User talk:Drmies/Archive 40

Wikipedians

You joined the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kiefer. It's not as catchy though. The delete voters in that discussion should join, though, since they seem to be at the forefront of equitable enforcement. I am sure that we will be able to call on them to punish any infractions. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its dull name reflects its source, for better and for worse. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My god, what a bunch of .... never mind. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark that I did not write "You may wish to join the discussion at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion"! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Well, I've had enough for a while. Can you pass the keys to the castle on to the civility police? Drmies (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Department of killing the goose that lays golden eggs: Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About a year later, Hilbert attended a banquet and was seated next to the new Minister of Education, Bernhard Rust. Rust asked, "How is mathematics in Göttingen now that it has been freed of the Jewish influence?" Hilbert replied, "Mathematics in Göttingen? There is really none any more."^[1]

^ Reid 1996, p. 205.

Then, blessing all, 'Go, children of my care!

To practice now from theory repair. 580

All my commands are easy, short, and full:

My sons! be proud, be selfish, and be dull.

Guard my prerogative, assert my throne:

This nod confirms each privilege your own.
— Alexander Pope, The Dunciad

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should instead join the Category:Wikipedians who are members of deleted categories (forever to stay red). ^Bongo_matic 11:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I installed my own red category, feel free to join. - "working towards even enforcement of civility": I vote for voters guides that respect the rules for BLPs, editors are also living people, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized abstract nonsense

My favorite Wikipedia category. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article needing DYK help

Myra Clark Gaines was the plaintiff in the longest lawsuit in U.S. history. It ran 58 years and appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court 17 times. She finally won six years after her death. Bgwhite (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's winning?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do right, please

Hey Doc,

Please forgive me for arriving at your talk page somewhat fashionably late, what with you having archived the conversation you were having with my better half not so long ago. Yes, I tend to stay away from WP when I have work commitments. As in I am turrrble at multitasking. Also, I’m still very much addicted to getting together with my real-life friends. And yes, I was angry with you for saying that you don’t like “Kolbe” anymore without looking at the context. Then again, you probably don’t know what a fine person JN466 is when you’re around him on a daily basis, and I should have taken that into account. Also, I did resent how, in my opinion, you were trying to get some kinda groveling apology out of DC on their talk page. I can’t say I know DC, but I don’t think they’re the groveling kind. And why would they have to be? Their heart seems to be in the right place, and they are more than willing to take risks in order to stop this place from turning into a pit of corruption. I don’t participate much, but I do observe. My gorgeous hubby and the equally lovely DC seem to be among a small minority who, while caring deeply about the project, will catch flak over and over again for being honest about its flaws. You are among the better people I’ve come across around here. Sometimes the better people will have to take a stand, and that includes giving the benefit of the doubt to folks who may not always seem to be toeing the party line but are a net benefit to the project in the long run. Thank you also for removing those horrible pictures from the article on you-know-what. And for bumping up Pym from a C to a B. Just in case you’re about to get serious about literary fiction, “Hunting in Harlem” is still my favorite by Johnson, so you may want to get that one first. And no, I didn’t come here to make a name for myself on the internet this late in my life. But you’re probably wise enough to have figured that out already. I am however still fascinated by people’s life stories, hence my interest in BLPs and in protecting living people from the darker elements that are drawn to this project for their own sordid reasons. You’re in a position to do a great deal of good. Please use it while you can. Draco^E 21:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Draco, just a quick note before I leave this place to its own devices again: I was not looking for a "groveling apology". If DC had said they'd observe the interaction ban, that would have been good enough. Heart is one thing, but there was an interaction ban, simple as that. Now, I'm not going to claim to be lovely or useful, but I do find it remarkable how much flak I get for sticking my neck out: you may have noticed that I was the only one, at least for a while, who even paid attention to DC. And for all that YRC defense, you can go check my RfA: he opposed it, in the silliest of fashions, because I refused to consent to a block for another editor, one who didn't tow the party line (that's all water under the bridge and is here to serve as an example--I have since defended Rob in various places, until recently). Guess who the other naysayer on my RfA was? The other editor. So if anyone knows something about getting bitten by the cat and the dog, it's me.
Now, I don't believe I can do a lot of good. I created one little category, for user space only, and the next thing you know a bunch of folks who don't even know what an article edit looks like are accusing me, in one personal attack after another, of tearing up this beautiful project. I'm sick to my stomach of it, and I'm not the only one. So, if there's anything good to be done here it'll have to be done by others. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pooh, you'll continue to do good for this project or I'll haul your ass to ANI/ArbCom or some other lofty forum and ask that your tools be refreshed (an admin spa treatment accorded only to a select few, much better than botox).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Bbb23, I’ve been considering getting botox of late, just to know what that feels like, given that I seem to be the only one among my circle of lady friends who hasn’t had any “work” done yet. Alternatively, I could just get more involved with this here project, cos that’s bound to stop me from acquiring any more smile lines.

Doc Mies, don’t you dare slink away at a time like this ;) DC didn’t technically break their interaction ban (a ban that they’d asked for to begin with), since they never mentioned the other party’s name. What DC said needed to be said. And ain’t it funny how it’s always DC getting hit with the block stick while the other party gets away with a gentle slap on the wrist whenever they break it. There were other examples on Elen of the Road’s talk page at the time, if memory serves, but they seem to have magically disappeared. Or maybe that's just me growing old, losing marbles, as they say in the UK. And Doc and Bbb, please don’t think for one second that I’m here to defend YRC. I used to believe that YRC was a good egg until recently, when an account on Wikipediocracy whom I believe to be YRC (I may be wrong) posted an incredibly homophobic rant involving Cirt that's since been mercifully deleted. I have no warm feelings about Cirt’s trolling of various Wikimedia sites, but I care deeply about my fabulous friends and the rights they are being denied to this day in various corners of this world. I believe that DC does, too, but then again, what do I know. Doc – I very much appreciated you sticking your neck out, but I wish you’d have been a little more bold. Please don’t leave now. Draco^E 17:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

drmies, don't let the current shitstorm sour you on the whole project. I know you aren't one of these divas who just flies off the handle so that people will ask them to come back, so I assume the reaction to this whole incident has really gotten to you. But you already knew things were far from perfect here, and that sometimes the smallest thing gets blown way, way out of proposrtion and becomes a forest fire of epic proportions. This nine-days-wonder will fade soon enough into the background noise of endless wiki-drama. I find it best to just unwatch any discussion that is causing me to feel wiki-stress. Practice not giving a flying fuck and such things are much easier to deal with. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or do have a flying fuck... was that too much? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can always count on you, Crisco, to elevate the discussion. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am out of this world - check out the caption on the lede image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yowzaa how ever did you find that article? Moreover how is it that it doesn't have a pic from this film in it. MarnetteD | Talk 05:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism and all that, probably. Just remember: WHAAOE — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a second look

I've removed nearly all the crap from Natural breast enhancement, and replaced it with reliable sources with significant coverage. Can you have a second look at the AfD, to either confirm your choice, or change your mind? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After stalking, I voted a conditional keep myself, based on a rename to "supplements". Can't really use "non-invasive", as there are actually other methods that are non-invasive, such as pumps, which I linked at the AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of a Barnstar!

Hello Drmies. I've been stalking your talk page ever since it came to my watchlist. Quite an interesting place you have here; it's only missing a Dylan record playing in the background. At any rate, you seem stressed, and I'm in the mood to advertise my favorite god. So perhaps you'd like to wind down with a little read about a "vigorous, young, graceful and athletic deity marching forward." ;) Cheers. Yazan (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or read an article which would give him fright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Today, Mrs. Kelapstick found our five-year-old reading my (c. 1960s edition of) DuPont's Blaster's Handbook. Fortunately all the detonators are hidden. The good news is for $2.50 DuPont will send me an updated copy of the book. Or so it reads. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to help out...

I'm inviting you to help out in my Channel Listings Wiki. I tried to invite Plasticspork and Magog to help, but they didn't come and most likely refused, so I'm asking you to help instead. ~~LDE JRuff~~ 20:50, 5 November, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not something I'm really interested in. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld has retired.

Dr. Blofeld has retired. Bgwhite (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chonga

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Chonga, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can 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 a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Illia Connell (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined by Nikkimaria. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Syrthiss, Nikkimaria. I appreciate that--it's an article that obviously needs work (but it comes with a history--it wasn't my invention). Drmies (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Election day has come and gone

But I just wanted you to know that you got my vote. more as a protest against the electoral college system, which makes non-battleground-state votes meaningless, but still. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, Writ. You're a good man, and clearly a person of above-average intelligence. You'll have noticed that my state is not that smart, though 63% of my county voted Obama. Our state, unfortunately, chose to prefer Roy's Rock over a real judge for chief justice. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot "devilishly handsome". See if I vote for you again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing rolls out the welcome mat for Jews like a bunch of self-identified Christian fundamentalists talking about "Judeo-Christian values". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'James Potts, a Bibb County financial professional seeking the GOP gubernatorial nod, said displays from all faiths should be allowed on government property -- except if they're Muslim.

"Either you accept our way of life or you go back to another country that is Muslim," Potts said.'

God damn it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy, Writ Keeper--just another Alabamian speaking. It means little once it crosses the Mason-Dixon line. The grammar of "go back to another country that is Muslim", that's the real crime. I have a student this semester who, it appears, might be writing on depictions of Muslims in Western lit (e.g., Inferno 28.22). Change comes one reader at a time, but will probably never come to James Potts. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that...I had such faith in the future of America and humanity after question 6 passed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chonga for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chonga is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chonga (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Illia Connell (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"civil war"

If you don't like that users crazy plan for reform you may appreciate this alternative approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It had to happen, didn't it, that ArbCom things would pop up on my talk page. If there's a lot more of it I might jump back into my sock drawer again. I noticed that Count Iblis makes 250 article edits per year--that's one reason I closed that thread. Beeblebrox, take me to the nearest watering hole please. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

250? That's way too high for any self-respecting non-content contributor. Nobody Ent 02:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfuckingbelievable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it makes you wonder. Or me. The Count did create a half a dozen articles, some of which in English (the others are in math). Ent, that movie, Cover Story, that's possibly the least notable movie ever made--your Amazon link is the most reliable and informative source I could find. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rats!

I thought this was about comic books!

;)

Lately, WP has reminded me too much of Dark City, which is a great movie, btw.

My marriage still stands, despite passage of issue 6 in Maryland. I trust yours does too. Maybe it's time to develop glaucoma and work on the West Coast.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting yes for question 6 was the only reason I voted at all; the good doctor here got my vote for President, despite his astounding lack of flattery. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. You could just move to Colorado, or Amsterdam. My marriage stands as well; let's hope Roy's Rock won't be an obstacle for too many Alabamians. I love Dark City--great movie, though it must have suffered commercially in comparison with The Matrix. We watched it in a graduate seminar on Lacan. Congratulations to Maryland! And Maine! Condolences to us. Writ Keeper, I wrote an incredibly flattering sonnet dedicated to you: I have no doubt it will receive high marks and great popularity when Poetry.com publishes it. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Moore even eligible to run again? He should have been disbarred with that previous... kerfluffle. LadyofShalott 19:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your country, Lady--you tell me. And I'll keep my BLP violations to myself. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading Lacan could make me pine for WP:ANI.

Was I having a bad dream when I heard "Some feminists have trouble with Lacan, because he states that women cannot reason abstractly because we don't have" square-roots of negative one?

In These Times once ran a cartoon on the breakfast cereal "Foucault Flakes: It's French, it must be good". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lacan? As in, the five stages of loss that shape identity? You know, I wonder if some editors ever reached the Oedipal stage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people really hate Lacan, that's a fact. I guess y'all won't be reading my dissertation. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We had him forced down our throats. The fun of poststructuralism. Mind you, he was easier to understand (in brief) than Derrida. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Many thanks for the barnstar and the kind words – they're very much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate good writing, and the effort you have devoted to our too-often dysfunctional project. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RT

I see that you closed my discussion on ANI...which is fine b/c at least I have the attention of an administrator to whom I can explain this situation. You say that the changes I've discussed on the ANI are a matter of WP:CONTENT and should be discussed on the relevant talk page, but not only has the content in dispute already been discussed on the talk page already but I've already went through DNR. The problem is that when I tried to add the material back in the RT article, I was handed a block of one week for edit warring, even though most of the content I was putting into the article already had consensus. At this point, I'm at a loss for what to do, I've went through the dispute resolution process and came out with consensus for my edits, but if I put the content back in the RT article again, I run the risk of getting blocked indefinitely. Is this something you can help with? Festermunk (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I see at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_52#RT_.28TV_network.29 is that no consensus was reached. I can't tell whether there is consensus on individual points or not. You should probably follow the advice given at the closure of that thread. All of which you know, since you linked to that thread, and all of which begs the question of why you'd run to ANI the moment your block expired. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I went to ANI once my block expired was because I thought that that was the next step in the dispute resolution process for the kind of issue that I'm encountering.

