part. I was reverting the edits concerning the family name endings. I shall have to have another look. I should be more circumspect. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I appreciate your looking into it. Note that I'm usingI used [improper use of progressive, Drm] the gerund, in case someone's looking over my shoulder(s). Drmies (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide a citation from a major style guide (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style) for hyphenating constructions like "now-defunct" then I would be satisfied. However, this goes against all that I have been taught about adverb relationships. The "now" is not a matter of degree, as is the case in constructions such as "well-tempered" or "oft-cited". That is, one may reasonably write both "a well-tempered clavier" and "clavier is well-tempered". However, one would not write "now-defunct family" any more than "family is now-defunct".
The editor under scrutiny has been making similar hyphenation errors, such as his recent full-scale change to the article on IUPAC names, where he converted all instances of "side chain" (which is correct under the IUPAC system) to "side-chain". He has also been on a long-term spree to convert all instances of "single-celled" (which is correct in the literature) to "single-cell" despite multiple complaints from other users concerning the incorrectness of the change. If you read his talk page, you'll see this and his responses. I strongly recommend that you read his responses over the past month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common practice is to hyphenate such constructions if they are used attributively, or at least allow for hyphenation--"the family is now defunct" would never by hyphenated. A quick Google Book search bears this out ([13], [14], [15]. This quick News search allows them both. The New York Timesallows them both.
But I took a break to consult the Chicago and the MLA. They agree: "long-lived; much-loved, ever-fruitful, still-active; Type: adverb other than the -ly type + participle or adjective. Now usually hyphenated before the noun" (Chicago, 13th edition, p. 177) and "Use a hyphen in a compound adjective beginning with an adverb such as better, best, ill, lower, little, or well when the adjective precedes a noun" (MLA Style Manual, 2nd edition, p. 74).
In general, there are "rules" for hyphenation, but these aren't like grammatical rules and one finds significant variation, as the Google examples bear out. So, even your "incorrect" use (if you'll pardon my being categorical--I'm really not) is allowable in ways that a comma splice is not.
In this case, I kind of resent the heap of criticism spewed on this editor with hyphenation being singled out--for all intents and purposes, the editor is "correct" (if one follows Chicago and MLA). I understand perfectly that they are disruptive in other and more important ways: I saw their talk page and read their verbose commentary (yesterday already) and I am not opposing their block. But please let it be clear that their hyphenation is AOK and should be treated as a matter of style--one in which theirs is the more preferred one, according to these two manuals. Thanks for your response, Drmies (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you did understand from my previous comment that "side chain" is a noun in its own right, and not an attributive element of a phrase? This was being hyphenated on the IUPAC without any rationale at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--I told you I had looked at the talk page. Single-cell vs. single-celled is something I (a grammarian) would leave to the experts. Basically, whichever gets more hits in reliable books is the right one, and whichever gets prescribed by usage manuals that's also the right one, and one hopes they are the same. (It seems that "single-celled" gets more hits.) Side chain, that's such an odd word that I don't know what to do with it. Listen, I have no interest in defending this editor's other edits or their general behavior. Frankly, they're acting like an ass and not helping the cause, not even their own. But, at the same time, they are right about at least one or two things--and what I'm really interested in is that the issues are discussed and evidence is sought and possibly found. I think we have put one thing to rest (one issue of hyphenation)--so evil has brought forth good. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been looking at the article revision history more closely, and wonder if there may have originally been a grammatical error in the text which led the blocked user to misunderstand what was meant, and therefore edit accordingly (thereby 'magnifying' the original error). Should the text have originally read "It is one of eight plant family names that have an accepted alternative name that does not bear the suffix -aceae" (my emphasis), whereas what it actually stated was "It is one of eight plant family names that has..." (my emphasis)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are the experts. I've hated Brassica ever since I read The Adventures of Asterix (OK, I do love mustard, and you'll be pleased to know I got Lacinato kale on the front page last year). I saw that sentence in a couple of different versions, but I don't know what's what. I'm happy with your scrutiny, though. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a grammatical question rather than a botanical one. The fact which is being described is that there are eight plant families (out of all the many plant families) which have accepted alternative names that do not bear that suffix, and the brassica family is one of those eight. The verb 'to have' is connected to the eight families, not just the brassica family, hence I think the text should have read "have" and not "has". I think plant-orientated editors didn't see this because they knew what was meant, whereas the blocked editor presumably has no special interest in plants and therefore read the sentence as it actually stood, which was incorrect, leading to edits which also were incorrect.... ? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught in school that constructions such as this take a singular verb. "one of the cities has fallen" and not "one of the cities have fallen". The Brassicaceae is "one...that has", because the emphasis and subject of the construction is the determiner "one". The same rule applies to other singular determiners: "Either of the choices that has been offered" is correct, but "Either of the choices that have been offered" is not correct. Both the prepositional phrase and the dependent clause point back to a singular referent. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is an area where unfortunately grammar is less the determining factor than usage. Many of the modern grammars take a much more descriptive approach, whether we like it or not. But I really don't have an opinion on the intricacies of Brassica species... Drmies (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What, no one wished you a Happy Lee/King Day yet? That's not right. Well, you've got 26 more minutes to enjoy it, anyway. 28bytes (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Preciate it, 28. Yes, happy Robert E. Lee day--the lunatics took over the asylum a couple of years ago. Happy blackout to you! Drmies (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was first introduced to the unusual Alabama holidays in 2004 when I started doing work down there. I flew down with some colleagues from Boston and the culture shock was palpable. I was able to blend in somewhat by resurrecting my native (but long dormant) southern accent, but the Hahvahd guys, not so much. Anyway, I'm ready for the blackout; I've got Stella fired up and ready to go! See ya on the flip side (assuming the switch doesn't get stuck in the "off" position, of course.) 