User talk:Drmies/Archive 42

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

St Marys Church, Clophill[edit]

I have nominated this for DYK under IAR at Template:Did you know nominations/St Marys Church, Clophill. Ryan Vesey 04:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Main page: User talk:Senra § Churches in Bedfordshire

If any of you lot have the access and the capability, extracting the image from Laxton 1850, p. 6 would be very useful. It's the architect's own plan and illustration from 1850, which I think will be even more informative to the reader than a modern photograph. I'll have to check U.K. copyright legislation for architectural drawings, so don't take this as gospel, but it's probably out of U.K. copyright. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly out of UK copyright, unless done by a long-lived toddler (death + 70 years of architect and artist). Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Uncle, Johnbod. I'm on it. Listen, Uncle, one more thing. You're much cleverer than I am with those references, but there's a few things I don't get. For instance, there's this "BCC" reference, which is clickable and from footnote leads to entry in bibliography. But there is no entry called "BCC" to connect the footnote to the entry without clicking. As an MLA fan I find that troublesome, and I think it also means that visually impaired readers who use software to read the article won't be able to make the link. I also noted that the reference bibliography is not alphabetized: is there an organizing principle that I just don't see? Drmies (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnbod, can you help me out here? The image is here, but when I got to the licensing part it didn't give me an option "copyright expired in the UK". I don't know how to get it right. Also, and I think you know this better than me, can you add a couple of categories to the image? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Erm, why does the above link to me? Hmmm) Anyway, on the subject of images, consider this. A search of Geograph.org.uk with the string "Mary Clophill" reveals four images, three of which might suit the article: Parish church, Clophill, Beds, St Mary's Old Church, Clophill and Ruined church of St Mary's, Clophill, Beds. I am sure you are aware that most, if not all, Geograph images are CC BY-SA 2.0, and thus suitable for uploading to Wikimedia Commons --Senra (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Corner Travel Index page...[edit]

Hello. Thank you for all the great work you and others have done to build Wikipedia into what it is today.

I recently noticed that Corner Travel Index had been deleted. I see in the reasons that you marked it as promotional and spam. You also indicated that it was written by a paid editor.

My challenge is this... I developed the idea of Corner Travel Index as a means of measuring suspension flex. In our industry/world Ramp Travel Index is the norm and, since Ramp Travel Index exists on Wikipedia, I thought it was appropriate to put an article up that talks about this new, growing, standard.

So I am trying to understand what we did wrong that made it "Promotional" in your eyes? What we can do better with it? It is true that I paid someone to post it for us as (1) I have no experience posting, following formats, etc, on Wikipedia and (2) didn't want to do something stupid with it.

I wrote the article in word and sent it to the editor to format and post. I am not sure why that is bad.

Any help and guidance you can provide is appreciated. I would really like to see how we can get that article back.

Thank you,

Matson "Matsonian" Breakey

Matsonian (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)It read like an advertisement: it was filled with crap addressing the reader ("You can do this and that"), it sought to persuade the reader that the CTI is superior to the RTI, and in general came across as promotional. It contained almost none of the features which a Wikipedia article should contain: it lacked internal wikilinks to the subjects and topics involved; it had ill-formated links; and the links were not to solid reliable sources of the kind we need here. Like your userpage, it reeks of advertisement and marketing rather than dispassionately presented information.
Accounts which show no interest in improving Wikipedia, but instead seek only to promote and/or advocate, can be blocked as "spam-only" accounts at any time. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the part about the "new, growing standard": read this essay, please. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Matsonian, thanks for your note. I agree broadly with Orange Mike, though I might not put it so bluntly--but Mike lives a life of books, and those don't usually get along with forklifts. But yes, the tone was way too unencyclopedic, and by writing the thing yourself and sending it to someone to format and post you made a few mistakes. One was, you could have submitted it to WP:AFC, where you'd have gotten better advice and saved you the money. The other was to send a document that was not like an encyclopedic article to someone who, apparently, did not have the talent or the knowledge to turn it into an encyclopedic article, which is largely a matter of tone, in addition to the necessity of verifying information with reliable sources. So I'm sorry, you wasted your money on that person. If your CTI does become a standard, and well-known and all that, and if it gets written up in reliable sources (magazines, trade publications, newspapers), then you are welcome to try it again. But I'd go through the "official" channels, not through some paid editor doing half-assed work. Sorry, but them's the shakes. All the best, Drmies (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the feedback and the help. I will work on it as recommended and see if we can do better next time. Is there any way to recover the code that was put together so all that work is not lost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsonian (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, you got it: see User:Matsonian/sandbox. Now, let me give you another word of advice: stay away from articles that you have a conflict of interest with, from fork lifts to blues festivals... Drmies (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you, from me![edit]