You're right overall there was no consensus reached on DNR, but consensus was reached on individual points, especially the ones referred to on the ANI. The problem is that if I follow your advice that I, "follow the advice given at the closure of that thread" I'll risk an indefinite block...thus the catch-22. I'm not sure how to proceed, perhaps if I make the changes on the RT page and then you go through the edits to make sure they conform to the DNR and points raised by User CarolmooreDC? Festermunk (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good approach. On the article talk page there is a section you started called "Reception section", which seems to relate to the individual points on which you think some consensus was reached. Why don't you list the points, with some support as to consensus, and get some confirmation of consensus there? Editing the article itself and asking Drmies to review them is (a) too much work for Drmies and (b) the wrong way to resolve a content dispute that Drmies isn't really a part of.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what I'm talking about, the changes that I propose to add (as explained on the ANI) already have confirmation via the DNR or the talkpage As the DNR itself was initiated by this paragraph, I really can't see what the point of trying to reach the consensus again. Festermunk (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've already listed the points on which you believe consensus has been reached at ANI (I ain't gonna read it all), then it should be easy for you to list those points on the talk page. Obviously, I can't speak from knowledge, but it is just barely possible that you and others might disagree as to whether consensus was actually reached on particular points.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can (and upon your persistent suggestion will) list them but again what good will that do? There's already consensus on the specific edits I'm making, so I don't see why it would be necessary to find consensus again. Perhaps you can elaborate further in the reception's section. Festermunk (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bbb--also for your concern for my health. The people to involve in this matter are the original participants in the discussion and any other interested party (that's not me--not yet anyway), and follow the suggestion of the last thread--which is to start a new thread or a new forum. ANI is never that forum. Bon appetit and cheers everyone, Drmies (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Have some.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My only knowledge of this topic is this very thread, but reading it makes me think that mediation is the logical next step. It doesn't sound to me like that's been tried yet.(?) LadyofShalott 18:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right--but see ANI. Now I'm going to eat some soup. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, time for mediation, or at least a WP:3O. LadyofShalott 18:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC block

The AN thread concluded with the reduction of DC's block to its original two week term [1]. Nobody Ent 11:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Well, that settles that nicely then. Ent--am I that interesting to you? :) Drmies (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My areas of interest are primarily the dispute resolution venues, and I frequently update my watchlist based on recent activity therein. Nobody Ent 19:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. I thought I was special, or your friend. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you are "interesting to" me or not is orthogonal to whether you are special. I have no reason not to believe you are special, regardless of my relative interest in you at any time. Additionally, based on my sporadic, non-random (not statistically valid) observation, it appears you have a (well-deserved) number of wiki-friends, so it's unclear to me why whether I'm a member of the set of Drmies' friends is important to you. Actually, I was wondering if I was particularly interesting to you, as your suspect assertion about Cover Story -- surely Bloody blender [2] is even less notable? -- and edits of Carly Foulkes surely aren't coincidental? Nobody Ent 22:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mweh, I'm all over the place, like a little bird, and trouble finds me everywhere. I wish I had the energy and concentration to actually do some useful work. BTW, I don't know what I did to deserve anyone's friendship here, but I'm fortunate enough to have gotten to know some real nice people, and some real fine editors. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Sorry, Dr. Mies. I'm not at all feeling well about the turn things have taken. I'll take the rest of the day off, I think, and try to cool off a bit. Kraxler (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you may have gotten carried away. I don't know where you are, but if you were here, you could take the dog for a walk on a cold but sunny day, that often helps me out. All the best. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in São Paulo, and it's raining. So I rather watch an old episode of Derrick on DVD. I'll have a look at the incident board again tomorrow... Kraxler (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Derrick! Ah, the good old days. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin Move

Hey, you have been involved in the article in the past. A new (to the article) editor just moved the page. As this has been very controversial in the past, I reverted the move. You may want to keep an eye out in case this starts another flare up in the article. See you on the flipside! Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I move-protected it; hopefully in the future they'll take it up on the talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't encourage drive-by scoldings on AN/I and get Niteshift36 off of my talk page

When you act like you did after my posting on AN/I to encourage people who call others nazis and to enbolden editors who don't contribute but take the opportunity to scold,[3] you encourage behavior like Niteshift36's current badgering on my talk page.[4]

If you were less concerned with social networking on Wikipedia and more concerned about creating an encyclopedia you might see that not encouraging ;;8Niteshift36 to harass editors who are correcting crap on Wikipedia could benefit the encyclopedia.

Thank you for using your admin status to create a hostile atmosphere for editing. Now gather up your friends committee, and get them off of my talk page, please. Thank you. And please don't respond to this, just stop. -Fjozk (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't agree with Niteshift's comments, I've noted before that you may want to watch your tone and read WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I strongly suggest you follow that suggestion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sunshine, you never told me to stop posting on your page until your last little rant. Now you've told me, I've acknowledged it and instructed you to avoid mine as well. Now that you've had your opportunity to play the victim again, you should be satisfied. I do have to admit my error earlier. I was incorrect to say you looked whiney. It's not a look...... Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Fjozk (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't encourage nothing. You are hereby ordered to stay off my talk page, forever. If you feel the need to open another thread against me somewhere, you can tell anyone around and they can find me. Sheesh. Niteshift, are you in education, by any chance? Drmies (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am partially in education, but I know I'm not going to be able to teach anything in this instance. 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I do have to say that I think it's tacky and a bit wrong for someone to tell me to not post on their talk page, insist on it in various forum and still talk about me on said page where my response would likely earn me a block. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, maybe, but just take it in stride, I'd say. Just ignore it. Be like the honey badger: honey badger doesn't give a shit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be like this honey badger. I was unfamiliar with The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger--thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

meh, I find amusement in the sadness of it. Probably makes me a horrible human being. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Crying Game: Chapelle, Klinefelter, or double dosage?

Fjork seems to be planning to take you to arbcom. He also thinks you are a lady. So... if I may ask... How You Doin'? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, she/he/it hasn't seen a photo of Drmies. Whew, he is ugly enough as a man, but a woman? On the other hand, Drmies does become quite bitchy. Hmmmm.... :) Bgwhite (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  That ANI thread was more coherent, more satisfying, but ultimately more confused than usual---and that was a remarkable accomplishment.
  
  The Mrs. confirmed that "XX" chromosomes are conventionally female. Maybe somebody was referring to your swinging two dicks? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:42, 10 November 2012

My favorite part was when the ANI thread literally descended into "You are", "no you are". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even this ANI thread read like the Wisdom of Solomon after the TLTR community discussion on Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a looksee, I suppose. Well, I appreciate Fjozk not jumping to conclusions, that every Wikipedian (or not-Wikipedian), or admin, or human being should be male. I'm a big fan of singular they myself, and used it on the Dutch wiki the other day--it sounds very odd in Dutch. Bgwhite, I'm not going to pay attention to your usual insults, except, of course, to say that I've seen hemorrhoids prettier than you. I understand what it is: for you there is only One, and she is fictional and dead, and I want you to know you have my sympathy, what little sympathy I have, since you did make at least one very true statement. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hammadi

Just so you know, Ali violated your 4im, and then went on to vandalize my page five times after I re-CSD'ed him. Just in case you get this before someone responds to the AIV notice. It's been fun tag-teaming with you! — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. They're gone; sorry they had to come by and vandalize your user page. Kids! :) Drmies (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha it's fine. Nothing tells you you're doing a good job patrolling like a battle wound or two! — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Francophonie, a la prochaine. Hey, it's late here: care to hold the fort? I know you're going to invite your young and lively friends in, but please don't let them take the silver or break the china. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bien sûr, Madame. Bonne nuit. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madame, encors? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know. Mrs. Drmies isn't always so sure either, I suppose. She mentioned the other day that I'm 3/4 female. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which quarter is male?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One would think the lower-middle. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[ec with a misogynist] I'll tell you when I'm done doing the dishes and vacuuming the rugs. In the meantime, why don't you read up on the Spade-toothed whale? There are still things to learn in the world, which is why Wikipedia is so kewl. I kind of want to move to New Zealand now, given that it's "surrounded by massive oceans". Just the sound of that, "New Zealand is surrounded by massive oceans". Did you see my unblock screw-up, below? A tad embarrassing. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A mysogenist, eh? Perhaps that explains my fascination with Frank's Cock... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco, that looks like a fascinating flick. I'd never heard of it; thanks. But I'll put you at ease: I am convinced (and scholarship on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Marie de France bears this out, in my opinion) that homophobia and misogyny go hand in hand. Or, to put it funkier, those who hate women hate men also. Anyways, that's ESSAY/OR/SYNTH. Ladies, I have an essay on werewolves to finish, so I'll leave you all to it. Sometime later I'll share an anecdote on talking homosexuality in the classroom, involving Nisus, Euryalus, and Southern boys. Well, it sounds like I'm promising too much, it really wasn't all that big. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, this has got to be fun to hear. And here I am writing about postcolonialism in a work by Armijn Pane. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I (along with, perhaps, the other [less friendly] editor who mistook you for a woman) was going off of the userbox that states "This user is totally owned by ~~his~~ her two daughters and one boy." And aside from having absolutely loved the Lais and hated Sir Gawain, I failed to notice any homophobia in either (which makes sense, since at that time I'd also failed to notice any homosexuality in myself!)... what did I miss?! (The misogeny in either work being a given.) I did read them the same year I read The Canterbury Tales, and I have a teacher who's absolutely convinced that Chaucer meant to imply a (not wholly consensual) homosexual relationship between Chanticleer and the Fox. Then again, I go to a school where one (rather conservative) teacher assigned us a lesbian love poem to memorize in our second week of sixth grade, and then, four years later, Honoré de Balzac's Père Goriot (an 1835 work featuring a rather openly gay quasi-villain). — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'tis late here, so in brief--think of Guinevere in Lanval: "I've heard it say that you have many young men with whom you take your pleasure". Then, consider--what if the Lady had had sex with Sir Gawain? How would Gawain "return" that gift to the Lord? Who'd be top, bottom? The door is opened at a crack and closed immediately since Gawain (in complete contrast to the Gawain of just about every other Gawain romance) does not have sex with her. There's a fascinating essay, "A Kiss is Just a Kiss: Gawain and the Consolations of Heterosexuality" by Carolyn Dinshaw, which places this in a historical context, and look at Gawain's manuscript context--the MS contains a text whose sole purpose is to argue against sodomy. Anyway, then note how Gawain at the end of his story blames woman for his downfall (typical of misogynist clerks) and how in Lanval the fairy lady has to prove her beauty in a swimsuit contest. This is all shorthand, of course, but I find it remarkable that stereotypical attitudes toward woman and sometimes violent accusations of homosexuality go hand in hand. Hence my all-too quick and easy law: men who hate women hate men as well. Translate as something like "stereotypical (and of course heterosexual) men who hate women in the traditional misogynist way are also apt to exhibit a kind of fear of homosexuality that typically translates in violence against gays". I'll spare you some of the details I got from, you know, football players in my freshman comp class at Tennessee, for instance. Was the poem Goblin Market? "Hug me, kiss me, suck my juices"? Drmies (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misogynists = misanthropes? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on your behalf...

[5] JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reiterated the conditions, but they probably should have been clarified in the accepted unblock (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops--thanks so much, gents: you are absolutely correct. I guess I don't do unblocks often enough to get the routine right. I left a note. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Boy, that was an annoying episode, wasn't it? I told Fjozk that I won't hold a grudge, so I won't, but I can still breath a sigh of relief now. AutomaticStrikeout 15:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, I suppose, but I can't say I feel good about how I acted there. In general that may not matter given that I'm not the only one they tried to rub the wrong way, but I should have behaved with better decorum. No good deed goes unpunished, that's a fact, but I wish I could take that in stride and just move on. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was some unpleasantness on both sides, as Writ Keeper kinda noted above. Still, if Fjozk is going to accuse me of bullying and you of harassment (and his allegations are at least overblown), he should at least first bother to make sure that he isn't guilty of both things himself. AutomaticStrikeout 15:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I warned him the second I saw his tone... and he's still planning on bringing you to ArbCom, through email. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Crisco. What can I say--I trust ArbCom to have enough sense. See, I'm essentially a sheep. I still don't rightly understand how the process works, what was enacted against Malleus and how, and I think I don't really agree. But in the meantime, well, they're sort of my boss, I reckon. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, bosses pay you more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he's not interested in an unblock, so I guess he just wants me cut. Well, we'll see, or not. All this does remind me of a couple of previous editors and the whole "admin abuse" accusation, pointing to a kind of blue wall. Funny thing is, there is some kind of truth to it: often admins do tend to stick together, but in most (probably not all) cases because they're reading policy correctly, for instance. On another note--we should have some kind of article on the importance of Indonesia in Dutch culture, shouldn't we. I was telling someone about the Chinezenmoord the other day and it occurred to me that if I, as a schoolkid, had had access to (and interest in) Wikipedia I might have asked some questions during class. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would be an undertaking. Right now I'm still polishing Theory of Literature, which is taking longer than I expected. Who'd have thought that New Criticism could be so dry? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I knew that. A poem should be palpable and mute like a globed fruit blah blah. Crisco, that is a very, very impressive piece of work. You know, I admire you for tackling that sort of article. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at RfA

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...riding with Napoleon toward Waterloo"

Just saw that I was the object of discussion at ANI, and got a snicker out of your comment. More proof that no good deed goes unpunished. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, you're kind of a nice guy. I must admit to another screw-up: in my edit summary I confused Le Rouge et le Noir with The Charterhouse of Parma. Fortunately both involve Napoleon, and both are mandatory reading (for all you talk page stalkers). I should be more careful. Good seeing you again here, Dennis. You're balm on the Wound Of Football. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to be back at more or less full pace. I needed a break, was getting grumpy. I need to work a little less at SPI and ANI, ie: take my own advice about not staying in contentious areas all the time. It is important that I keep a positive attitude, both for myself and for those who actually benefit from some of the things I try to do. I'm going to try to spend at least 1/3 of my time on actual articles. I've been admin long enough now to understand better how someone can get cynical in this job, and I'm going to make sure I'm not one of those that do. Once January gets here, I will be more scarce for a few months, the seasonality of my long time profession, but at least I can plan for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a couple of redlinks at Q & Q. It would be helpful if you learned Dutch--do you have the day off tomorrow? Drmies (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen an essay somewhere that has a dab along the lines of This article is about admins who are content editors; for content admins, see Oxymoron. - Sitush (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is Wikipedia:Content_admin. - Sitush (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who you callin' moron? Drmies (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from Nikkimaria, that' remarkably unexciting writing. That's what happens when one writes bureaucratically acceptable, maybe, though it's not as bad as the drivel I splatter all over the admin noticeboards. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. At the time it was basically written as a dicdef, and I haven't bothered elaborating on it since. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a back-asswards compliment, Nikkimaria. ;) Hey, thanks for sending me the PDF, and you were right--there was no there there. Pity, I was so excited when I misread the citation... Drmies (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... nor, indeed, the drivel I splatter all over this talk page ;) - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is brilliant

I couldn't possibly do it but I think this is just a beautiful idea: eat fruit to avoid sin and sustain life. Being a bacon lover etc does not stop me from appreciating the sentiment. - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit has evolved to be pooped, e.g., by bears, the better to sow seeds.

"We sow the seeds, then nature grows the seeds, and then we eat the seeds". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have someone there who puts their money where their mouth is, and who feels guilty for not being able to fully live according to their principles. They're way ahead of me. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jainists apparently sweep before themselves to protect microbes from crushing force. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re A barnstar for you!

Thank you for the barnstar but I must admit I only did a bit of research, and it appears others did some very good editing and sourced expansion from there. — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every bit helps, and you did more than I did the first time around. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, okay, you're most welcome! :) I hope you're doing well, Drmies, — Cirt (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your work easily deserved a barnstar too cirt. There's about a million hits for Chonga but not many are on topic, so few would have found all the good sources you came up with. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I really appreciate that! — Cirt (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition Of World Terror Attacks having Global Impact on Indian Army Chief , General Sundararajan Padmanabhan's Page.