28bytes (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Drmies. Very best wishes, as always, JNW (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, and the same to you! I've commented at the AfD as well; my vote won't surprise you since you tend to be right on things. Oh, I think you and Mandarax should come over for dinner sometime. Mandarax can watch the kids while we smoke cigars and discuss the state of the world. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're on, and tomorrow looks to be the right day, given the blackout. You enjoy the smokes and I'll bring the scotch. JNW (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Protection appears warranted; user is jumping IPs again: [16]. JNW (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm not going to block since a. protection will take care of the article and b. I don't have the brain power to handle IP hoppers. If this disruption spreads to the AfD, consider asking a smart person. See you tomorrow, Drmies (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at "suspicious and resentful". I think you should remove the Paalman note there, and I am figuring out what the sources say and how to rephrase it following Dank's comment. Dharmowijono really only gives you the decree, so I suppose the rest is to be found in the source I can't read--I suggest you trim as much as possible, give the Setiono reference halfway through the sentence (after indicating resentment), and end the sentence with the decree sourced to Dharmowijono. Perhaps you can say "according to Setiono, feelings of resentment" or something like that. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered bribing Malleus with a six-pack of beer? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought was Tony1, actually. Malleus and I have... a history. Good suggestion for the one sentence. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know Crisco, but he's the best. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
K, I'll look into it after getting back from Oz. Just flew in this morning. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a problem with a new user who keeps inserting this edit at Rajput. I can't do anything about it now because I miscounted my reverts, but I have opened a discussion, have warned and am adamant that this person is replacing cited info with unsourced stuff that their edit summaries say come from "folk lore". I have to sit back and accept this because of a stupid inability to count to three - it is mad, but I am right, aren't I? There few exceptions to 3RR and this is not one of them? Mind you, wiki is going to be sicki soon, so everyone'sslate is going to get wiped clean ... - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woah - good spot. I'll double-check a couple of things when my head clears - I've just been banging it against my wall. The entire article is a disgrace & I am slowly trying to get on top of matters, only to find more bilge being added. SickiWiki day is a chance perhaps for me to do some decent reading of decent sources. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or to sit down and watch the entire set of Twin Peaks DVDs. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't spend all day looking at a screen! Ahem. I can't see an obvious link between those two users, btw, although I've had dealings with each of them: they're not contributing to the same articles etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to have COI issues with Daniel Grady Faires. I gave it a scrub the other day, as did someone else, but the IP appears to have morphed into User:DGF1983. I've left a COI welcome & also a note but he is continuing to edit in a way that is pushing links to his websites/TV shows etc. How much weight do I give to the "new user" issue vs the "COI" one? - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't really forbid them to do that unless they become disruptive. I've actually placed a COI tag on the article, but I think you got the editing part well under control now. If it gets disruptive or overly promotional they can be blocked--no different from any other editor. But you've done good work on the article. I put a COI tag on it since that seems pretty obvious, and I hope it serves as a warning. "When can the tag be removed?" "When you stop editing the article." Drmies (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the look-see. I thought that I had placed a COI tag - perhaps it got lost in the numerous recent edits ... or, more likely, I was hitting the extremities of my tolerance and tagged a user talk page but not the article. I am fairly sure that this is a combined "onslaught" but the idea of running an SPI seems likely to be a waste of everyone's time right now. I'll see how things pan out & hope that the promotional enthusiasm wanes. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page. Message added 22:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Proposed compromise for Academy of Achievement[edit]
Hi Drmies, I'd like to see if you would look at the debate on the Academy of Achievement Talk page once again; the discussion has progressed since you last weighed in, and I have proposed a possible compromise on the "EduCap" issue. Hope to see you there, at least once the strike is over. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you assess the IP here. They're reverting w/o a reason, but I've hit three reverts already. Just wondering where to go with it. Calabe1992 04:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can always come to the secret Drmies cabal. Sorry Calabe, I'm not entirely with you on this one. Unexplained blanking is not a good thing--but there is no reason this should be in the lead; it's in complete disregard of UNDUE, as far as I'm concerned. In other words, I've provided them with a reason... Then again, there are other issues: they're edit warring, as are you (really), but you stopped at 3, and they really started being one up on you, so to speak, with their unexplained blanking. Plus, they called you a troll and that is unacceptable. They seem to edit combatively. I won't go to war on the actual content, but I will give them a final warning for disruptive editing. Is that fair enough? Sorry, that's as much as I can do. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. I see it's elsewhere in the article, too, so thanks. Calabe1992 04:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while you were typing this I rolled them back for replacing TIME with a link to what I assume is a movie. They never explained anyway. Next time, they're past 3R and you can report them at the 3R board. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodie. ;) Calabe1992 04:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies - I apologize if I did any wrong doing because that's not my intentions. I hope the way edited the page is fine with you now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.230.77 (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I wasn't specifically referring to Calabe as a "troll". I was speaking in general about the people that randomly pop up to edit R. Kelly's page with false information. Again, I apologize if I did any wrong doing because I didn't mean any harm. - (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2012