The Writer's Barnstar
I don't think the student who copied your text into her research paper knows how to do barnstars, Drmies, so I'll just do it myself. Bravo: Wikipedia does in fact make a difference. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No! Did one of your students really hand in plagiarism of your Wikipedia writing? That's... wow, I don't even know what to say. LadyofShalott 23:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Now, isn't that barnstarworthy? At least they recognize quality writing when they see it. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least. Have you had a conversation with said student yet? I wonder if this constitutes a WP first. Part of me wants to say "congratulations", but that doesn't seem quite right. LadyofShalott 00:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh to see the look on the student's face when you show them your logging in as Drmies and then the diff(s) where you added the very material they copied. LadyofShalott 00:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That student owes me a keyboard! OK...I can clean the coffee off it from my spit take and get back to work...but this is absolutely hilarious!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A case of Pierre Menard? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha Kiefer, very apt. I remember sitting outside this summer in the sun reading that story, thinking of its unlikeliness. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Lady, I did not see the look on the student's face when she read her email. There has been no response and I don't really expect one. I wonder if she'll show up for the final exam. We should have a DYK section in the Signpost. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was attending a guest lecture (by a noted academic) a couple years back on early music pedagogy, and one of the presenter's slides looked very familiar...and even included a blue superscript number! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious! A classicist's curiosity overcomes me: what was the topic of the paper that admitted plagiarism of a synopsis (however accomplished) of book 5 of the Aeneid.  davidiad.:τ 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The student wrote (well) on the topic of dreams and visions in Gilgamesh and The Aeneid. I discovered that she copied the last sentences of her paper from Sparknotes, and after assigning the paper a zero I looked through it again. The point she was making with my words (copyright duly signed over to the world, of course) was about the parade in the underworld, which I wouldn't even qualify as a vision. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a book published by Academic Press that includes an entire chapter copied without attribution from a Prentice Hall book by a different author. The subjects of the books weren't obviously linked, which is maybe why the author of the Academic Press book thought he'd get away with it. I contacted Academic Press but never received a reply. Such is life. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You got me beat, Malleus: I don't have a book published yet! ;) Drmies (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a book published yet either smart arse. Still, can't be too hard, look at the idiots who have. Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, couldn't resist. It's one of those little BE/AmE things that will come up next semester, in April or so, in my HEL class. Getting a book published with a decent press is actually not that easy, esp. not a first book. It's the big shots that more easily get away with stuff, and they don't have to plug them by themselves, on Amazon and Wikipedia. Of course, if I wasn't wasting my time here, with this addiction, mine would be finished by now. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A photograph of me has been on the cover of a book I didn't write - does that count? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. This is unbelievably incredible. Congratulations, Drm. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is truly hilarious, I actually did laugh out loud. Way to inspire a generation of lazy dishonest students. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No published books but I did have a fact I wrote about on Wikipedia (that I have since removed as circular referencing. The reference I was using turned out to have been referenced from the site I had first made note of the information on) show up on IMDB and then get written into a book that questioned the information (but in such a way that still didn't disprove it) and i found it when looking for an RS to re-add it. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it's amazing how stuff you do on Wikipedia gets about. The other day a reference was added to a page I watched. While reading through the reference (actually a blog) I saw a map of England that I had made, and no attribution :( Ah well, at least it's getting some use! Del♉sion23 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC) I think that happens a lot to Wikipedia teachers, honestly!! Wadewitz (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very dead people versus customers[edit]

I'm more in Malleus Fatuorum's category. I discovered a few years ago that I am the unwitting author of most of a chapter of someone else's book, as well as a fair amount of a different person's university thesis. Alas, I didn't make a note of the book when I came across it. That was my non-Wikipedia work. As for my Wikipedia work, I noticed a month or so ago that my article rescue of Customer (AfD discussion) — of all things — is being quoted wholesale all over the place. Just to let you know that I'm hot on your coat tails, my rewrite of that article is currently being offered to students as a model essay, in addition to being used to settle arguments, making business consultants look learned, and being presented at insurance seminars.