World terrorist events which had an impact on India and were a prelude to what is planned for the Indian State of Tamilnadu by same terrorists by bombing with W88 .That is why I have included in the page of General Sundararajan Padmanabhan all those events which were part of the axis of evil planned by the terrorist organization called Palestine Liberation Organization.If you still think that the lives of so many people by nuclear holocaust on an Indian state is of no concern to you then you can revert my edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88

Mamtapolicedhody (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Jesus. You know, I think the world might be coming to an end if people keep simply copying and pasting shit from other websites rather than doing just a little bit of work themselves. It's called writing. One more copyvio (you've been warned plenty) and your career is over. And don't try to talk some guilt complex into me. I'm a Calvinist--I got more guilt than you have consonants. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the Chongas!

Thanks for my barnstar. You're too kind, no doubt you would of expanded it at least as well if you'd had a couple of hours free. Say, do you do DYK? If it survives AfD and you used a hook like this, you'd catch about 30k hits and probably be in the top 3 for November:

... that the Chonga (pictured) has became a Miami icon, influencing fashion in South Florida and beyond?

Readers will be like "Who knew?" and we can be like "We know all that there is to know..." LOL! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Writ Keeper. Thank you for your article, which appears to be a disgustingly blatant POV piece. The caption on the page image makes an unsourced claim that the pictured women are attractive. Your letter of resignation is expected by close of business today. Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you decide to stay! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that too and thought about placing a cn tag there. Writ Keeper, you're an admin now; please follow up on the action you proposed. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously too distracted by the picture to notice 'has became' ;) SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed that the whole thing needs a good proofread; I'm working on it. Is there a guideline about "Latina" vs. "Hispanic"? I don't know which of the two is PC, but we probably shouldn't use both within the same paragraph (the lede, no less.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK. Hadn't looked for that yet--I'm about to review a couple of nominations. Well, both terms seem to denote culture as well as ethnicity. I prefer culture since I don't believe in race; the disadvantage of "Latin@" (that's my invention--an o as well as an a) is that it's grammatically gendered, but in this article it's mostly feminine anyway. Stick with Latina, maybe. Thanks WK. Feyd, I put you, Cirt, and me all in there as authors; I hope that's OK with you. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Latina, since other derivations of the word are used later in the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put it up. I'll go review something. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just glad someone had the sense to put a footnote with an explanation of what "Brazilian jeans" are...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quickie request

Hi there Drmies, quickie request, can you please remove me from here? I highly respect contributors there but at this point in time I'd rather not be part of that process. Hope you understand, — Cirt (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Cirt. I thought the recognition would be OK with you, you certainly deserve it. Instead, I will toast you with a Rince Cochon, right now. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sounds tasty, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nude Records

Could I ask you to have a look at the seemingly ongoing edit war on this article. I did try to assist a little time ago, but it appears that the record label owner, or someone close to him; and a possible disgruntled client, or someone close to him; are playing edit ping-pong to try to make their point. In some ways I do not have an opinion either way on the matter but, as usual, it does not do Wikipedia's reputation any good seeing an article constantly ebbing and flowing to reflect particular editor's viewpoints.

(I thought Nude Records might sit nicely with your boobies and tits). Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected it for a month due to the slow nature of the edit war. I'll take a deeper look at it now and post on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well! SmartSE! I was just going to do the same thing! Drmies (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped an EW warning on the page of the named editor (and a welcome template). I was going to appoint Derek Bullamore as a kind of overseer, and suggest that they get a conversation started. But thanks for beating me to it--I gotta go cook dinner and, you know, talk to family members and stuff, since they're in the same room. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike ey! I've dropped notes on their talk pages so hopefully they will start talking. I came across User_talk:Dancingqueen100 which shows they'd been wanting someone with a mop to turn up for a while. But yep, Derek if you can try and help discuss it with them that would be great. SmartSE (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks chaps, (old school British English, I'm afraid) for your swift action. As I said, I do not have a view either way - but I will try to assist any meaningful discussion. I suspect this is a deep seated grievance, that will see both parties slink away to lick their wounds ready to fight in another forum. Anyhoo, whatever (new school, American English). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we got that taken care of. Boy, this page can be helpful. It doesn't even need me. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as your creation of Hetty Blok, appears to be too constructive and has been suppressed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please remember that you are an endangered species and as such should time to familiarise yourself with our supreme leaders and their holy words to ensure your survival. You can find more information at the forest of despair, which also provides further ideas for contributing less constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use Encyclopedia Dramatica for that. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks pal--but you might not be so pleased when you see what I just reviewed for DYK and what I had to say. Trouble, trouble. And besides, if I get a level-1 warning for a simple little article (B-class, maybe), you should be blocked for that mass of GAs and FAs. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, "AFD is another three letter word." As for the mass... not at 100 yet! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Frost778 evading block

Block evasion by User:Frost778 with IP 75.51.172.205 & his/her talk page (see Template_talk:History of Armenia and User_talk:Kentronhayastan). S/he got blocked again for edit warring.

Your recent closing

(1) I I was not familiar with the slang "bollocks"' so I looked it up, my browser blocked the search results as inappropriate. (Safari/ device IPad), I would provide a screen shot image on request. So apparently the term's in-offensiveness is not universal. (2) Editors should not launch personal attacks, he uses terms for flatulence, testicles to describe my edits, he insinuates "To be honest, it seemed like another example of your subtle pedantry when it comes to pushing your various Indic/Hindutva etc agenda" regarding a practice that was indulged in because of lack of knowledge and which was corrected when it was brought to my notice by another editor. (3) At AN/I I was not looking for penal action against him per se, I could have rather preferred Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, but it is inactive. Is there any way for him to be persuaded to oblige to be a little less rude? (4) You could ask me to avoid him, well I do it, it is he who follows me all around the place, which of course he is free to do. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh,

I already said that you should re-evaluate your edits and behavior. Sitush is not somebody who is mean to new editors or harsh to anybody. Sitush's cleaning up after you is a serious wake-up call.

A second wake-up call is the suggestion that you might need some serious administrative action from Blade of the Northern Lights, who is especially protective of young editors from Asia and who often disagrees with me (i.e., he is often wrong!).

Please try to go a month or two on your best behavior and try to learn from suggestions from these two editors. They do not mean you ill.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh, I cannot be held responsible for your browser's preferences. I will put my faith in a good dictionary. "Bollocks" is so mild that it is perfectly acceptable just about everywhere--"damn", "blast", "nonsense", "rubbish" are given in the OED (more authoritative than anyone's browser) as synonyms. No testicles. "Farting around" has, of course, nothing to do with farting. It's a prepositional verb whose meaning is idiomatic and as such is unrelated to flatulence. Any good dictionary can tell you that. Now, ANI is for calling administrators' attention to matters--but this was not a matter that needed any kind of attention. I'm not going to ask you to avoid him, since that will be hard to do given that you work in the same areas, nor will I ask him to be less rude since, in my opinion, he wasn't rude to begin with. At best he was exasperated. Sitush's comments about what he perceives to be your agenda require no attention either: it is valid for him to make such comments even if unwelcome to you, no doubt. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British police[6] ~~and courts~~ considered bollocks "deemed to cause harassment, alarm or distress", I've no cause to suspect that they didn't have access to good dictionaries. Safari (web browser) is not "my browser" and I didn't set any preferences. Wikipedia though not a reliable source informs that "The word "fart" is generally considered unsuitable in formal situations as it may be considered vulgar or offensive". If you think AN/I is not the place to bring civility issues you would perhaps suggest another place. Thank you for your time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the courts held differently ... see Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh, you seem to have misread the article that you cite. The courts said no such thing, as BWilikins highlights & I did, temporarily, with a non-free use image here. And the police decision was never tested - fixed penalty fines rarely are, because they're fairly cheap and the appeal process is a lot of paperwork. If you want to pursue the matter further, WP:WQA suggests Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, wherein the most likely candidate would seem to be Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_user conduct disputes. I might take a photo of one of my shirts later: you can guess what word is on it and, no, I've never even been pulled by the police despite often moving in similar circles. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh, seriously. Are you just trying to find something to ~~bitch~~ complain about? LadyofShalott 19:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless that is a rhetorical question...; I leave it for you to judge, bodily excretory functions or genetalia have been used as metaphors in relation to my edits. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was rhetorical. I think what people are telling you is that now would be an excellent time to drop this and move on. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word isn't offensive to most, and if it was we aren't censored, but denying that the word does mean testicles seems foolish. Contrary to the assertion above testicles is the #1 definition in the OED, with the "rubbish" definition as #2. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no: you're probably looking at "bollock", singular. That it's plural is essential, it seems to me. Look for "bollocks, int". Drmies (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bollocks Gaijin42 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cant help but link this version of the definition, which has to be the most ironic possible. Im sure that editor had a nice chuckle : http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bollocks Gaijin42 (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford dictionary calls bollocks British Vulgur Slang. Plural. Thanks Gaijin42 for the link. There are lots of admins here they could persuade Sitush not to be vulgur. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We won't though. Drop it, really. This is not an issue worth pursuing. LadyofShalott 03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] And the OED does not. Nor does common sense. Yogesh, this discussion is over. Go ask on other admins' talk pages and see how you fare there. You obviously think I was wrong--well, great. You either live with it and suck it up, or you go try and make your case somewhere else. Not here. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safari went from "my browser" to "not my browser" in just under 11 hours, there. Does Apple have a user retention problem? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, Uncle. Good to see you again. You're here to do Mission Impossible, of course--what is it that you want written up by half a dozen editors spread out over more than a dozen articles this time? Drmies (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All in good time. In the meanwhile, relax and watch Ihcoyc explode. I notice that there's a small drive on at AFD to rid us of advertisements masquerading as articles. Do you think that an article that doesn't mention the Barry Scott astroturfing by Cohn & Wolfe (Taylor 2005 and Carter et al. 2011, p. 223), but has an introduction that is top-heavy with buzzwords, might qualify? ☺
  - Taylor, Catharine P. (2005-10-11). "The creepiest marketing story ever told". AdWeek. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  - Carter, Ben; Brooks, Gregory; Catalano, Frank; Smith, Bud E. (2011). Digital Marketing For Dummies, UK Edition. For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781119997771. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
- Uncle G (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch treats

Also, you can regard Drmies's close as your having gotten in Dutch and needing a talk from a Dutch uncle. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer, some of the definitions on that page look decidedly dodgy to me. I've changed one: it wasn't sourced and I've not sourced it either, but it was baloney and whe I get my big Oxford dictionary out, I'll prove it. Hopefully! And I've opened a thread on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My grandmother's "got in Dutch" was missing also. Dipping into the OED is tonic for the soul. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've made a start at Talk:Dutch_uncle#Phrases. What bollocks, ahem, there is in that article. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not have to do much real research: Bollocks is pretty clear in the lede as to the meaning. This wasn't even WQA-worthy of a situation, and in the long run will actually reduce the level of responses you'll get in the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bw, it could be that Yogesh cannot see that article either. He's in India and the censorship can be quite extreme (although seemingly not so extreme as to prevent him from seeing the word in my comment - odd, that). - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite in the news

I don't know if this is good or not. But, my name showed up in Gawker. Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is so cool, Bg. I wish I ran into important stuff like that. Good for you! Drmies (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As usual, they get the technical details wrong. 64.101.72.113 isn't a proxy server, as they mildly suggest, it is one of their own outbound routers for their own use for one of their Colorado facilities. It would have been an employee. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

history of ANI

Dear not-friend. ;) The top of ANI says "administrators and experienced editors" because in 2011, the administrator sub-community took upon themselves to speak for the entire community in approving frickin ads in Wikipedia. It was, in fact, the only time I was actually really pissed while contributing to WP. Discussion (long) here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive731#Harvard.2FScience_Po_Adverts. (Of course, as a longstanding WQA volunteer I have to move with WQA to its new home commingled with reports incidents requiring assistance from editors with sysop bits.) NE Ent 23:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Thanks for the correction, I suppose--I will quibble and say that the two editors are not sufficiently experienced, though they have had some experience with administrators, as their block log demonstrates. Also, I don't believe you go to ANI to sling mud like these two did (I'm biting my tongue trying to stay within certain parameters). Drama often comes when emotionally involved non-admins come to the party to air out all their grievances. Also, Ed is so clean that he puts soap to shame. Thanks for the note anyway, Ent, Drmies (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant to information, not correction. I agree with you about participation on a admin incident board on the Wikipedia-that-should-be, but I contribute to the Wikipedia-that-is. NE Ent 03:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it was a correction. I went and had a look and you were correct. I wish we could have a filter of some sort. The dramah at ANI comes not from administrators taking or not taking action, or from the very cases brought up there, or from jokers like me bantering around: it comes from people with grudges or little else to do. It reminds me of the question they always ask in the emergency room when you show up there with a bleeding head and a concussion on a Saturday night--were you in a fight, and are those guys following you to finish it? It's those guys that often prolong the agony, like with Delicious carbuncle a couple of weeks ago. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up post

Your recent post requesting assistance on the talk page of another editor seems to be messed up somehow. Nonetheless, I might suggest either "led to" or "culminated in". Risker (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... or "yielded"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which would still leave the ugly word "discography" in the sentence, used only by Wikipedia and stores trying to sell you the "complete box set of X's records" in a way that makes you forget you already have all the component parts. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ban use of "discography" on Wikipedia for a modest proposal (forthcoming...) Bencherlite ^Talk 01:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. The big guns are here! Risker, I think what you're pointing at was fixed, I trust--an odd AutoFilled entry. I do like "yielded", Newyorkbrad, and I'm going to keep that in the bank for future use. (BTW, the whole thing was a trap, to see how quickly ArbCom responds to a new posting on Malleus's talk page...) But Bencherlite, yours, on Malleus's page, is nicely economical; may I suggest, though, that "Filmography" is a greater and much more imminent danger to our linguistic health. Thank you all very much on behalf of DYK volunteers, regular editors, suspicious editors, non-Wikipedians, and no-goodniks everywhere. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the trap you set, and I'm glad you like my wordings - can I add "winningest" to the lists of words that Arbcom should ban? Bencherlite ^Talk 09:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Going forward." "Having said that." "Featured." Drmies (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Yielded" (like alternating "pushforwards" and "pullbacks") sounds like bodice-ripping or mathematics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of an underwear ripping I once performed. Seems like a lifetime ago--wait, it is! Drmies (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion help

Hello, you marked an article I posted on Reporting in Indigenous Communities for speedy deletion. I am a former student and it is a course offered at the University of British Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. The point to the article is not to advertise, but to provide people, including potential incoming students, with information to help them make their decision. If you could please provide with with some tips on how to improve this article so it will not be deleted in the future that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. jchittley (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jchittley--thank you for your question. I think that Jimfbleak covered it pretty well on your own talk page: it's a matter of tone, mostly, plus a lack of reliable (independent) sources. To provide people with tools for decision making is not one of the encyclopedia's goals, I'm afraid: articles need to be written in a neutral tone, with verified information, and reliable sources to establish notability and accuracy. A next step could be to rewrite and send it through the W:AFC process (click on the link and you'll see)--but individual courses are rarely notable as subjects, with the possible exception of De Saussure's Course in General Linguistics. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for taming Catalina Foothills High School, an article I feared editing because it was so unwieldy! Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that article still needs a lot of work. I just did some heavy cutting. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given your interests...