I think we're talking about old stuff here? As for new stuff, there's too much in this to take in easily. Please take some advice: don't be too quick in calling others "trolls". Use reliable sources: a record label may give reliable numbers ("may"!), but "making him the most successful R&B male artist of the 1990's" needs stronger evidence than this. TIME or whatever is more reliable, that's all there is to it. "his popularity has arguably grown"--"arguably" is not a very encyclopedic term, but I see now that it is a direct quote: you should put it in quotes, ASAP. See Wikipedia:Quotations and WP:MOSQUOTE. I'm going to guess that other passages need to be scrutinized in similar ways, and statements like "Kelly won several awards for the album and Billboard magazine ranked TP-2.com etc." need a reference, right there. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I spoke Dutch, I would have seen you there on the Dutch Wikipedia. Instead, I perused Google News all day, watching the stories develop on the New York Times and Reuters and Facebook and the various blogs. People care very much about what we do and what we think about this issue. What a day! Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, did you see the trick reported in the NYT on getting WP articles? Press ESC quickly right after the page is done loading--helpful, so I could still see what our Aeneas had while updating the Dutch one. I applied for rollback on the Dutch wiki and I'm thinking of running for admin there, so I have something more to do when I'm hanging out there. BTW, click on their version of Recent changes, and click on it again ten minutes later: basically the same screen. Of course it's like 6AM there, but even at other times it's SO quiet compared to here! Drmies (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now all I have to know is if they have a policy against cross-Wiki canvassing, and if not I can use Google Translate to impersonate someone who is just learning to speak Dutch and vote for you for Dutch admin. I can tell them what a lousy wonderful job you have done here on English Wikipedia, and I am sure they will all believe me. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Ucucha is a crat there; he can just check that box if I promise a bribe of some sort. Thanks Cullen, Drmies (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly Tush--that is an impressive bit of work. Say, am I the only one around here who has a job? Drmies (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of a "coin in the slot gas meter", but I guess that's why we have Wikipedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got some old children's books that have those, and I think they pop up in Sjöwall and Wahlöö. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Gas" = for lighting/heat, not for putting in your car. I can remember seeing them as a teenager, which feels longer ago than in fact it is! I've got the patent + drawing ready to add, so you can see the idea when I do that. - Sitush (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I figured that. Put in two pennies to keep the kids warm, or three pennies when it is freezing. I once lived in apartment in San Francisco that had gas lights retrofitted to electrical. They just snaked wires through the gas lines. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is only a few months since I ripped out my old gas piping - been buried in the walls & under floors for 124 years! Some images of slots here. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love that the Google Image search comes up with a picture of an Olympus camera. I didn't know that they were gas powered! Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just today Kodak went the way of the gas coin. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Kodak, it does indeed look that way, but I suspect that someone actually has powered a camera using gas at some time previously. There is no end to the close bedfellows known as ingenuity and irrationality! I have no idea how things work elsewhere in the world but in the UK there is still a big (and controversial) market for prepayment meters. What has changed is the mechanism - the paperless society etc - but the concept remains and is frequently considered to be targeting the poor. Basically, people prepay using "top up" facilities and it is alleged that their tariffs are relatively punitive. The top ups can be bought in cash or by use of plastic (assuming that the poor soul can get plastic). I am legally classified as being in "fuel poverty" in the UK (ie: I lack the funds to light and heat my house in an adequate manner, & boy do I know it) but, thankfully, I had got my direct debit in place before it all went wrong 20 years or so ago and I thus do not have to resort to the alleged extortion. So, Drmies, when you ask whether you are the only person here who has a job then perhaps you should be grateful!
I will be expanding the Thorp stuff but I need to be careful regarding sources etc. This article and that for John Horsefield represent a rare foray into what is truly local to me. OK, I do not actually live in Thorp's house but it would take me all of two minutes (or twenty, if the dog insists on sniffing every lamp-post) to nip across the road and photograph the house in which he lived. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for walkies! Drmies (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks, I guess you did too. I had to run over and irreparably destroy the Dutch wiki. Thanks for the shirt! Drmies (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question about your edit of Family Constellations.[edit]
1. 15:28, 17 January 2012 Drmies (talk | contribs) (9,638 bytes) (rm non-notables: unverified, and certainly not for the lead)
These names were added in June 2010 in response to 22:33, 10 June 2010 95.34.83.114 (talk) (8,648 bytes) (Hellinger is not a psychologist. Please document that the method is widely practiced by psychologists and psychiatrists before making such a claim.)
Would it be acceptable to move the list down in the body of the article?
2. Intricate detail. The page is frequently accessed by individuals who want a clear and concise description of the process. The Method section as written is 660 words which is reasonable given the complexity of the material. To delete portions or reduce the entire section down to a schematic paragraph that lacks detail will be a disservice to readers.
Please advise if you have specific guidance of how to implement your suggestion.
Thank you for your note. My problem with the detail is that there is too much focus in the article on a detailed description of the method (and individual elements are unclearly referenced) compared to the rest of the article. There is, for instance, no objective history of the method, its implementation, its effectiveness, etc. In essence, the article reads like a practitioner's guide, since there is little of what one might call encyclopedic information. I can't judge whether it is "frequently accessed," but really, that's neither here nor there. As for the names, it is common practice to not drop names of people who don't have Wikipedia articles or are not otherwise verifiably notable--it is all to easy to stick one's own name in as a kind of promotion, or someone else's name as an act of vandalism, for instance. (And I see that you have noticed that too, here for instance). Your quote from an IP editor, "Hellinger is not...before making such a claim," well, I wouldn't take that as a request to start inserting names. In general, a list of notables in the field (typically, scholars, not practitioners) is acceptable if they are notable by our standards.