This is what you get for writing about the poems of very dead people, rather than about subjects that people like to use to make money. ☺

Uncle G (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you had assigned one of your employees to write about consumer relationships or so, and you got your own words quoted back at me, you'd be in my category. There's theft and theft, but not all theft leads to irony. One of my old PhD pals on Facebook asked where I plagiarized the stuff from that I put in the Aeneid article. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You won't get a "wily editor" badge on your user page, you know, until you go back in time and accuse Virgil of plagiarism. My work colleagues, alas, are too smart for such things, and not lazy like your student. ☺ I've known them to check article edit histories. I take it from the "old" that xe is no longer one of your Ph.D. pals on Facebook. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't you try that with me, Uncle. Your "take" is a willful misreading, and I will take this up with the Foundation's relevant Committee which will, no doubt, issue a correcting directive. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. My mistake. You were saying that your Ph.D. pals on Facebook are old. This won't help with the youth cred, you know. Have they all "liked" Willeke Alberti? Uncle G (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other matters[edit]

Our copy of This Is Not My Hat finally came in today. You need to get ahold of it. You and your kids will fall in love with Jon Klassen all over again. LadyofShalott 02:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently Santa is bringing it to us: I can't wait. You know we lost our copy of I want my hat back? Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page.
Message added 07:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Maybe you understand this ANI[edit]

Recently someone restored this ANI thread, which had been archived: WP:ANI#WP:SPA apparently promoting an author to which he/she is personally linked. Will this thread reach a happy ending and be somehow closed? It seems unlikely that many people would have the patience to comment, but you are one of the names I recognize in the thread. If you still have an opinion, would you be willing to summarize what this is about? It appears that a semi-voluntary mutual topic ban of two people could be agreed on, and would be easy to understand. Also, this thread is already super-long, and if we agree to a vague deal that could be read in different ways we can expect the future monitoring of the deal to use up many, many electrons at ANI again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh no--I clicked on it, but I'm not looking at it since it just occurred to me what that thread was about; I had noticed that it disappeared. OK, I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ed; please look to see what I've done. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ed, thank you so much for your help. I learned something new today. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congrats on your mastery of the log. From now on I will search for colorful language if I want to find your log entries. Not every admin takes that 'quoted verbatim' literally but it is funnier when they do. Good thing nobody reads the log anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon flavored bacon[edit]

Some things don't need explaining

Just fired up the smoker, have two racks of ribs, some chicken wings getting ready for buffalo sauce, and a 3 pound block of bacon working. Got family coming over (the part I like) and going to watch movies, eat ribs, eat wings, drink beer, and of course, eat bacon. It sucks to not be me today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to pretend that I did not see you on your soapbox somewhere giving fruit and carbohydrates a bad name. FWIW, we have roasted parsnips and carrots, roasted beets, boiled and sauteed small potatoes, pork chops, sauteed beat greens, and mustard vinaigrette for dinner. It ain't wings and bacon, but I feel a lot less guilty than you should. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dennis, that truly sounds delightful, especially after my weekend thus far. Go Phightins! 04:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was, and my left arm hasn't gone numb yet so I think I'm in the clear. ;) It probably helps that I use a little moderation in my quantities as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I get home Thursday and plan on eating bacon every day for at least a week. My diet this last month has been cheese and crackers, (possibly recalled for containing benzopyrene) instant noodles, some fruit, soup, and peanut butter. Fortunately I have managed to get in a couple slices of pizza. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bacon is so messy to cook, we usually do a large quantity at a time and refrigerate it in a ziplock bag. Easy to pull out two or three sliced, microwave, crumple over a salad and you have a complete meal. But the smoked variety is like an orgasm for your taste buds. The flavor is so rich, I can't eat too much in one sitting. Excellent with beer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Not to flood your page with TB's, but you're always going on about your technical ineptitude, so I'm erring on the side of caution. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • How exciting! I'm hoping your next missive will come attached to a nice package with Christmas gifts. We don't have any fruitcakes yet. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hi[edit]