...in women and football, I stumbled upon the Huntsville Tigers (the article, not the team)...are teams that are part of the Women's Spring Football League de facto notable now? I have been out of the game for a while (both women and football). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's certainly exciting for some people. You know, I have yet to watch a game of lingerie football. Amazing how that is not yet part of the culture war--I guess rednecks, born-again or not, like to watch women in underwear. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Burlesque dancer/actress Mia Merode may be notable per WP:CORONATIONSTREET...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha, I was going to say "tell Bgwhite"--guess what, he's been all over it already. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, it had to be done. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Haha, hadn't seen that he had yet been there yet. Maybe he is looking for tickets to her show. Want to go to Legoland Florida in March? We will be down in Fort Lauderdale visiting my dad, might take a swing up there. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ich don't think so, but don't tell the family 'cause they'll want to go. Tell you what, I'll look into it, but chances are we're going nowhere: I think we all have spring break in different weeks. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, no worries, I am sure that with my dad living part time in Florida (life's rough, eh?) we will be making several trips, especially with my family's penchant for Walt Disney World (which I don't think we will hit up this time). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

←Can you have a look at Jennifer Liu, I tagged a few of the contributions by Jwfsocial (talk · contribs), but the wall of fire at the office won't even let me bring up coffee shop pages for copyvio comparison...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph is word-for-word from this autobiography. The Academics is the company's "about us" age with the pronouns altered. And I have things to do. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Uncle, I flagged the first as a copyvio, and The Academics I had flagged for various other reasons, along with HABITU.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I was hoping that there would be a way to solve the problem that didn't require a block, but I appreciate your willingness to pull the trigger, so to speak. Thanks--Go Phightins! 03:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hogtie bondage

Did you notice that the owner is back? So is all the stuff you deleted ... Of course, now with "references". Facepalm Andreas JN 466 06:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're gone, and they got a spam-3 warning in return. Andreas, you know you don't need me to revert that. My added weight as an editor, if I have any, is from hot wings, not from being part of the admin category. ;) Please send your better half my regards. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just hate getting into squabbles with editors like that, and while I might have the weight, I don't have the gravitas to leave warning templates like that. At any rate, thank you, and will do. Andreas JN 466 08:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost778

Hello Drmies. Does the fun ever stop? I've opened a sockpuppet report to centralize what we know about Frost778. One of the blocks you issued at AN3 on 9 November is briefly mentioned there. If you know anything more, please add it. The main concern right now is to find and block all of his ranges. He is more of an extremely productive nuisance than a serious vandal. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I got a belly full of Boerenkoolstamppot, and now I'm watching AFV with my daughter--I'm pretty happy. But yes, the fun never stops. I'll have a look--thanks. Oh, I'm sure you know I know nothing about range blocks... Drmies (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, charming. No, I have nothing more to offer. Is there any point in getting a ban? Wait--I just saw User:Ararat arev. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Boerenkoolstamppot sounds like it would be dangerously high in carbohydrates. Everything else sounds very good, better than thinking about SPI anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you should drink Mmmmilk (AfD discussion) instead. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for intervention at Fiscal cliff

My request for assistance at ANI was summarily closed and you said we should discuss the issue on the talk page of the article, however, the reason I made the request at ANI was because FurrySings refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. ??? I'm not looking for anyone to take sides on anything. I want FurrySings to discuss his proposed changes to the article on the talk page, but he won't -- he just keeps edit warring. So what do you do when someone refuses to discuss on the talk page? I need some assistance here please. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Admins have no special authority over content, this and blocking is all we have to help in content disputes. . Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't so much a content dispute as it is a disruptive editor. If a post at ANI is not the proper procedure to follow, then how should the situation be handled. What do you do when someone keeps making disruptive edits and refuses to discuss the article on the talk page? Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkie, I thought I made it clear at the ANI thread that I disagree with that assessment. You think you're dealing with a disruptive editor; I, with my tin-foil admin hat on, think I'm dealing with two edit warriors. Yours truly, Drmies (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Request for intervention at Fiscal cliff"... doesn't all of America want this too? Too bad Beblebrox can't block some politicians. Bgwhite (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If only... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be like a mass rollback of Republicans. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Country western dance organizations

Hi. I understand your removal of the off-site hyperlinks from Country-western dance, but why did you remove the whole Organization section? I think the Long Island one might just be a local club with a high-falutin' name, since it's described as a clearinghouse for local events and lessons, but the others are all overarching organizations—at least, I know UCWDC is, and that one could be wikilinked. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Largoplazoa--if it's an organization notable by our standards, and/or has an article, by all means go ahead and link it. The problem with a lot of those links in many articles is the directory aspect, of course, but also the skewing toward US and other English-speaking countries. How overarching an organization is can often be a matter of dispute, but if you think you have an argument, by all means reinstate the link, preferably with a description that indicates the relevance etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Q & Q

On 18 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Q & Q, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that an actor who played a dead body in the Dutch television series Q & Q was later found in the same position after being murdered in his apartment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Q & Q. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Drmies

I found this photo of Drmies on his Facebook page. I really don't want to know what Drmies and Mrs. Drmies do in the bedroom. Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly something to do with Bacon mania? I'm still confused by Drmies' Tiresias thingummybob.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I soundly regret opening that in class. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco! That's too funny. Rosie is asking why I'm laughing, but how do I explain this to a three-year old? Drmies (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um... grin and bear it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“Mmm … bacon” --SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, there really is no way to unsee something, is there? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That bacon smell lingers, doesn't it. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T-shirt?

I edit Wikipedia TheSpecialUser ^TSU 11:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support you, if only to get you to cover the bacon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this appears to be the de-facto page for Wikipedia T-shirt lulz, I think I should get a customised one that has just the sentence "I edit Wikipedia biographies of zoologists", followed by six or seven references from reliable sources.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they had a {{citation needed}} one. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wear that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very flattered. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Sorry, had to comment; that was a Malleus-esque move there to correct the grammar (note: Malleus, in case you read this, that was intended as a compliment, not to disparage at all whatsoever). I cracked up laughing at that. Go Phightins! 03:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your funny. My grammer and speling are fine. Im a admin, I cain't be rong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to focus on that. Actually, it's the kind of thing that CoM used to do, though his grammatical skills weren't all that great. One might quibble: was that grammar? or just misspelling? ;) Either way, nothing big. I get corrected all the time, and Dennis B. can probably teach me a thing or two about policy and proper manners. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I is SMRT. Go Phightins! 03:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not only did I take no offense, I found my own stupidity rather humorous. For a long time, my user page has said "Feel free to correct any errors I make on any page at Wikipedia, even here. No permission is required, but a good edit summary is always appreciated.". I make those kinds of errors all the time. It's one reason I use Chrome, which has spell correction, although in this case the spelling wasn't the problem. My brain is just wired different, and sometimes I look at a post and think "WTF was I thinking?". So by all means, please do correct my stupidity without feeling you have to explain it, it only makes me look smarter than I am. Or at least less dumberer. And I miss CoM, whom I used to get along with famously before he, um, messed up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CoM probably shat his pants in agony when Oregon and Kansas State lost on Saturday. He hates Alabama. Ha! But he can still root for Auburn in the Iron Bowl, the Only Game That Really Matters. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, half of Mandarax's talk page archive is probably taken up with my thanking him for correcting my errors, all of which more grievous than a little typo. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked that you and I didn't cross paths earlier. I got to know CoM just as he arrived, but took a long Wikibreak shortly thereafter. He, DGG and I used to patrol AfD back in 2008 (which is how I have 1600 AfD cases to my credit). Back then, AfD was a dramafest. During my two year sabbatical, I only edited sporadically as an IP, about the same time you were chums. I can't find a link where our paths have crossed before this year, oddly enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, what you wrote was far less egregious than earlier today when I was trying to write "life is full of suffering" and instead wrote "life is full of Congress"...I looked down at what I wrote, and looked across the table and realized that he'd just been discussing politics. It was pretty ~~embarrassing~~ hilarious. Go Phightins! 20:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two are reasonable synonymous. They seem to think their job is to fill my life full of suffering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to try to rationalize stupid. Go Phightins! 23:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

Please could you explain this derogatory statement about me you made at ANI (in a thread which was closed before I reached it): I also see MistyMorn thrown around accusations of incivility without cause, which often indicates a person is on the losing side of the argument--very irritating, such accusations. Fyi, here are the links to the two warnings I issued to User:Widescreen: 1 (with missing diff here); 2. I think I deserve an apology. Adding: btw, how I'm expected to dialogue on a serious clinical question with comments such as Sorry. This is wat I called sophistery. Your agressive revert-procedre makes me think I got some sceptics here. I know this kind of users. These are the most pseudoscientiffic users in the star wars universe! frankly beats me. I think Wikipedia users, who may be looking for information that is really important to them, deserve better than to have a page like this effectively disrupted (and not just by Widescreen). Fyi, I've made my thoughts clear on WT:MED. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't need the links, but thank you. Let me suggest to you that in this edit there is nothing one should take offense to, and you could consider apologizing to Widescreen for crying "civility" in the midst of a heated debate. Also, next time you wish to warn an editor who is not a newbie, drop the templates please. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you at least for the template advice: I'm no expert in the somewhat opaque details of best Wikipedia practices. I still think you seriously owe me apology for your disparaging comments which, yes, I do find discouraging coming from an Admin. (And fwiw, I really don't feel obliged to dialogue making those wild "kindergarten" accusations.) I see absolutely no reason to apologise to Widescreen. I have absolutely nothing against this person as a person. But those two series of edits are really disruptive. For example, claiming WP:MEDRS doesn't exist as a guideline because it's a redirect - thanks, but no thanks, I have better things to do! You've really lost me here. —MistyMorn (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then we've reached either agreement or an impasse. I think your warnings were not warranted, certainly not as civility warnings and with templates. I also think that such warnings are usually a bad sign. If you think I was incorrect in my reading of who was scoring what in that particular argument, that's fine, I won't dispute it.

What I will dispute is that such civility warnings (and the subsequent ANI thread, and I know that you didn't start that) are not conducive, simple as that. Take my word for it: there needs to be a serious breach of the decorum of civility before an admin blocks for it, and if the offending words come nowhere near that threshold then the warnings serve no purpose, they're just hollow threats. Mind you, I am not defending all that your opponent said, or how they said it--what I am saying is that you, if you have legitimate beef, should find different tactics to attain your goal, whatever that goal may be. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi (and I really don't think I should need to have to point this out) my goal in this case was simply to help provide genuinely reliable information on Wikipedia in a clinically relevant topic. That's to say, in the knowledge that patients really do come to Wikipedia as a source of information, and that the information they find may influence their decisions. However, I'm human and my patience has its limits. Right now it's seething.

I should say that in other circumstances I would be happy to hear your advice on how to use those templates. But here, I'm afraid it all rings hollow. Whenever did I mention a block? (Fwiw, I might well have supported a limited topic ban, if I'd prioritize ANI over tidying a new article Wikipedia_talk:MED#New_article:_Dutch_hypothesis.) Anyway, I did my best, and that's that. And I've got bitten for my pains. But I sometimes feel that's pretty much par for the course when trying to help out on anything controversial (however relevant its implications) on Wikipedia. A real trap, imo. MistyMorn (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll use to your face, so to speak, the words you used abourt me behind my back: very irritating, such accusations. I still await your apology. —MistyMorn (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath. You were wrong to issue those warnings. Now, unless you have something else, stop fuming here since it serves no purpose. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 03:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sudo Ghost 03:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and for the response there. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied there as well. Please note that I have not reverted anywhere more than once, while Sudo is up to two reverts on a number of articles, including an article I am in the process of developing to GA and where I am a primary contributor, and where I introduced my favorite reference style months ago and was just bringing some new refs (that I've added) in line with. He also reverted various other edits of mine, such as REFLINKs, citation requests, disambiguation changes, and such. He is clearly stalking my edits now and disrupting my work, and I'd very much appreciate assistance before I have to ask for help at ANI. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Piotrus--this is a discussion that, as I said on their talk page, needs a bit of centralization. One hopes that it doesn't have to be on ANI, but if you wish to claim stalking that's where you have to go--but I hope you won't go make that claim. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centralization is fine on his talk page. But stalking is quite clear: he suddenly appeared on my GA candidate page he never edited before, and reverted me twice. How else would you call this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, that claim would have to be substantiated with some diffs and some prose--you know the score--and it would need to be in a different forum than my talk page, which, as you may know, is strictly a happy place, like an eternal summer of love where the drugs never run out and Jimi never dies. I would suppose that Sudo has a right, if they claim you are acting against consensus and all that, to look at your edits as they pertain to the matter at hand; right now I can't judge whether they did or not and again that's probably not a matter for discussion here. Sorry: I am sure you don't want more bureaucracy here but that's how I think it should work. All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN3 report mentions you

You were mentioned at WP:AN3 in this report. Just wanted to let you know, since I came across it and it didn't look like you had been notified. - Sudo Ghost 05:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SudoGhost. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edits to Summer of Love

However they have been reverted and the page put up for protection as well as being reported to the administration under Edit Wars.

Further interference will also be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.182.86 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks a bunch: better late than never, professor. New comments go at the bottom please, but someone was already kind enough to alert me to your efforts. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

Hi there MIES, VASCO here,

the title says it all. SIX YEARS it was a good run overall if i may say so, but i don't feel productive anymore and "in high wiki-spirits" so to speak. More at WP:FOOTY if you wish to read.