But I see something else: apparently I removed you as well. You added yourself in this edit, and while I appreciate edits such as this, it is of course a bit fishy if User:DanBoothCohen adds Dan Booth Cohen with an edit summary that claims he "actively pioneered" the method. So, if I were you, I wouldn't add me--that would quickly lead to a COI tag on the article and possibly a block for promoting. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. I added inline citations. Previously, I had used Harvnb citations. Should I convert everything to Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). using APA format?
2. I tried to streamline the description of the process. Should I add more detail about objective history, implementation, effectiveness, etc.
3. You point is taken on the list of names. I only added that because of a previous Editor's note. DanBoothCohen (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any citation format is fine; Wikipedia does not dictate any one of them. Typically, convention for the field/WikiProject is followed. We've reached the limit of my expertise, though I'll repeat one thing: the article needs a history full of nice facts. You can check the talk page for the WikiProjects and maybe drop a line on that project's talk page for some more specific assistance. Thank you for your cooperation, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed all the references to the same format. 173.48.25.170 (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks much better. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I have looked at the DYK review process and it seems to me to be horrendous - worse, even, than the process for proposed mergers. Or, at least, the instructions are such. I do not usually bother about it too much but did self-nom John Horsefield earlier and am conscious that there is a limit for self-noms. Is it just me or is it really far too complex? The likes of Malleus tend to deride the entire thing but I do feel that it has its place ... I am just beginning to have some doubts regarding its implementation. You appear to be involved in that process & so perhaps it makes sense to you, but there may also be a "familiarity breeds contempt" argument. Do you mind re-reading the nom instructions page as if you were a newbie, and then let me know what you think? - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--there's a limit for self-noms? If so, I must have broken that two years ago. I'll look again, but this doesn't ring a bell. Malleus has a couple of issues with the process but this isn't one of them, as far as I know. I think he's mentioned that the reviewing process isn't rigorous enough to weed out plagiarism (though I may conflate his and Sandy's criticism), and that the articles themselves are often, well, not much to speak of. Problem is (if that is indeed his take) that he's right, mostly. I stand by my DYKs, at least most of them (I should have another look at Bambi effect), but I see SO much crap go by--poorly written, poorly verified, poorly organized, on topics that were nothing but a hook with some fluff.
But DYK needs bodies, of course, who can review all those articles--the requirement that nominators also review leads to poor reviews, when new editors come by. Anyway, the process can be tedious, yes. I tend to be very critical: I think DYKs should be exciting and interesting and good, and I must have rubbed some people the wrong way, but that's what it is. OK, I'll look again and see what it says. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made a comment at your nomination. OK, you've done all that. Now review. Pick one. Read it. Check it for the requirements--long enough? new enough? quality stuff? hook cited? Don't be afraid to be wrong: there are always people looking over your shoulder, like every other page here (yes, I'm talking to you, watchers). Don't think that your first statement has to be a final verdict either--I've had many a discussion (with Gerda for instance) and often they're fruitful and improve the article. If the hook is too long and you missed that, pfff, someone else will notice it. But do check for quality and paraphrase/plagiarism. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. Like I said, it is all too messy for me, although quite why I didn't cite the quote is also beyond me as I do that as a matter of course. Just reviewed one and, well, never again. I'll go back to doing it without all of the palaver - I usually know when something is a reliable source or not & can clean up an article without having to wait 30 seconds every time I want to view a page & then click on the wrong link, which means that I have to go through the whole cycle yet again. As for calculating a 5x expansion, well, the instructions for that are crazy & I've got enough .js scripts running without adding another. We'll have to differ on this one until - just maybe - I can be bothered to try again. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta run, but I just reviewed one (Holothuria atra), and I will tell you all about it. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has rules to justify deletion of text. In regard to the article Humanistic Buddhism, yes, I take your point that I included (unwillingly) some references of books on the subject, referring however to bookstores, and thank you for the reminder - I have deleted the bookstore reference and identified the books by ISBN number and date of publishing. I have returned but edited what you deleted on Humanistic Buddhism, to make diversity of views. The article mentions Pure Land views, but other schools of Buddhism are also active and known in the domain of the subject. Impartiality requires mentioning them. Deleting without a Wiki-supported reason is vandalism. Please open a dialogue as arbitrary deletion of facts and others contribution is not relevant to Wikipedia. If you have anything to discuss I am willing to listen on Talk / at the article.