I noticed the changes you made on Lee Hi's article. I wanted to ask if it's alright to add back: Music Program Award and Filmography-Television section. I would like to justify my reason for adding this back. For the music program award, the performances are not lip-synced but live performances. Also the awards she won from M! Countdown are calculated by combining Online Music Sales (50%), Album Sales (10%), M! Countdown Global Online Votes (5%), Age Preference (20%), Live Show Preferences (10%), and Real-time Mobile (SMS) Votes (5%). I don't feel like this section is just triva. Then, I understand that radio apperances and other activites should be remove, because it is trivia. But for her television section, I don't understand the reason for removing that section. However, if you find this is unreasonable, I will not add it back. Thank you. S2nancy (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nancy, thank you for your note. Most K-pop articles suffer from a couple of related diseases: an extraordinary amount of factoids and a limited amount of references to reliable sources. Individual television appearances are simply not relevant, certainly not in the long run. Imagine that every single TV appearance of Tom Cruise or Paul McCartney were listed in their articles. Lip-synced or live (I have some doubts) doesn't really matter either. Awards are notable and worthwhile including if they are verified by reliable sources--by which we mean something more objective and higher up the food chain than allkpop.com and such. Those "news" sites aren't news sites; they are fan sites whose content is, no doubt, pushed by the management of those acts.

    What you have in K-pop, with its news portals, TV programs, awards, management, artists, tours, fan clubs, compilations, radio shows, come-backs etc, is a gigantic commercial conglomerate that I and other editors are attempting to keep out of Wikipedia as much as possible. So, if you can verify things by reference to real news sources and reliable sources, then you can include them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Drmies, thank you for your reply. For the awards from M! Countdown if I source their website that shows history of their charts, will that be reliable source for you. Also, the television show that I wanted to list is the South Korean reality TV competition, "Survival K-Pop Star", which she was a contestant. I think that is at least reasonable to add if that is okay with you. Thank you for helping and working with me. I really appreciate it. S2nancy (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Nancy, it's not just factual accuracy that is at stake here, as I have tried to suggest above, perhaps unsuccessfully. It's the very nature of those awards and what not. If there are secondary sources for that information, then it can be argued that they are legitimate. The program's website is not secondary. I'm not going to go to war over this, but I wish to re-emphasize that this is an encyclopedia where content has to be verifiable and relevant. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Drmies, I apologize if I sound like I'm trying to have an arguement, because I truely am not. I'm just a user trying to find out what I did wrong and how to improve it. That's the reason for posting this on your talk. Thank you for all you help. I rest my case then. S2nancy (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

userification of a page[edit]

Hi Drm - ages and ages ago, I (successfully) AfDed Psilocybe cyanofriscosa because at the time it failed the GNG and hadn't been formally described as a species. It was recently formally described as a species (albeit under a different name,) and thus deserves an article again. Could you please userfy the deleted article to my userspace somewhere? Preferably with contributor history intact, so that I can retain its attribution history if I reuse any of the material in it. I'd ask the deleting admin, but honestly it's funner to come up with something to nag you about. Thanks, and hope you are well besides for hilarious plagiarism, Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is what you get, Drmies, for seeking youth cred: the attentions of people for whom "ages and ages ago" equates to "last year". Uncle G (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:p Thanks, Uncle G. I was hoping there would be more useful information in the article, but oh well. Now that it's been formally described, at least I should be able to write a legitimate article about it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not nagging. I do think it's funny that, confirming Uncle G's grumpy commentary, I'm being asked by someone to undelete a piece of science that they got deleted first. It's ironic, of course. Sure Kevin, I'm on it--after I finish watching this episode of Littlest Pet Shop. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I got it deleted, it wasn't a piece of science! Now, with the recent publication in a peer reviewed mycology journal of a formal description of the species it is :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Like this 'shroom wasn't named by Adam in the beginning of human history. Don't get all sciency with me, pal! But I do see a DYK in the future, with some funky hook about mushrooms and Haight-Ashbury. Which, by the way, I'd love to get back to. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the edit war starter has to be me, you're another hypocrite[edit]