All the best for you in and out of wikispace, kind(est) regards from Portugal my friend (while i was here i can honestly say i considered you one) - --AL (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, Vasco, my dear friend. I've tried to convince you to stay before, and I'll do so again: stay! Anyway, you know best. Wikipedia and esp. Footy is better off with you, though. All the best in your future endeavors--I hope your phone rings soon, there is someone out there who needs your skills. Take care and don't be surprised if, in the next two decades, the doorbell rings and a balding Dutchman (and his kids, haha) needs a beer and a place to stay for the night. Do drop by if you're ever in the neighborhood, virtually or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless promotion

Tomatinos makes the best pie in town. Support your local small business. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Gobi Paradise, but I am sure it is great. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The menu small print says "Please be courteous". They won't last long in northern England if they actually expect that to happen. And they shut at 10 pm. I mean, wtf? A lot of pizza places here have barely opened at that time and are still clearing up the puke well into the early hours. Which sometimes includes their own (extra topping, anyone?). You lead sheltered lives, y'all ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you want to consider a non-local business (given Drmies was being incredibly USAlabama-centric, ahem) then I'm vaguely contemplating having a run of t-shirts or something made with some sort of "I am not a Wikipedian" logo. The counter-counter-culture starts here but I am unsure where to set the qualifying bar. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could help you with that. Just for starters, anyone who's been blocked would qualify, especially if they've been blocked more times than I have. (Unlikely I know, but it's a start.) I'd also include anyone who's been the subject of an ANI report, or the unlamented WQA, or dragged before ArbCom. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could design one at CafePress that we could buy. Proceeds could goto Malleus' ArbCom defense fund... whatever the pub's name is called. Bgwhite (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the Robin Hood. Hic! Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. How the Hell have you managed to rack up more than 216,000 edits? Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good idea to mention how I did it in good company, but seeing how that is not the case on this talk page... Many long hours and (don't hate me) AWB. Bgwhite (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked out your block log out of curiosity, and it might interest/please you to know (I hope) that you've had more out-of-process/inappropriate blocks thrown out than Jimbo himself. So you're either doing something very right or very wrong... which I guess is what all the fuss is about, isn't it? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the jury is still out on whether what I'm doing is very right or very wrong, or somewhere in between. Still, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I wasn't judging; I've just never seen so many wheelwars/near-wheelwars in one place. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of Love

A) I am not new to Wikipedia I have been editing articles for over ten years now.

B) I am an accomplished music and entertainment author currently 72 years old and recently celebrated by 50th year in the field.

C) I find it effronterous to come back after working on a page for two days straight to find it all erased by people who were either A) not born when the events took place or B) not having been to either one or both as I have been.

D) Numerous administrative forums within Wikipedia state that any article heretofore deemed as dry and stodgy-sounding may be rewritten into a more `chatty' style in order to appeal to a wider audience.

The page in question has already been reported to the administration for Page Protection as well as under Edit Wars.

Further interference will also be reverted and reported as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.182.86 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was of the impression that if you could remember the 60s, you weren't there...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just great, K-stick. Because you responded I can't remove this and I would have, for a bunch of reasons, including the fact that the OED does not recognize "effronterous". It is true, though, that I probably don't remember anything from the 60s. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Doc, you can always close it though, or hat it. I never give up an opportunity to use my favourite Robin Williams quote. Don't keep it for my sake though. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted elsewhere, effronterous is a perfectly good word ... in rhinocerous - see 0:53. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hey, 71, a few things. I think you might want to take a look at a policy about ownership of articles, or lack thereof. Nobody owns any particular article; you can't just tell people that they can't edit the page any more. That's not how it works, and that's certainly not how page protection works: if the article is protected from editing as a result of your report, it will be a full protection that locks everyone out of editing the article, including yourself. (Technically, it still wouldn't lock Drmies out, since as an admin, he is able to edit even fully-protected pages; the rules would prevent him from doing so, though, as he would be considered involved.) Editing disputes are resolved by hashing it out on the talk page (in this case, Talk:Summer of Love), not by making peremptory demands for people to stop "interfering". If talk page discussion doesn't work, then there are the various rungs on the dispute resolution ladder; DRN or 3O would probably be a good first step, should talk page discussion come to a standstill. But the point is that you can't just demand control of the article.

And as an aside, in at least his most recent edit to that page, Drmies was right; the external links he removed were indeed inappropriate, according to the guideline on external links. I'm not going to comment on the tone of the article; I'll let you literary professors work that out on your own. You're much better qualified than I am. ;) (And if you're wondering, yes, I personally have convincing evidence that Drmies is who he says he is and holds the credentials he claims, not that that should be in doubt.) Doc, don't feel obliged to keep this on my account either; remove or hat away as necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Writ Keeper. I made some of those points on the Edit Warring board as well. Note that the IP did not reinstate those links in their last grand revert--they did, however, undo BMK's good work. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well now this IP is on a WP:CANVASS spree but I have no idea how he is choosing who to post to as most of the names have never edited that page. As to the 60s I certainly remember sitting in the Cooper Theatre to see 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) but I also remember my first viewing of Darby O'Gill and the Little People. I don;t know what that reveals. Any chance that a time out will stop the spamming of various editors talk page? MarnetteD | Talk 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the block has already been handed out. Back to normal editing whatever that is :-) MarnetteD | Talk 01:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I don't get yelled at for chatting on a talk page

Haha I mention the gay thing on my userpage mostly because it makes the vandalisms even funnier to read. I'm tempted to leave some of them up there followed by "yup, correct" for ones like this and this. You, on the other hand, have the benefit of being from so obscure a minority (if one can call it that) that nobody can remember any slurs for it. Curse you, you - ... Dutchie? Netherer? See? You're automatically immune. (Can't leave an edit summary on a new section, so... AUX ARMES, LES CITOYENS!) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's a dutchie.... with bacon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, on behalf of the rest of humanity, let me apologize for those gay bashers. Morons. I did have some fun in class a couple of weeks ago, modifying the story of Paolo and Francesca to apply to two nice white southern kids sitting next to each other, imagining them reading of Nisus and Euryalus and getting frisky with each other. They didn't quite get it, but some classmates did. The Dutch do have a reputation--re-read your Dr. Faustus (Marlowe's), or Shakespeare--for Dutch gibberish and Dutch courage and stuff like that, but it's nothing earth-shattering. OK folks, dinnertime. Bon appetit--Alencon qui? Allons enfants a la patrie... Drmies (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the dutch insults involve cheese? But here is a whole list! Some of these are pretty funny, that anyone would have considered these insults at one time! http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=dutch Gaijin42 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. I would go with "cloggie." As in "Go back to your Heineken and your tulips cloggie!" Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, you f****ing c**t, now you touched a sore spot. HEINEKEN!!!?? Haha, I'll propose "cloggie" to Mrs. Drmies. I have an old friend, now in Dayton, who would appreciate that list. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly--marsh nigger??? Drmies (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some of the content, I wonder if some of it isnt user generated, and that some of them might not be authentic. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think phrases such as that one pose a fascinating political-correctness quandary (though I've always thought about this in the context of its anti-Arab analogue). Normally if one decides to not use any slurs that don't apply to them, that's pretty much a bright-line rule (let's be honest - how many of you learned that term from WP:3RR?). But a slur within a slur... now there's a tough one. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im amazed that going down the list of ethnicities, almost every single one of them includes a X-N. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am allowed to say "easy-bake n****r" (ouch!) and "green n****r" (fail)... nothing for the French side, though. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I learned the Becke bright line test in college mineralogy class. I always figured the bright line test was based on an analogy to that, but probably not. LadyofShalott 02:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stay away

And thought you might have an illuminating take on this topic commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg. This can't be construed as canvassing, since I have no clue what you'll think. But I find the discussion re: the quality of images and their usage an interesting one. Cheers, and Happy Thanksgiving, 99.0.80.70 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Thanks, Mystery Editor, for leaving such a friendly message--I'll make sure to hand-write you a note underneath the "you are blocked for canvassing" template. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really, you had to point me to that? I am constitutionally unequipped to edit on Commons. It's a terribly low-quality image and not to be used anywhere on Wikipedia; if Neil Young couldn't used it on Zuma it had its last chance. I totally buy your argument, by the way, and again, that's why I don't like hanging out there--I tried to get some of this shit deleted, to no avail. Well, happy thanksgiving to you as well: we'll be in MS with the mother-in-law, where we have to bring our own food and liquor. How about that. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My not very genuine apologies, though I feel for your doomed efforts at the Santorum page. This is the first, and undoubtedly only time at the Commons. Seems to be a sphere w/o guidelines to speak of. We'll have a nice and hopefully quiet Thanksgiving at home with the (grown up) kids. Tough times--a loss in the family last week, very sad. Seems there's been a bit of that around these parts lately. Notwithstanding such moments, life reveals itself as very dear....what? Your own food and liquor? What is it with the south, anyway? Best, 99.0.80.70 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was mentioned earlier on on this talk page that that is known as "going Dutch". Uncle G (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like fun. But you need more than one wife — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve MacLean Public School

Drmies:

Please reconsider your decision to delete the article "Steve MacLean Public School". It is unclear why this article was deleted based on the results of the deletion discussion. This article was proposed for deletion on the concern that the school is "non-notable". Based on the arguments, the outcome of the discussion should have been a "keep". Firstly, some of the statements for deletion lacked substantive reasoning as to why the subject is not notable, which is inconsistent with current Wikipedia guidelines WP:JNN. According to Wikipedia guidelines, simply stating that the subject is "not notable" is not sufficient argument for deletion . Please also note that I made several modifications to the article and provided numerous counter-arguments supported by cited Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which addressed the concerns of the "delete" votes. Based on said guidelines and policies, the article fulfills the requirements for notability. Further, no additional comments in favour of deleting the article were added after my final statements supporting notability were posted. Although some may argue that elementary schools are "generally" not notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, common sense must be exercised. Given the sheer number of articles on elementary schools currently published on Wikipedia, there are obviously exceptions to this general statement. It is respectfully requested that the deletion discussion be reviewed again, and the decision be reconsidered. Thank you. --Lfroms (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lfroms, thanks for your note. It must not be easy to see a bunch of Wikipedians combine to delete your article; for next time, you may consider going through WP:AFC, which is often helpful. Anyway, I looked at the discussion again, and at the article, and I see no reason to change the outcome. All editors but you said the article did not meet our guidelines, and the long and short of it is that there are no reliable sources outside of very local publications that discuss or even mention the school, and for a fairly regular elementary school to be notable that is a necessary thing. Now, it is true that a few editors (not all!) said "not notable", but while that is an argument to avoid, if it comes from seasoned editors like Eekster or Sue Rangell, I can only assume that they say so with good reason, and in this case, it seems to me, it is shorthand for "not notable since there are no reliable sources that prove that this school is notable by our guidelines". Now, the most exhaustive reasoning comes from Necrothesp, and I think they explain our policies and guidelines pretty well and why the school does not meet them at this point. Again, in a nutshell, no significant coverage.
You have another option, of course: Wikipedia:Deletion review, but I urge you to have a careful look at WP:DRVPURPOSE before you consider listing it there: it may be a waste of time. At any rate, I hope I answered your question. If you are unsatisfied, you may have noted that there's a lot of folks who visit this page--feel free to tag any one of them, or just write, in all caps, "HEY YOU TALK PAGE STALKER PLEASE HAVE A LOOK", and they'll give you a second opinion, free of charge. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ... me again ...

LOL......

You don't even assume what you've done or maybe you are sulking ... and by the way when you ask google to search for wikipedia mistakes it shows approximately 10 400 000 pages founds here is the link https://www.google.com/search?q=erreures+wikipedia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official&client=firefox-a (if google is reliable to you) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzu (talk • contribs) 05:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry i forgot to mention back about my government document that is less reliable than new papers ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzu (talk • contribs) 05:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop posting here. Post again and I'll ask for someone to block you. You're just irritating, and you're doing it in very poor English. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN 2.0

Since this page is basically Administrator Noticeboard 2.0, would someone be so kind as to have a look at Heidi Seeman murder case vs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Seeman. Since the new article is so short, I am sure it would be eligible under G4, just want to check. Ta, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's totally different. The old one(s) are nothing but memorials and possible copyvios. If you can find an original for this version, I'd appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley

Hi Drmies. Thanks for your attention. Please reverse your hasty closing decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley and UN-delete the Jill Kelley article for the following reasons:

Your decision in the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley and your reasoning was rather shocking and abrupt to go with a "Delete" in spite of the fact that there were 28 Keep votes, vs 4 Delete votes (including the nominator) and 5 Redirects -- that is almost a two thirds majority to keep the article by a very wide and clear margin.
While the nominator presented his rationale however those editors who voted to Keep rejected his reasoning and gave a wide variety of good reasons based on WP policies to keep the article.
Please re-read all the rationales cited by the 28 Keep votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley, it is too long to repeat them all again here.
This vote was not a "referendum" on the merits of WP:BLP1E, as you can see the majority of 28 editors who voted Keep clearly over-rode that and cited good reasons why the the subject is now WP:N and stands in it's own right as an important subject.
Furthermore, it is incomprehensible and deprecating when you cite your own "reasons" that would allow this article to remain "the moment she has a TV show and a movie contract we can undelete the history"??? Is that what is important to you??? Since when is having a "TV show" or a "movie contract" a criterion for notability???
You also claim that "in this day an age everything is widely covered" -- really??? How so??? Is this something so frivolous and unimportant in your eyes???
The absurdity of your assertions are self-evident, when this person, Jill Kelley now receives massive media scrutiny and more details emerge about her and her family's role/s in current US politics.
Jill Kelley has (1) ignited a massive operation by all the major US intelligence and spy agencies that went from tracking down who was cyber-stalking her to massive spy and FBI work to uncover what else was discovered from HER emails that ultimately involved and reached the top law enforcement officials of the USA and could have derailed the 2012 presidential race were it not held back by the spy-masters and law officers, (2) she has played a key role in bringing down the head of the CIA General David Petraeus -- they are suspected of having an affair of their own, (3) Jill Kelley was in heavy email and personal correspondence with the US Commander in Afghanistan John R. Allen and has wrecked his career and future prospects -- they are also suspected of having another affair of their own, (4) not to mention her role in undoing the life and work of Petraeus's official biographer Paula Broadwell as she (Jill Kelley) became the object of a fatal and fateful obsession for Paula Broadwell, that (5) also involved and then ruined the career of a senior FBI agent Frederick W. Humphries II now under investigation by the FBI, (6) and now as the American and world media digs deeper into Jill Kelley's web of connections with senior American politicians, including meetings at the White House, her and her family's life and web of connections are being scrutinized and reported, (7) She also had official clearance from the US State Department to be a "social ambassador" to the highest echelons of officers at CENTCOM one of America's most sensitive and secret operations, and she is an honorary consul for South Korea, proving her political value and connections that are still being investigated and emerging -- she ain't no ordinary "socialite"!
And all this is has only become public information since November 9th, 2012 when this story hit the headlines with Petraeus's resignation -- a mere 11 days ago yet you think it's somehow ok to make judgments now, in less than a week and not allowing this subject and article to develop based on the massive media coverage it's getting right now, and more US congressional hearings and investigations are sure to follow, as this is a major subject.
Consider these scenarios: (1) Imagine if only 11 days after the news of the Watergate break-in when the White House Plumbers were first getting media attention that the name of G. Gordon Liddy would be dismissed as not popular enough for a TV show at the time. He would never have qualified for a WP article. (2) Or imagine if only 11 days after the Lewinsky scandal broke into the news, that the name of Linda Tripp would not have made it to WP article status because she never got her own "TV Show", or (3) how about 11 days after the news broke about Mata Hari being suspected of being a spy in WWI, she would still not get a story because in her day there was still no "TV show" for her to do a show. Thus, the subject of Jill Kelley is a matter relating to US national security and reaches up to the highest echelons of political power regardless of how anyone may belittle, begrudge and basically not get it.
The article deserved to be left as a stub and under-construction with appropriate templates to indicate that, because it's part of a new unfolding story, but it was a lot better than that already when you decided to zap it.
It's not clear where you live and what your perspective of all this is, but in the USA this is a burning front-line major news-story -- as big as or bigger than a "TV story" and "movie contract" (your criteria) -- and Jill Kelley is at the heart of it.