I have asked to make changes to the article - please see Talk and respond. For example the Six Characteristics contain meaningless logic (Humanism is based on Humanism...etc...). Again please accept the reality of others contribution as the Wikipedia is not a forum for one side only. Thank you. SafwanZabalawi
Sorry, "side"? I don't think this is a political issue, and Wikipedia is not a forum in the first place. I will look at the article, thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking those links out. Many of the buddhism articles are problematic, and I do not have the knowledge or interest to help any further. There are no spam links in there now, nor any all-too overtly non-neutral text, and that is as much as I can say. Thank you for your note. For the sake of redundancy: please stop signing your name in edit summaries. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response. Thank you. Now I have a request: I would like to ask you how should I sign then! If I do the four ~ and my login name followed by other 4x ~ then this will create a problem. For this reason I had just put my name (in the upper communication) - but still don't know the proper procedure for signing - can you please give a hint. Appreciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafwanZabalawi (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just add ~~~~ and nothing else. It will automatically produce your signature. →Στc. 04:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to sign (with tildes) at the end of the text you're adding, not in the edit summary. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for the info. I'll use it now: SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the nice star, and I noticed your DYK advice to Sitush. Not being a teacher, I have to overcome my mild aversion to "grading" other people's work, and I appreciate your gentle encouragement. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a good article, and will go to the front page without a hitch, I think. But there's always that one little thing! That hook reference rule, I get it, it's too make reviewing articles a bit easier (esp. long ones, like this one), but it also encourages skimming rather than critical reading. Do you want to have a look and give it the proper tick, if you think it passes? Sitush and I are seriously involved since we both ride motorcycles. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You closed an AfD that I opened earlier, and I'd like to ask you to please take another look at that. The article has been nominated several times before, but last time it was only given 8 hours, and this time less than two. The first commenter asked that we be given the full seven days for discussion, and I think that this is very reasonable, since that would make it the first real discussion since the other have all been closed prematurely. For example, my nom does not meet the criteria for a speedy keep (I did not withdraw, it is not vandalism, I am not banned, the page is not a policy, and the article is not linked from the main page). If the concern was that my account was compromised, this is not the case. The discussion has frequently been heated because of the subject's admin status, with editors alleging bad faith. I believe that a comprehensive, full length discussion could finally help put this to rest and either give credibility to the entry, or remove it once and for all. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons given at ANI, no. You can continue at the ANI thread and see if it gains any traction, but I give you little chance. The community is tired of repeated AfDs; and in this case, the first and the second (feel free to peruse those discussions) were lengthy and thorough enough to warrant all other subsequent AfDs to be closed speedily. Notability doesn't wear out any more than portions of a person's resume vanish. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
full length discussion discussion of more appropriate length Strunk & White are personal heroes, of sorts, as is White's son Joel (for different reasons). I always try to do them proud. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the reasons provided have been proven false, please re-open for the requisite seven days. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no king of France. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For talkpage stalkers. Seriously, though... this deserves another look. I can run through all my procedural options, but I'm relatively new and bound to screw something up. (I probably already have, so, apologies.) There's plenty of support, and nothing to be lost, just by opening it and letting it run the full seven days. The main argument of "we've done this before" is becoming circular, as that's been the reason for each close for the last three years -- the amount of time it has been since an AfD ran for more than a few hours. This is almost certainly due to unfortunate and unruly behavior by a few bad eggs (maybe only one). There's nothing to be lost by taking comments. I am a fresh pair of eyes with no connection to this whatsoever, but upon reading it I still felt the need to AfD it, only to discover the bad blood here. I think we are looking at either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:1E, and a reasonable individual could make arguments for either. Assuming that a handful of previous participants (maybe only one) had not been involved previously, there would not have been such a rush to close, and it is not in the spirit of the wiki to punish many for the sins of a few. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I've looked at this article before and wondered if it really belongs. The only useful source for determining notability is the LAT article - everything else is primary and so any argument based on WP:PROF (which requires secondary sources) is weak to say the least. With only that, then it's reasonable to suggest GNG isn't met. I've just had another look for sources and can't find anything else either - the LAT article talks of potential, but then after almost 40 years, no other sources have shown this to be the case. The two main questions I have are: a) would we create an article now, based on one modern article in the LAT about a young mathematician and b) would we still have this article if Arthur wasn't an editor here? Personally, I think the answer to both is no. I don't want to wheel war, so I'd like your $0.02 behind why you closed it so quick. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all above: after reading about this AFD, and agreeing with the objections above, I've taken it to deletion review. Comments are welcome at the discussion there. Robofish (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SmartSE, I said all I had to say at the AfD and at ANI. Feel free to renominate it or whatever--that's fine with me. I did not see any reason to revisit the consensus reached in two AfDs, and this is as close to renominating until you get the desired result as I've ever seen. Discussion closed, please. Fortheloveofbacon, good luck to you. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About time I did something for you! Enjoy your wikifame! Drmies (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I chimed in at the John Horsefield DYK discussion. By the way, my most viewed previous DYK was Harry Yount. I think the awesome portrait of him is what really drew the attention. Cullen328Let's discuss it 19:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the histories and edited the article a bit for cleanup and consolidation. I wish you all hadn't screwed around so much; digging through the history to find the appropriate content to restore was a bitch. I don't understand why you and Lucifer and Northamerica keep fucking around with each other, but I stopped short of plowing through the history to see who was (more) guilty of edit-warring. However, the consensus was clear, so merging and closing the discussion was appropriate. The original talk page, Talk:Metro Walk, was not moved, BTW. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since what has the appearance of a sock/tag team has started up again in the last few minutes, I've had enough. Filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sharma.ind - you will recognise some of those names. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a mess. Glad you started that. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have behavioral evidence (a diff or two, three) to nail Nick.passion (talk·contribs) to the others? Drmies (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tnxman has already linked Nick.passion as "likely" to be the same as all the others except PassionApple. As well as the revert noted at the SPI, those two appear to have contributed to a few of the same articles as shown by the SPI toolserver gadget's report. On practically all occasions the one seems to be at the other end from the other, eg: this is pro-Jat puffery, whereas this is deflationary. Had I spotted these earlier then I would not have stuck PassionApple in the SPI report. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, he suggested they're all related, including PassionApple, but behavioral evidence is lacking. There were two not yet blocked, and I blocked one easily enough, but I did not see it quickly for Nick.Passion--just a few behavioral notes would clinch it, though. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing me. They CSD'd, I reverted and now they have reinstated. I realise that the company's name is Secure Data Recovery Services, but the logo and some of the sources clearly both drop the "Services" and run the words together. In any event, the CSD rationale seems to me to be, erm, irrational (the company exists etc) but the IP is clearly trying to tell me something. Any idea of which policy it is to which they are referring? I thought about doing a page move earlier but that would still be a seemingly valid redirect from the existing page