Thank you for your prompt action and UN-deletion of the Jill Kelley article. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article about her sister not part of that very correct AfD? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that [7]. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it, not so fast, first see and deal with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to hold on. They are two entirely different people. Either Natalie is notable or she is not. She can't inherit notability from Jill. No reason in the world to hold off, nor is there a basis for your bad faith claim that my nom was out of order. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, this was your nomination? I should have guessed it! Drmies (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie was my nom. When I realized that the closer-to-notable sister had been correctly deleted, nominating the sister was a no-brainer. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for what, IZAK? You didn't actually ask me anything--you're just telling me I'm wrong, masked by an overuse of question marks. FWIW, I live in a solid red state, with not a single Democrat in an elected office at the state level. Whether that means I live firmly in the heartland or completely out of the mainstream, that's probably a matter of opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, thanks for being a good sport. Sometimes a writer may use rhetorical questions as part of rhetorical speech that helps in many forms of intellectual inquiry. It's a philosophic tradition derived from the Socratic method and Dialectical reasoning as well as from Talmudic Pilpul. And it's the best way to get to the bottom of things in a logical and rational manner. Your patience is much appreciated. Thanks again (it's often polite to say thanks as a form of parting and salutation). IZAK (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good deletion and good call, Drmies. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear consensus that 1) the event (the scandal) was significant and 2) the individual's role within it was substantial and well-documented (as per all the RS describing Kelley's role as "central" or "at the center"; - I would think the deletionists could have come up with A) at least one source describing her role as peripheral or B) a string of stories about the scandal that make no mention of Kelley beyond her name or C) an absence of any standalone "who is Jill Kelley?" stories about the subject) which means that the conditions for a deletion with a BLP1E rationale are not satisfied. The admin verdict is nonetheless delete, thereby making less information readily available to some future historian. A clear consensus was established (in this case more than 2 to 1 in favour of a keep) and the closing admin dismissed that because apparently the community does not run Wikipedia. When the community verdict is as lopsided as this and can still be overriden, I would request that the time of myself and others not be wasted by conducting these reviews in the first place. These same admins typically then later complain that the community doesn't have enough respect for what they do. I would think it obvious that respect is a two way street.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Deletion Review, it's one person's talk page. If you haven't already you should make your arguments at DR. If the community agrees with you, they will overturn the deletion. If not, then the community will have decided that the decision to delete was proper - but it is, contrary to your assertion, the community which will have the last word, not any one admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The community does not always have the last word. In the last dispute I was involved in concerning the bio of a person involved in this "scandal," I was repeatedly told by an admin that "the community does not have the power to reverse." But in this case, yes, it appears the DR will be allowed to run its course and so I withdraw the condemnatory tone of my remarks above.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jill Kelley

Hu Drmies. I have asked for a deletion review of Jill Kelley. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page you might want to participate in the deletion review. IZAK (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now how did I know I would get an invitation like this? Drmies (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. At least the discussion is going well, no matter the outcome, the case will now get the fair hearing it deserved before you steamrollered the original AfD's closing. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What was it Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman? I think it was "Everything she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'." Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure, but what is the "lie" in this case? Do you have the "monopoly" on the truth? If so, do you share? IZAK (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, my goodness, I do so hope that you didn't think I was talking about a lie in connection with your comments here?!? No, no, no, I was just helping to make sure that the discussion was going well, and using the ancient philosophical Sarcastic method of discourse to do so. It was ... oh, whaddya call it? ... rhetoric, that's it! You being such a good sport, I knew you wouldn't mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Now that sarcasm was just uncalled for, Ken. IZAK clearly appreciates sarcasm. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Chonga

Just wanted to be sure you knew that the nomination has been reviewed, and the only thing it is lacking is the QPQ review. Sorry to bother you if you had already seen it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input

Because you participated in this your input might be useful here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "And we don't typically list publishers' sites for anything"

I guess you never used a doi in a citation because the doi template usually links to the publisher (via the lookup service). Tijfo098 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is correct. Refresh my memory please. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaps

Cloud gap (AfD discussion)

So … if none of you remember the 1960s, it's not worth pointing out to you the omission of Project Cloud Gap from Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm shocked you needed an outsider like me to write that one up, Uncle. Please do help expanding and categorizing--and getting it on the front page, of course. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hetty Blok

On 23 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hetty Blok, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dutch singer and actress Hetty Blok (pictured), best known as nurse Klivia on the TV show Ja zuster, nee zuster (1966–68), sang the theme song on television again in 2010, at age 90? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hetty Blok. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop being combative

I noticed in a discussion recently that you told another editor to stop tagging articles you wrote and try writing one yourself. In case you forgot here is a link to the discussion. I fond this appalling conduct for any editor and you as an admin should know better. Its comments like this, that have made me stop editing articles on WP. You do not have that right to tell another editor to stop editing your articles. You do not own them. Also, adding the orphan tag is allowed. If you have a problem with it, then start a discussion and change the rules. Don't start railing on an editor for abusing AWB's rules of use when the rules aren't abused. If this continues to be a problem I will bring it up at ANI. Kumioko (talk)

Meh, for someone who's "retired", you sure do get around and mostly to stir up trouble. I've looked at the link of the discussion, and, frankly, it's a tempest in a teapot. Appalling? Such strong language. When editors are doing silly things, it's not at all uncommon to tell them to stop and try doing something productive like editing or creating articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I don't think I have ever interacted with you but just to clarify, I'm not just stirring trouble. If I have commemnted its because some editor has likely either violated policy or is interpreting policy in some clever way as to support their own position and it doesn't really coincide with the actual meaning. Back to the point at hand though. Regardless of what the editor did or didn't do, editors should not be telling them not to edit articles they created. That violates the very principle of the project not to mention the pillars and policy. Since he is on admin he should know better and yes it is appalling. Strong language or not, he has been here long enough and has the role of admin so he should know better. For what its worth I changed my status to Semi retired earlier. I am going to be editing at Simple now and I need to be able to interact here. Also, I do not believe the editor was in the wrong. He added a tag, if you or Drmies has a problem with that tag, then take it up on the templates talk page or submit it for deletion if you must. But the editor has the right to add it whether you like it personally or not. Personally I think the Orphan tag is pointless and unneeded and have commented as such in the past. If you have any other comments please feel free to direct them to my talk page. Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, I'm trying hard to remember who you are, so I can figure out why you would appear out of the blue to berate me, with the threat of dragging me to ANI (good luck, by the way). What are you, a knight in shining armor? Read what I wrote on the AWB talk page--well, you have, no doubt, since you seem to have a special interest in my edits--where it is quite clear: using AWB (and, btw, marking it as minor) to do nothing but add an orphan tag is not OK. That is not my interpretation of policy or anything like that, it is my opinion as an editor and a creator of content. I do not like people who do little but run their bots adding tags without doing a damn thing to actually improve the article.

Oh, I see now that your name is mentioned in my talk page archive in relation to an edit war that got you blocked; I'll have a look later. In the meantime, well, I think you know. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually our interactions in the past were positive so it rather surprised me when you made the comments and took the position you did on the template in question. No I am absolutely not a Knight, more like Shrek in fact. I used to have a positive attitude and reputation but that was destroyed in Feb of this year by an overzealous admin and a bad decision to block me for trying to uphold 3RR and article ownership (2 issues where I have been a strong advocate) so now I just state things plainly without trying to be politically correct. Apparently its more important to block a positive contributor for making a snide comment than to uphold the rules when an editor actually violated the policy. If you had any background on the case you would have seen that the other user, Markvs88 (who hasn't edited since May) was the one who violated article ownership multiple times and 3RR twice but wasn't blocked. That's what I had a major problem with. I also don't think taking you to ANI would have much affect other than to bring the issue to light to a larger audience, but I do not have any faith in the process. Your also misreading the comments at AWB. Marking it as minor was something that should have been done but it still doesn't justify the comments you made to the editor. You also seem to indicate that the user used a bot. He didn't and AWB isn't a bot, its a tool, just like twinkle or the admin tools. Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies makes a valid point. Slapping a defacing tag on an article as part of a mass edit is not a trivial matter and should not be undertaken lightly. It actually destroys the article visually and therefore should be undertaken with caution. Especially in the case of semi-automated edits like AWB there is the temptation to mass-tag articles and this can destroy due care which should always be excercised by all editors prior to tagging. The first reaction should be: How can I help this article not be an orphan? Not I'll place a semi-automated article-destroying tag and I'll let the suckers find the link to fix it. The ethics behind such a way of thinking are flawed. I get this all the time. From Judith Donath that was marked for PROD because of a lack of a prior search in GBooks which I converted to a DYK in about a day's time and more recently at Maple Syrup: See this and Maple syrup: Revision history. It is always far easier to tag than do the homework required to prevent it or fix the underlying problem. But this creates two classes of editors: The overlords who quickly tag and the peons who do the hard work cleaning up the mess left by the tagging. Somehow I find this flawed and not smacking too much of an equitable way of wiki collaboration. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) Yes, well your maple syrup example is a little off however Dr K (not that I disagree with your principle of it being better to fix than tag, and easier to tag than fix). Maple syrup is a featured article, and the citation for the uniqueness of the flavour noted by a culinary expert was cited in the Food and nutrition section below. Now we have a featured article with nine citations at the end of the lead, which is almost as ugly as a {{who}} tag...but I digress, this is somewhat off topic.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be too much to cut these nine top-notch references and paste them into the main body? Not that this would prevent another IP from tagging the same spot on the lead once you remove the refs. At least as it stands now it is a visible deterrent to such tagging. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way there was a discrepancy between the lead and the main body of Maple Syrup. The lead was talking about "culinary experts" but the body was only referring to a single expert. I fixed the discrepancy and moved most of the refs to the main body. Thanks for the suggestion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had seen that. I personally hate the orphan tag, and mass-tagging in general, but for a featured article (notwithstanding the discrepancy in the number of experts) it is fairly easy to just revert the addition of the tag and note that typically the lead of an article will not have references in it at all. Will someone tag it again, possibly, but that isn't a reason to add a reference to the lead (in particular if the rest of it isn't cited). Nice pickup. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there was another one at the lead: syrups must be at least 66 percent sugar and be made exclusively from maple sap[1] and not coming after punctuation is also a bit ugly, especially for a Featured article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which I fixed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks where getting a bit off topic here. I don't think anyone disagrees that the tags are ugly and defacing. I have voted myself to make them less obtrusive but consensus says that the big tags are preferred whether we like them or not. The point here is that an editor and an admin, told another editor not to edit their articles. That is inappropriate no matter what other arguments are present. As I mentioned before if there is a problem with these templates then that needs to be brought up in the appropriate venue. Not starting statements of AWB abuse and editor ineptitude. Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think here that context is important. The context is: don't add tags if the fix is relatively easy. Find a single wikilink, problem fixed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An ownership claim is never excused by "context."--Brian Dell (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diff where Drmies "claims ownership"? Or is this your own interpretation/POV? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[You asked for a diff as to why people are accusing him of article ownership well here is the one that drew my attention when he told Mr. T. not to edit any article he wrote. That's pretty clearly article ownership to me although I cannot speak for what the other user is talking about. Kumioko (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Drmies said to stop tagging articles he wrote, not stop editing them. There's a significant difference there. As is, I can see how that would be interpreted as a claim of ownership, but I don't really buy it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please do not use the edit summary field to make careless comments about my username. If you don't know what a delta looks like let me know and I'll explain. And no, that was not an ownership claim. It was an article specification statement after repeated questions by the other editor and was clarified by a subsequent statement by Drmies that it definitely was not an ownership claim: Nice fake argument there. I don't own anything at all I AGF her on that. Do you? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I offended you that was not my intent and I do know what a delta is, and a beta too if necessary. It isn't my fault that you chose to use a symbol followed by incomprehensible letters for your username. Frankly it should't be allowed and I have seen at least one editor get denied for adminship because of it. Kumioko (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you can click the delta you will find that my name is Dr.K. It is also strange that you commented: by incomprehensible letters given that in your previous sentence you said: and I do know what a delta is, and a beta too if necessary but who am I to argue with inconsistencies on your part. The Greek alphabet is also widely taught all over the world because it forms the basis of many scientific symbols. Sorry you missed that. As far as adminship, if I apply in the future you are welcome to oppose me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx3)They are incomprehensible to the majority of editors here but I understand them being a fairly well educated individual (a couple Masters degrees and a few certificates but not a PHD yet). In all seriousness and not trying to instigate anything I think a lot of users will confuse you with a former editor known as Delta, Beta and several other things who is currently on a one yer ban. I did at first and had to click the link to see what the real user name is. Just something you may want to be aware of if you weren't already. For what its worth I am also familiar with the Greek alphabet, some latin and even Theban. But that doesn't mean I need to use them in my username because I recognize that not all the users here have gone through an extra ten years of education past High school. Kumioko (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I will have to disagree with your broad statement: They are incomprehensible to the majority of editors here This is an encyclopaedia after all, not grade school, so I actually assume the vast majority of the editors here are very familiar with the Greek scientific alphabet. As far as anyone confusing my nickname which consists of five (5) characters with a single character delta or beta, although theoretically possible, in my opinion it is extremely unlikely. And you keep using the edit summary to call me misleading names even after I told you my actual name. I wonder why. Isn't Dr.K. simple enough for you? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I asked the AWB tagger not to tag any more articles I wrote in the way they did. I guess Brian Dell, whom I have not had the pleasure of being introduced to, takes that as a claim of ownership, in the way that "it's a useless edit" gets turned into "I'm an admin and you're abusing AWB." Or, "I don't believe in political correctness so I'm going to yell at you like you're a child." It's par for the course, Dr. K. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. When slogans like WP:OWN start flying around you know you reached the conversation quality ejection button. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus to tell you the truth I would actually trade one hundred ownership claims for an easily avoidable tag anyday. Ownership claims don't deface articles. Careless tags do. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check this shit out: this edit is described as a kind of manipulation on WP:DRN--because it will force the edit-warrior to continue their edit war manually. Well, if I don't get dragged off to ANI today, then Dispute resolution and Deletion review are the only two boards my name is being dragged through the mud. I think I'm going to log out for a while. Tell Uncle G he needs to rewrite the 60s by himself. ;) Later Dr. K, Kelapstick, and thanks for dropping by! Drmies (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kumioko, I find this stuff bothersome, and Dr. K. and Kelapstick agree with me, so I got two Ks on my side (that's a joke). Uncle G points out we need something written, something fairly important. So I write it, and spend what, 45 minutes on it. Some other person who, for all I know, doesn't know how to spell "content", comes along and tags it: look at their history--it took them half a minute. And they can't be bothered to actually do anything--all they do is click a button. Maybe two, I don't know. So this editor gets pissed and leaves them a relatively friendly message; next thing you know there's a fucking shit storm and someone comes out of retirement saying Stop being combative without even a fucking "please" in there, and threatens with ANI. That's just great. And no, I'm not saying the user uses a bot--I'm saying those edits are for all practical purpose automated. Acting in a bot-like manner is acting like a bot--that's what the Turing test is for. Did I say "this is abusing AWB"? Kumioko, you have a right to your opinion as much as I do, but this has nothing to do with political correctness: it's poor manners on your part: "Stop being combative." Whatever. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can be mad at me that's quite alright. I wasn't the one showing inappropriate article ownership, I wasn't the one showing a lack of AGF and I wasn't the one telling an editor they were abusing AWB. I definately wasn't the one who told an editor not to edit pages I created anymore. I was the one, telling an editor and an admin who should know better, that they were acting inappropriately and should know better. If that's a problem for you, then frankly that's just tough shit. Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] One more thing, Kumioko. You have done an enormous amount of good work here, and you clearly know what it's like to create articles: you have written a great many of them. I don't rightly understand why you'd come down on me, and twist my comments into "admin says editor X is abusing AWB" when I said no such thing. I gave my application of item 4 in this particular case, that's it, as an editor and a writer. I understand also that you are greatly frustrated by a bunch of things on Wikipedia, and I probably share many of your frustrations. But I'm not your enemy. If you thought so, you wouldn't be here, still editing after you've more or less given up. Best, Drmies (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I had the misfortune to encounter similarly rude behavior from this user a little while back and it was abundantly clear at that time that their attitude towards admins is just sour grapes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about this one! Other than the simple fact that not having access to the tools makes it extremely difficult to do a lot of things I am interested in doing like editing protected templates and blocking vandals and a variety of other things I'm actually not upset about the admin thing. If I had the tools I would have to be much more careful and deliberate in how and what I said. But that's clearly not going to happen. What I am upset about is that I have a number of individuals (a consensus it seems) including yourself saying I cannot be trusted with the tools and yet we have admins making comments and showing behavior like the ones that started this discussion. Or the actions of a certain admin that will go unnamed trying to get everyone blocked/banned, or any number of other things. Then people get behind them and say or infer that its different because they are admins. No it is not, it is much worse. What I also find annoying is when an editor or admin tries to discredit me by saying I don't like admins. Actually I have a lot of Wiki friends that are admins, the problems lie when some admins let the toolset go to their head and think they are above reproach and cannot be questioned or called out when they make a bad call. Your right though I can be rude, sometimes without intention and sometimes on purpose. I used to be much more careful in what and how I said stuff. For years I did that and we all know what that got me don't we. Nothing and treated like shit for trying to improve the pedia. So now, there is no reason to sugar coat things here. Kumioko (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am used to seeing your name in various places. At first, everything was good. However, for quite a long time your name seems to pop up in discussions where a lot of people disagree with you. It takes quite a strong personality to not see that there may be a problem, and that it may not be with those in the majority. The idea that Drmies needs to be told to stop being combative is among the sillier suggestions I have seen at Wikipedia, and demonstrates a need for a long wikibreak. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Folks, I do not really understand what the furore is here. We have two people interacting wrt an article and the use of AWB at that article. The use of AWB by one side of that discussion has been repeatedly questioned by several other contributors, in relation to other articles and for a variety of reasons. We also have - on this specific page - two people who are arguing the toss about ownership and who may or may not have a bit of history between them. Given that neiher of the latter two seem really to have a disagreement regarding the whys and wherefores of templating articles, this appears to boil down to an issue of whether someone's attitude was correct in an isolated incident. No-one is ever going to agree about that and it is never going to be a matter worthy of the drama boards etc. So why don't we all just drop it? I am sure that both parties will have learned something from this thread in terms of how others perceive things, and I am sure that what they have learned will form a part of their subconscious for future reference. The rest is just a storm in a teacup related to phrasing etc. Get over it. Or, as we say in my part of the world, "bollocks to it". - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush is a smart person. LadyofShalott 05:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention a lovely man. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ruba'i article". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:

It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:

Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An observation

"manipulating the page so that Justice007's edits would have to be manually reverted" is novice editor code for "I don't really understand that the undo tool isn't magic, and I mis-attribute its failure to work after Drmies' edit to some diabolical manipulative plot by a secret cabal, rather than to simple inability of the MediaWiki software.". It's rather a shame, given the topic area and user name, that there's a failure to comprehend the imperfect nature of our collaborative writing tool, here. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You're an admin, and that makes you automatically suspect, though I think that "such obnoxiously supremacist and, pardon my candor, idiotic attitude here" referred in the first instance to me. Our "collaborative attitude" is easily depicted as cliquish. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue

I really don't think Undue should be an issue with a few sentences out of a large article that is 98% about her musical work, but let's see what the RfC says. The Master (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion?

Do you think this [8]should be shoved into the middle of an AfD discussion? Or properly moved to the talk page, as I've tried to do? Also, do you think this [9] notification about a policy that is completely unrelated to the AfD should be forced into the discussion? Looks disruptive to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. And I think you should find another admin to help you out, since you and I are invooooolved: I'm sure someone caught us holding hands while leaving the movie theater after seeing Skyfall, and all because of Jill Kelley. Seriously, it doesn't have anything to do with it--it's just IZAK's way of being important and all over the place, I reckon. Maybe another admin looking at this here talk page can have a look; hatting it might be appropriate as well. But maybe the AfD will be over with quickly? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're practically joined at the hip now. Looks like Uncle G took care of it and nobody can make the case that he and I are ready to elope. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

98.204.145.138‎

Hey Drmies, I see you are back, hope you had a good Turkey Day. Got an issue with an anon user and since my last attempt at dealing with an anon blew up like a nuclear bomb, I was wondering if you could take a look. The user is 98.204.145.138 and has been "editing radio station pages in a poor manner" (trying to avoid the "V" word). I posted a message to his/her talk page but haven't recieved a response. He/She previously edited under User:Zimmermanh1997 and two admins posted to that talk page about what they were doing wrong, but to no avail or response. I am unsure how to proceed (again due to my last attempt) so I was wondering if you could help. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a look, Homer. Yes, good to see you again as well. Don't revert; I'm on it. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okie Dokie. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apparently they didn't listen. I haven't reverted and won't per your instructions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sub unit or not?

You are an admin, right? Could you decide if EXO is a sub-unit or not? They never recorded a single or somethng like that together, they are officially just two groups who work in 2 different contries. Exo-M in China and Exo-K in Korea. I'm not sure what the definition is for a sub-unit. As far I know it must be a group which is formed from some members of the orginal group but "EXO" always have been two different groups. If you have decided could stop the edit war on this site? -> S._M._Entertainment#Sub-units

Thank You --212.204.57.195 (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies can stop the fortnight-long slow edit war easily enough, as can any administrator. But we don't decide the rights and wrongs of content with any more authority than that of ordinary editors. You might also find that Drmies is unfamiliar with the idea of a K-Pop sub-unit. (Such lineups are more conventionally referred to in English as a sub-group, for starters.) You might have to explain it in slightly "older" terms. Think of it as … erm … sort of like ELO Part II, Drmies. ☺ (Then go and read about AKB48.) Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Drmies is somewhat familiar with the concept, having plowed through a kazillion of those fan articles, including the EXO ones and the SM articles and template. But this is a content matter, and Uncle G is quite right about that--I have an opinion, but that's as an editor, not as an administrator. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oho! Going for the youth cred, eh? I'll support you, no worries. Yes, 212.204.57.195, Drmies is hep to the groovy world of pop beat, daddy-o. He knows all about Shocking Blue and everything … Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You sass that hoopy Drmies? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Philipp

Franz Philipp is an interesting guy, thank you! I did a bit of ce. I know who would now fill all the red links in no time and who else format the refs (I got the two cantatas done, BWV 70 and 140), but now it's do-it-yourself ;) - Do you happen to know if it's really the cantata that is known as Sleepers wake - or the hymn? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually both. You'll find books such as McKim 1993, p. 28–29 list the hymn as "Sleepers Wake!" A Voice Astounds Us, and the tune as Wachet Auf. But the one is in fact an idiomatic translation of the other. See Shrock 2009, p. 123 for more on the translations.
- McKim, LindaJo H. (1993). The Presbyterian Hymnal Companion. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 9780664251802. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
- Shrock, Dennis (2009). Choral Repertoire. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199886876. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All that doesn't tell me things about the hymn, but not that Bach's cantata is also known that way? - I just started my first Dr. Blofeld style article: Reinhold-Schneider-Preis ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't ask the guy who doesn't know what a cantata is. Gerda, I've written up more award articles than I care to remember: usually it's mundane stuff and the problem is the many redlinks it creates, which one is then tempted to turn blue, and before you know it you're old... Drmies (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - but this one has 16 blue links, and I could remove an orphan tag ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sourcing the association between the name "Sleepers Awake!"/"Sleepers Wake!" and the cantata is so trivially easy that I didn't think that you'd need any help at all with that one. Not only do sleepers wake, but sources abound. ⇗ Read the cantata's entry in the Oxford Dictionary Of Musical Works, for starters. There's even a Rough Guide to Classical Music that has it. Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding to both articles what you found? I am German and could not tell what is known how. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Listings Wiki

In response to the deletion of all the channel listings on Wikipedia, I have started the Channel Listings Wiki. Is that okay? ~~LDE JRuff~~ 12:11, 26 November, 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As long as you provide attribution for any material you import from Wikipedia (in accordance with the terms of the CC-BY-SA license that both your wiki and Wikipedia use), that should be fine. If you need things undeleted to import them into your wiki, drop me a line and I'll do it for you, if nobody else has already. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Writ Keeper. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May you help

Hi Drmies how is life, cold days here but extra warm wiki editors there, have to live among all stlys and behaviours. Anyhow I need your help because I was asked for help on my talk page for article "Iqra Nadeem". Actually I am not familiar of that. I have found the article here. I am willing to work on it, if it is move to main space of the article page. May you help in this regard.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justice. Well, you picked a tough nut. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iqra Nadeem doesn't give me much reason to believe she is notable--some local performances and college awards don't usually add up to notability. There's two references but they aren't linked to anything online, and if all they verify is her job with CLM then that's no help either. I searched using Google News but nothing shows up. If she has a Facebook page then I saw her left eye, which is very pretty, but I see no basis for an article anywhere. Sorry my friend, but I think you may have to disappoint the person--unless they can supply a bunch of publications that indicate notability. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After posting my request to you, I went directly to search the google, of course found nothing, you are right, no problem, there should be sources for notability, someone as IP address asked help, actually I should first have checked and searched the google for realiable sources before asking your assistance. Anyhow thanks.Justice007 (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem Justice. At least I have that one beautiful eye to think about the rest of the day. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And about night??.Justice007 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that should be hope lives on, not the hop lives on. I had a vision of a surrealist horror movie involving zombie bunnies. Either that, or disco is back. Uncle G (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So please let's dance.Justice007 (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what a reference to hops was doing on the page of a nice lady. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard, time period for discussion

Drmies, How long does a discussion usually remain open for comment? I have more to contribute, but I have some off-Wiki things to do. Doc2234 (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's hard to say, Doc. The BLP board threads sometimes just fizzle out and go away--there doesn't seem to be a requirement that they are resolved. But I'd say that more text is not necessarily better: long sections of texts make a thread less inviting to other editors. Realize also that I have no special powers there, and that the board is for drawing the attention of other editors who may or may not back you up; it's not for generating rock solid decisions. Having said that, though, a consensus in a thread is something that can be referred to later on. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't really have that much experience in debating, other than that situation on Italian Wiki if you remember; and that had some rules. If no solid decision is arrived at typically, what is the real value of the noticeboard? Doc2234 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That people notice, I suppose. Hang around there and you'll see how it works well, and in which situations. I cannot disclose all I know since I need to breast these cards, haha. Seriously, it's much like real life, where one also does not always get a solution. An actual decision will probably have to come from the RfC. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doc2234 (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the material at the top of the page, discussions older than 5 days are archived (I assume that means with no activity in the last 5 days).--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

If a gal from Alabama votes in the ArbCom election, does it really matter? Drmies (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a gal formerly from Alabama, what prompts the question? LadyofShalott 03:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just voted in the ArbCom election, that's all, and was hoping to see a Wolf Blitzer-like character (remember those kiddy porn-like Japanese cartoony characters? Wiki-tan or something like that?) giving me the preliminary results. Also, I live in a state where even if I had a vote it wouldn't matter...I guess I should be glad I get to vote on something! Go NYBrad! And Beeblebrox! And a couple more of you! and some of you NO, not at all! (Names available on soon-to-be-leaked Facebook status update.) Drmies (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipetan, I think, and yuck. Hey, I'm in the place where Charles Darwin was written in 4000 times as a protest against an anti-science madman (although redistricting meant I am no longer his constituent). Alter egos will be checking out Facebook statusi. LadyofShalott 04:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I saw just now was "Risk of robot uprising wiping out human race to be studied" posted by a friend of mine, and a notice that my sister-in-law got her photo album with wedding photos--barf! Drmies (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way the ArbCom election is set up is interesting, since you get to support those people who have value, and vote against those who do not, and just leave the others alone and let others decide their fate. I kinda like it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too: I thought it would be difficult. It certainly beats the unfair district system we have here. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next on Fox: Newyorkbrad is currently polling at 95%. Given that a verbose lawyer could never win election to Arbcom, how is he manipulating the system? Stay tuned after the break. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You think NYB is verbose? Lawyers tend to be verbose in their briefs, much to the consternation of judges, but terse in their non-brief communications (unless it's to a client and they are charging by the minute). I don't know what NYB is like in his briefs, although I imagine he's smart enough not to be verbose, but I don't find him verbose here. Sometimes, he's so non-verbose he totally ignores me (harumph). Now I could elaborate, but that would make this post more verbose than it already is.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:Bradspeak? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I rather read Marlowe, but it serves an important purpose, as I have found to my detriment in various closes of RfCs, move requests, and even AfDs. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, everyone was very disciplined and avoided the obvious joke about "what NYB is like in his briefs". Bravo! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative circle jerks

Did you see this?