BTW, article was created by one of my foes at Nair, but I doubt that he'll thank me for intervening! - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this--I would have said the same thing. Whatever they were trying to convey was not a valid rationale. When in doubt, check the criteria and err on the side of caution, which in this case is the removal of the speedy tag. Also, they should not have reverted you: a CSD tag cannot be reapplied unless the removal was vandalism. I'm going to leave them a note. Anyway, I learned a couple of weeks ago that that CSD template allows one to add a reason. I have never seen a self-made reason that was valid according to our guidelines. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your diff demonstrates how much I have yet to learn. I worry too much about the opinions of others, although in the India sphere most probably disgree. There is a "generic" CSD rationale presented if you use Twinkle, although I cannot recall ever being tempted to select it. I remain curious regarding what the IP was suggesting because there seems to be an assumption of knowledge regarding policy/guidelines and perhaps a bit of "real world" legalising that is clearly misplace given that company has apparently been granted registration of the name. Yes, "err on the side of caution" makes sense but unfortunately I over-AGF'd. Is that possible? (I have just dealt with three sets of socks in less than 12 hours). There are many out there who think that I have a hair-trigger but, well, it ain't necessarily so! My gut feeling - and some very slight background knowledge - would suggest that a PROD might be in order, but almost certainly it would end up at AfD. Thanks for your guidance. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See nl:Schoevers. OK it isn't referenced in any way but remember on nlwiki that isn't required. It's a typical case of "I have never heard of it so it's NE". Everyone of our generation surely has heard of Schoevers. BTW your rollback privs on nlwiki were granted, due to the great Dutch tradition of "inspraak" it takes 24 hours to grant them. ;) SpeakFree(talk)(contribs) 21:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm doing this before looking at the article: it's the training institute, right, where young blond girls who aren't college material go to learn how to type and make coffee? And learn enough German to type a letter? (If I get this wrong I may lose my citizenship...) Drmies (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, glad to be right. Hey, why are you asking? Was the English one deleted? Drmies (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to be a terugdraaier. Say, do they have Huggle or Twinkle or Anything like that? This should be speedied as spam, but how do you do that? Memorize all the templates and notify the editor and list it somewhere? Drmies (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Huggle is still only for mods as a test. I'm also terugdraaier but I get a message that "Huggle is not enabled for your account." Shame. And they also don't use Twinkle but use the Zeusmodus which puts some ugly options on the top of the page and I thus refuse to use as I can add these manually with ease. That they use Zeusmodus is quite weird as a frequent complaint on nlwiki is that all the tags for problematic enwiki pages disturb their layout. SpeakFree(talk)(contribs) 02:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to nominate it for deletion--they don't really have speedy deletion over there. Now I need to find some vandalism and then it's terugdraaien geblazen! Thanks for keeping me posted... Drmies (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, check out Schoevers. I stuck in a good source that can help flesh out the history, at least part of it. This is DYK material. Oh, I so remember all those cute blonde girls with their beautiful bodies getting off the tram in Amsterdam. I should have been teaching there; I would be the most stereotypical professor ever. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't know much about Schoevers, just that it was a repository for nice-looking blondes (even though they might have been a bit too arrogant) as you mentioned. I added your ref to the Dutch article. SpeakFree(talk)(contribs) 02:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whoever it is, they made a valid point: you can't say "sock" without evidence. I appreciate you letting me know, and I placed a note there, but please don't accuse them without specific evidence... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to take your closing remark for the WP:ANI [18] as meaning that it is OK to call someone an asshole on WP?
If so, that's an excellent way to lose competent editors, and retain only assholes. HMallison (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Drmies meant was that more than one editor misbehaved, that all concerned should try to calm down, that the discussion had run its course, that no administrator action was needed, that plants needed to be watered, and that (by implication) it would be best for the disputants to return to the endeavor of improving the encyclopedia. If I am wrong in any of this, I am sure that Drmies will correct me gently. Cullen328Let's discuss it 21:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that's what Drmies meant, and that reads to me like Drmies wants to say that editors can call other editors "assholes" all they want, because either the insulted will ignore it, or if not he or she will be told to go water plants. There is a huge difference between a stinging remark and outright insults - at least in civilized cultures. Like the difference between nabbing an apple and breaking someone's nose. So can anyone tell me why someone should waste time at a place where he gets called names by assholes? There's plenty of places on the net where moderators make sure that even the most heated discussions run without outright insults, and where I could spend my time for benefit to others similar to what wikipedia offers. HMallison (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions regarding civility are endless here but, basically, you'll find people who will throw around things such as "asshole" and if it upsets you that much then, yes, Wikipedia may not be the ideal place to be. There is currently a messy ArbCom case running about this sort of issue but regardless of the outcome, thin-skinned people are always likely to take umbrage at something or another, and those with thicker skins will mostly just sigh. For example, I might describe an article that you create as "crap" - would you be offended by that? - Sitush (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you give a reason (e.g., you point out factual mistakes, or very bad grammar), no, I would not be offended. Be kind to colleagues, ruthless with their work. I am extremely thick-skinned with regards to criticism, and do not mind harsh language being used for it. However, what I can't abide is personal attacks - they usually signal that the one how uses them has no valid points anyway. That is, by the way, the way things are seen by most legal systems in the world, and for good reason. The other option is not restricting such attacks at all, which allows everyone to see them as nothing important - I am fine with that, too, as long as the rules apply to all. However, I have seen people banned for much less, both here and on other-language wiki pages. To be honest, usually it was the loudmouth long-time editor who got a free run, and the novice got punished, no matter who insulted whom.