[10]

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what the problem is; someone screwed up, yes, but that tends to happen in life. Often. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kiefer, this is a bit above my intellectual pay grade (as in I don't know what's going on, really). I think you (and probably MF and a few others) and I differ a bit on the admin thing. I don't believe in a typical dishonesty that comes with the job, and I like to think that I would have said that before I got the bit. There's only a few that I would consider to be rotten apples--ScottyWong, for instance, I do not consider one though I usually disagree with him. If someone were to call me a sheep I probably couldn't really contest that, but I've been here a few years and found that the good outweighs the bad, and the good ones outweigh the bad ones. Ed17, for instance, is physically a lightweight but I respect his authority and judgment; that's not an easy thing for me to say about the whippersnapper! There's other things to do for me than to look for screw-ups. I was unaware, for instance, that PumpkinSky had left. Who's gonna look after the boy scouts now? Drmies (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My coffee was rather strong this morning....

Regarding PumpkinSky. It's like the end of Halloween and Linus is again crushed by the Great Pumpkin's no show---without even Godot's helper to assure us that he'll come tomorrow. It's like the end of Lord of the Rings, with the elves sailing off.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He told me not to try to get him back to editing. I asked a polite question in the context, - it had to be extremely polite not to be qualified as hounding in a voters guide, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

precious

Adding: I can digest his RfA only in small doses, so it took until today that I found something Precious. Tell a man certain things, he may leave, tell a woman, she may ignore ignore ignore and stay ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request below worked, restoring Precious for the Awesome Wikipedian of 20 February 2012 (you), - by some miracle even with a redirect from the former filename, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a day? Drmies (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, I don't remember. The history of Precious was like this: when I realised that PumpkinSky was Rlevse, I remembered that he had made my day, saying I was an awesome Wikipedian and Peace. I picked up the idea and created Precious, passing it irregularly. Then Teh Community found out, he was blocked, I gave Precious to him thinking I would never hear from him again (like BarkingMoon). But I was wrong, and we worked on a return, you did CCI review, so got Precious, possibly with others the same day. At some point I started looking for a recipient every day one a day, also I started to call it PumpkinSky Prize, at least internally. - Now he went through a RfA that was termed "attack page" in the middle of it. See above, - I stay ;) - Thanks for talking to him, even if it will not change things! (Not without irony: I had prepared the then candidate for the question "Why do you want to serve a community that resembles a Great Dismal Swamp?" The RfA was over before I could ask.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I was wondering if you could approve me for use of AWB. I would like to use it for something automated (switching out an old file name for a new one on ALOT of pages) and the registration page is seriously backlogged. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homer, AWB and I don't get along very well, haha--look up on this page to find one conflict with a user. I have no experience with it, or with granting the right to it, so I think you'll have to make the case at the appropriate forum. Or maybe one of the more knowledgeable talk page stalkers can consider your request? Drmies (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't get the AWB program to work on my computer, so I found an AWB user (User:Moe Epsilon) to do the job for me. :) So, no worries. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha, best to ask a geek, not a luddite. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Always good to have geeks around. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Aharbal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MehrajMir '^(Talk) 08:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman vandal

[11]. Sole Soul (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ty. Hey, a student of mine misspelled "soul" in a paper, writing "sole". As a noun, of course--pretty funny. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A wikipedian (and a Wikimedia Foundation employee) misspelled "soul" in my username , writing "shoe". It became "Sole Shoe". It is not funny at all :-) Sole Soul (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be that nerd but this section title immediately reminded me of the scene in Life of Brian where he mis-conjugates graffiti and the Romans make him correct it and repeat it a hundred times. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you really hate it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a wonderful scene. I'm using it next semester in History of the English Language to explain the importance (ahem) of case. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem...Punctuation is everything. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EL policy misinterpretation

Hi, I'm going to open a discussion inside Talk:Steganography tools, about your recent edit on the article. The discussion is needed because I really think that your interpretation is (1) excessive, (2) not related to the specific contest and (3) someway extremely deletionist. I'm first one that, while editing, usually applies a strict NO EL policy to keep WP clean... but there's a threshold/balance that needs mediation. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your turn to be pestered

I pestered the Lady yesterday, so your name is now top of the roster ;) Is my edit here acceptable or do you think it is commentary? Perhaps even synthesis? - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's both, and I think you have two options: cut it or put it in a note. I personally would probably use the latter, esp. if you don't have a secondary source to verify the possibility. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll footnote it. Thanks for taking a look. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, have I ever told you how much I love you? Oh, I spend a nice afternoon yesterday watching Monty Python clips and the entire Friday Night/Saturday morning show. Very enlightening. Y'all were even more ... than the Dutchies in those days. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes hypothesise about your sanity and ^ gives me two more reasons to do so. Mind, the second bit - watching clips - might just be "research" and the first bit might just be down to overindulgence of bottled stuff. It seems that I can never quite prove my theory! Anyway, onwards and upwards: it's likely I'll be having another frustrating session with Doncram within the next few hours, so I'd better hit the bottle myself, courage for the inspiration of. Dutch or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shadia Mansour EL question

Hey Drmies! I saw you removed an external link to one of Shadia's notable videos, citing 'not a directory'. I was wondering, however, if I could use that link in a reference after the sentence where the video is discussed in the body.

Mansour's first single, "Al Kufiya Arabiya (The Kufiya is Arab)," featured rapper M-1 of dead prez and lyrics emphasizing the kufiya's role as a symbol of Arab nationalism.

I suppose it would be a primary source, although it would also just be a way for a reader to find the video which is being discussed. Thoughts? Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds better--let me get back to it after class. Thanks for your note, Ocaasi, Drmies (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can live with that. It's kind of a judgment call anyway, whether such a link is appropriate or not--placing it in a reference seems like a decent solution. You know what, if you just want to put it back I couldn't object. I watched it, by the way, and it is pretty cool. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chonga

On 29 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chonga, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Chonga has become a Miami icon, influencing fashion in South Florida and beyond? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chonga. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Overspecifying

To paraphrase the Wicked Witch of the West, "What a word."--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the point isn't clear, one can always be pointier and add "Earth". They don't pay us enough to settle such silly, silly disputes which could be handled with a bit of common sense. Instead, we have to act like admins and enforce common sense. BTW, I only weighed in there because I saw your edit on Recent changes, and the heading had a familiar title, which the one block log confirmed. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I know you don't care about sports and all that stuff, but I assume you at least have the decency of watching Duke vs. Ohio State right now. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BOOYAH! Drmies (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (talk page stalker) Drmies, I'm almost afraid to ask who you're rooting for...Go Phightins! 03:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why? Consider me an intellectual elitist, and you'll know. Also, I think "The" is silly. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid to ask because I feel that if we're rooting for opposite teams, you'll have something in store if yours wins, and mine doesn't, which at the moment seems rather likely. Go Phightins! 03:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, at least you're not an OSU fan. Phew. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I only root for Duke in college basketball to tick off a relative who roots for UNC (and Penn State's basketball program stinks) Go Phightins! 03:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't like either Duke or osu, but as a Michigan fan, my choice is easy. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry Strikeout--this talk page is a happy place for happy people (excepting Bgwhite, who is always welcome anyway). People who don't like Duke are usually constipated from consuming too many sour grapes, and cain't hardly be happy. ;) Close game, by the way. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have any idea what the point of that last foul was? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC) I prefer raisins to sour grapes. Fresh grapes are nice.[reply]
        I think he just slipped, went too far accidentally. That was some game though. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, someone needs to write Blue in US college basketball--it's gotta mean something. Duke, Kentucky, UNC... Drmies (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Grouping Tarheel Blue and Dook Bloo in a single article would be blatant POV pushing. JFHJr (㊟) 04:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds to me like the epitome of fair and balanced editing--both evil and good are represented. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "My name is John and I'm from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA". Whoa. John, did you see how this thread got started? ;) Drmies (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly agree with JFHJr...UNC has no place being mentioned in the same sentence as Duke. (though it occurs to me that I just did) Go Phightins! 11:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your edits to Tanka in English

Hi! I figured I should drop a courtesy note here to elaborate. The article in question was originally created (by me) from a huge body of unsubstantiated/probably unverifiable amount of spamcruft that had been added to the Tanka article by writers of "tanka in English" who wished to promote their work. I created this page as a compromise, primarily to save the Japanese tanka article from that volume of spam. However, every single sentence of the article is essentially little more than an advertisement for a (likely non-notable) literary publication, and if any of it can be verified in secondary sources it should be. I considered deleting the whole "History" section and requesting that sources be cited in order to include statements like those, but that would be even more extreme. Since "tanka in English" (as opposed to English translations of Japanese waka and tanka) are hardly if ever discussed in sources outside the small sub-culture that has built up around them, the article itself may not meet WP:GNG and might be deleted at some stage, but at the moment I don't feel like arguing that. The fact that the talk page was being monitored by two editors, one of whom has obvious WP:COI issues and the other of whom appears to be an inclusionist on principle, means that I have been unable up until now to discuss the issues facing the article in any meaningful way, and it seemed a choice between outright deletion of every statement without a citation, and requesting a citation for every statement. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Interesting. I don't know--I think there's some hope for that article yet. Now, a bunch of those books are old, real old, so advertising is a bit too strong, IMO. I'm moderately interested in the topic so I want to see if there's some references to be found--and maybe some passers-by would like to help out. I think Writ Keeper needs to brush up on his Japanese-style poetry. I'll have a look at the history as well. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that you reinstated the million cn tags, effectively rendering the article an unreadable joke. I am no fan of such tagging, not at all: you're not helping. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! And you reverted all my rewriting! That's too much. If you don't like the article, and you don't like to actually work on it, and you do like to undo someone else's work, you should probably just stay away and let others deal with. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add back all those tags. Tagging every frigging sentence does not encourage getting the references that are needed; it just makes it too obnoxious-looking to read. Now that Drmies has again removed the tags, I can actually look at the article. LadyofShalott 05:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: I appreciate your edits and will not revert you again. I accidentally reverted your rewritings, and was in the process of reinstating them (it's difficult to partially reinstate old edits) before you re-reverted me. The article is an unreadable mess filled with unreliable misinformation whether or not my tags are there. Anyway, please don't take this comment as trying to start a debate; I generally agree with you on the substance. The age of the publications seems irrelevant, though, since it's not entirely clear if any of them actually exist, at least in the manner in which they are discussed in the article. The "Imperial Poetry Contest" (no Japanese name given) is unfamiliar to me, but it seems like this entire section may be discussing irrelevant Japanese-language tanka written by foreigners. The user who wrote a lot of this is a self-publisher who has a habit of writing/publishing poorly-researched, non-academic articles outside Wikipedia. The other COISPA who has been blocking me from making substantial edits to the article up until now, for instance, wrote a previous article in which he retroactively applied his own made-up neologism to numerous publications over the last thousand years, but that didn't make it any less OR. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady, I'm finding a couple of things and am trimming more. It's slow going, with those PDFs from JSTOR and no automated way to fill in the stupid "cite journal" template... Drmies (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[This is another] barnstar for you!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

I have no idea how that happened, but it might have something to do with this section-name already existing above. (>_<;;)

Anyway, your help on Tanka in English is much appreciated! And please see Talk:Tanka in English#The road ahead for this article for a new relevant discussion forum/my evolved opinion on your edit to the opening paragraph :D

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not sure yet we can pull it off. The few sources I have found using JSTOR do suggest that it may well be that translation should be part of the article--that's part and parcel of the problem you noted, a lack of sources. Anyway, Elvenscout, tell me about the suspected COI editor. Google offered a suggestion or two, but I'd like to hear what you think and what evidence you have, on and off wiki. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind--I'm reading the ANI thread. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the COI editor(s), I think I have sent you an e-mail (posting the same here would be outing the users, even though they have effectively done that to themselves). If you didn't get the e-mail (I haven't used that feature before, so I'm not sure how reliable it is) tell me here and I'll try re-sending it. I have it saved on my hard drive anyway.

My problem with "tanka in English" with respect to translations continues to be that many of said translations are not "tanka" in that they have a lot more or less than 5 lines, and the translators don't use the word "tanka" itself (often preferring "waka", etc.). One example that comes to mind is McMillan's One Hundred Poets, One Poem Each: A Translation of the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu, which is so important it received a back-translation into Japanese, where the poems are called English-poem translations (英詩訳, eishi-yaku), as opposed to waka or tanka.[12] "Waka in English" is also problematic in that it essentially means "Japanese-language (as opposed to Chinese) poetry". If we take the title of the article as "Tanka in English" but freely include discussion of translations within the body, we have no problem, however.

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of [[13]]

Hi, I do not want to appear vicious but in my opinion it was premature to close the incident. The point was not an content dispute but that the edit summary was deliberately misleading, including the claim by User:Kierzek the text is "correct cited text". Most likely the actual error has slipped into the text sometime earlier but I am wondering why User:Kierzek insists it is the correct text. As of the source given, I do not have it available and without further evidence I am strongly inclined to think it does not contain the nonsense that is in the text now. Richiez (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But two administrators and one veteran editor thought it best to discuss it on the talk page, and I'm just following their lead. Moreover, I also don't see any evidence of any deliberate misleading. The IP's edit summary was all too brief ("rm misconception") and reverting unexplained changes is hardly ever deliberately misleading. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the text was already wrong before the IP edit and revert, but to claim that Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk was "a follower of the Austrofascist doctrine by Othmar Spann" as happened in the questionable revert certainly would require extraordinary sources and the edit summary "rv, to correct cited text" triggered my alarm bells. Moreover despite not having read the alleged source I dare to claim it does not contain this nonsense. I have asked the user for clarification how he could regard that as "the correct text". Richiez (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better way than going to ANI, where one goes for administrator intervention. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Reid 1996, p. 205.

[1]