In sum, you and Cullen328 seem to say that insults are OK and to be taken in stride - I will reference this exchange in the future, and refrain from stopping my anger. I'll just let it out and call assholes names and way I please. :D HMallison (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is interesting. but then the end result is that wikipedia will be an encyclopedia only written by thick skinned people, and will only reflect the beliefs and interests of thick skinned people. if this seems ok then i guess it works like designed. Bouket (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, at least fuckwit and asshole will be up to date! [j/k - assholes usually are incapable of seeing their own flaws] HMallison (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've not read WP:SYSTEMIC for a while but in a sense, yes. Look, as in life, you have to roll with the punches. Think of the greater good in your contributions. I tend not to go around calling people assholes here or anywhere else but I do, for example, reserve my right to do so and I recognise that we are not a santised version of the real world. If you don't like someone's attitude then "stay away from them" is generally a good rule, here as elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By jove, some character has just refactored my copyedit of my own msg above. What a bally nuisance, dear chap. - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry - I had four edit conflicts in a row, seems I missed something during my c&p! Sincerest apologies! HMallison (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, HM. Just learn to type faster <g> ... but not so fast that your fingers get ahead of your brain, since that is what gave rise to my need to ce. :( Sitush (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Typ(o)ing too slow got me the edit conflicts ;) HMallison (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sitush, what you are describing is not a system where everyone has an equal voice. it is anarchic, where people willing to do things to drive away people who disagree with them will have the last say. there are rules here and isnt there one about no personal attacks? i think 'asshole' counts as one. but you should ask yourself, are the opinions and contributions and work and insights and knowledge of people who would not want to be in a community where being called 'asshole' is common valuable at all? because if you argue that they should not be here, then wikipedia will be very slanted. Bouket (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All systems have loopholes, or clever people who will find them. That does not make them anarchic. I also dispute that calling people "asshole" is common here. If that is your experience then so be it but I absolutely guarantee you that I get far more abuse than you ever have done. I do so because I choose to work in a certain topic area and if I could not stand the heat then I would not work in it. My feelings regarding the type of person you describe are in fact mixed: they tend often also to be the sort that favour censoring of contributions and, in particular, POV pushers on articles related to religion etc. I am not suggesting that you are one of these but I do think that you are being unrealistic. There isn't a "normal" working environment where mild terms of what some might consider to be abuse are used, people will "vent" in the real world, and excluding them will often do more harm than good - the net benefit argument. If you do not like it then you are free to stop contributing, although I hope that you do not. Just "bleep" it out in your head. The whole personal attack/civility issue is difficult to enforce when the terms being used are broadcast daily in real life, and where standards differ widely around the world. You may not like being called a "cunt" but, honest, I get called several times a week off-wiki. I usually roll with it. I hope that you stay around but, please, do not expect that Wikipedia is somehow capable of disassociating itself from how the real world works in matters of interpersonal relations. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sitush i think youre confused. no one called me that. i have thicker skin than that i hope lol. but i want to encourage people without thick skins to contribute, so i prefer that other people are not so rude. i think it will improve the site if we can encourage more kinds of people to contribute including those with thin skin. does that make sense? Bouket (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was. It does make sense. It is not practical and would probably actually drive away a lot of pretty decent contributors who are also assholes, like me ;) Each case has to be taken on its merits. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)(Sorry to barge in). It will always be impossible to set thresholds for incivility and PA. One current arbcom case has deteriorated into a discussion about English vs. American semantics. I'm old enough to remember well a famous court case about the use of language on both sides of the pond. I've never levelled insults at individuals (or even anybody), but I take a lot of flak for voicing mild criticisms at broad but possibly identifiable groups of editors. The answer there is that if the cap fits, they should wear it. Sadly, there appear to be users who deliberately analyse the text of messages in order to identify any possible hint of attack that they can complain about. The irony is that those who insult others are most often the ones who have a clear history of incivility themselves - particularly those who have that magic extensive editing history that allows them to do so with impunity, and who in some cases deter other users from wanting to continue improving articles or running for adminship. Probably the worst form of insult that goes undetected are unconstructive disparaging comments on talk pages about editors behind their backs. At noticeboards it is required that users at least be notified when they are being discussed. There have been several - too many - instances where I have seriously considered handing my tools in, semi-retiring and concentrating on some of my other hobbies. Sometimes - all too often - Wikipedia is just not worth the effort. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the original question: no. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an the asshole scale 1-10, Sitush is a 5 or 6 at most. From where he's standing, he couldn't even see mine me, I'm so far ahead. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 2-1/2 years of active editing here, I've never called another editor a vulgar name, and rarely if ever have been called one myself. I have disagreed with other editors from time to time, though, but in what I hope is a civil way. The old saying is that it takes two to tango. Us ordinary editors who compromise, de-escalate, step away, avoid confrontation and don't pick up sticks when horses are lying in the streets will rarely encounter slimy insults. Administrators, though, must deal with such insults in their janitorial work but the best of them will go out of their way to avoid hurling scatological epithets themselves. Call me Pollyanna if you wish, but the technique works well for me. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, see below--I was tempted. It does take two to tango--a wonderful expression, which I referenced somewhere in the last couple of days in a similar conflict. In this particular case, nothing could be gained by acting, so to speak--except to say "go water the plants" (when one does, one can't yell at another person). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I agree with Epeefleche and sometimes I don't. In these two (well referenced) cases, I don't. I've placed the sound system articles on my watch list in case my comments might be useful at another venue. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been called a variety of ugly terms ("bitch," "asshole," some nastier terms). As you say, it kind of goes with the admin job. I don't think I've ever sunk down to their level. LadyofShalott 04:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, I was puzzled at the speedy deletion, even more than the nomination. They was gone 'fore I could even look at 'em. There's a general rule of thumb: things with decent references don't get speedied. Lady, I'm somewhat shocked you would even utter those words: I'm going to blatantly edit your comment and put quotation marks around them. And then I'm going to look at our seminaries. Cullen--that's fascinating material! Drmies (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This thread has gone on so long that I am not sure which material you find "fascinating", Drmies, and I hope it isn't just my comparison of myself to Pollyanna. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the female seminary. I confess I may not have read everything in this thread--shall we close it? Drmies (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I find fascinating is that Sitush gets called something several times a week off-wiki which I've never been called, at least off-wiki (I dunno about on-wiki; I don't pay much attention to what vandals call me). Sitush, are you a prison guard? A schoolteacher? A professional athlete? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you ask. I pretty much don't work, but I am from one of those areas of the UK that is known for its blunt, no-nonsense "call a spade, a spade" attitude to life. Think Malleus, although I think that he comes from the "posh" side of town. My particular bit (sort of street- or block-level) is also full of semi-literate types with limited vocabularies and a tendency to punctuate with expletives while attempting to drag the next "real" word from the depths of what they deign to call their brains. I have no idea whether poverty is the cause or an effect of this, but many are pretty poor also (as, indeed, am I). It is extremely rare that I use such words about people but, well, I had an education.
Bear in mind, a lot of the time these people (a) do not realise that they are doing it (verbal tic) and (b) 30%-40% of the time probably mean it in an affectionate manner - I kid you not! OTOH, when those editing India-related articles here have a go then, yes, they really do seem to intend offence and, yes, they do sometimes get blocked or at least warned for it. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really asking your profession. Just kinda half-jokingly throwing out the first people I thought of who could possibly be subjected to such frequent and harsh name-calling. Thanks for the response; you've turned this rather unpleasantly-titled thread into a learning experience. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Epeefleche (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the external links section of Mary S. B. Shindler. Recognize that author's name? (One of these days I've got to get back to that particular sandbox. I did dust off one other sandbox item today and turn it into a stub at least.) LadyofShalott 03:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting Southern women on the map, Lady. I'm glad we got you, and that you passed up on The New Georgia Encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lest there be any confusion, I can take no credit at all for the Shindler article. All I've done there is correct a case. LadyofShalott 03:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)I'm not privy if this is an inside perspective. I did look at your sandbox and must urge you to publish that article soon. It is an omission to not have her as a subject. You may already know this, but since you seemed thrilled to see her referenced in the article shown, I wanted to ensure you reviewed the references in Mary Edwards Bryan. BTW I live about 50 miles east of Athens, so I was immediately interested. My76Strat (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strat, we're neighbors! OK, I'll get back on that - it just feels like so much to do it justice... I'll go check out the Bryan article. LadyofShalott 03:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another Georgian? what is this, an Allman Brothers reunion? Drmies (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a fascinating article. Hey, I got a book suggestion for you, since you can lay claim to real genteel Southernness: The Planter's Northern Bride. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten how much I'd already written. It shouldn't be too hard to get it shaped up enough to put in the mainspace. Bryan is interesting - I didn't know of her before. Now I'll go check out your link, Drm. LadyofShalott 03:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can go straight to this one. I read it in grad school. I'm shocked to see that there is no modern edition of the book: Lady, you should edit and publish it; there's tenure in it... Drmies (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It reads as if you are feeling a little better, LoS. I am glad to see it. - Sitush (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lady, I've tweaked your Southern lady a bit. I didn't touch the blah blah blah; I think that should be the hook. Oh, I put Making Whiteness in my Amazon cart. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, thanks; I am - finally! Drmies - wow. The existence of books like that shouldn't surprise me, but, wow. Thanks for your tweakage - I'm sure you helped it whatever you did. If anyone wants to work with me on filling it out, I'm always open to collaboration. LadyofShalott 04:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've actually seen what you did, thanks again. I particularly like your subdivisions of the bio section - that was useful. BTW, I don't think there will be any A7ing of this once it goes live. It's kind of amazing we don't already have an article about her. LadyofShalott 04:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<--It's the kind of novel that gives you some real interesting insight. For example, there's a dark, mysterious, ultimately evil woman in there. She's dark and sensual, and that's when we learn that Italian=sexually perverted=venereal disease=women overstepping boundaries etc. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