The talk page at maldivian language got vandalised and deleted many times by by User_talk:Kwamikagam now you're accusing me of edit warring? what kind of a admin are you? Also User_talk:Kwamikagam thinks he owns the wikipedia and everything in the world to rule however User_talk:Kwamikagam what's. I'm just a guy from maldivians trying to contribute the native language of mine but some chinese hypocrite here is vandalising the whole wikipedia and he has also previous vandalism of other language these kind of users shouldn't be allowed in wikipedia, you're doing the opposite as a administrator of Wikipedia, you're taking the wrong decision. --AtefAadd (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're accusing me of harassment, just look at the conversation i haven't used any profanity, User_talk:Kwamikagam is one who harassed me by saying i'm an idiot on the User_talk:Kwamikagam talk page view history: I will not take this problem gentlely i will report all hypocrites and people using admins powers only to achieve their own goals. --AtefAadd (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the talk page wasn't vandalized. You were adding a move request discussion when there already was one, and you kept adding it and adding it. That's edit-warring. Then, you're making a whole bunch of changes the validity of which will depend on the result of that discussion. That's disruption. Also, all your edits appear to be reverts of Kwamikagami. That's probably hounding. Finally, Kwamikagami asked you a couple of times to NOT post on gust talk page anymore, and then you continue to--duh--post on his talk page. I'm not talking about profanity, and "idiot" isn't very profane anyway, I'm talking about harassment. Now, "vandalism" doesn't mean "that which you think is wrong", and I suggest you stop using that term if you don't use it correctly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is removing lesbian content on Wikipedia based on his personal opinions -- WP:IDONTLIKEIT[edit]

Don't deny the gentleman.

Hi, Drmies. User:MikeFromCanmore is a newly registered account and he is removing lesbian content on lesbian or lesbian-related articles in a fashion that can only be described as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See this edit to the Lesbianism in erotica article,[1] this edit to the Cunnilingus article,[2] where he removed the lesbian image and then asserted on the talk page that cunnilingus is more commonly performed by males,[3] and see these edits to the Lesbian sexual practices article.[4][5][6][7] He contradicted himself on his "[cunnilingus] is usually an act performed by a male" assertion anyhow, shown with the first edit he made to the Lesbian sexual practices article.[8]

Care to help out with this? The user doesn't seem to understand how he's at fault, or that he should abide by WP:Verifiability instead of his personal opinions,[9] and he doesn't have a clue what reliable sources are (as witnessed by his calling the sources he's been removing "biased" and "unreliable"). I've already posted a message to WP:LGBT about this,[10] but this issue needs administrative assistance. I chose to approach one administrator (you) about it instead of reporting it at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, especially since some there may feel that it is mostly a content dispute that shouldn't be discussed there. But, as can be seen with this user's edits, it's not just a content dispute but also a problematic user conduct issue. 220.255.2.132 (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Per the quirks of probabilities, this is the second place I've seen you post this request. I should warn you that you're in serious risk of violating WP:CANVASS - and this page is sometimes referred to as "Administrators' Noticeboard 2.0," so it might not be the best place to do that. I took a look at Mike's contributions when I saw your notice at WT:LGBT (which was made by 220.255.2.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but I'm assuming you have a dynamically assigned IP or something similar), and didn't really see much of a need for immediate action. Of course back then you were just telling editors in general, but now if you're seeking out admins too, I'm a bit worried that you might be overstating things. Mike was warned for edit-warring on Lesbian sexual practices, and hasn't edited since. If he does continue the dispute in the future, you can obviously take him to WP:AN3, or to any uninvolved admin, but I doubt that there's anything Drmies or any other admin could do at this point, even if they wanted to. Now, since you have a dynamic IP, I can't see everyone you've brought this up with, but from the two requests I've seen so far, this sounds dangerously close to canvassing: You can use WT:LGBT for things like getting more eyes on anti-gay vandalism, and notifying project participants of discussions which might interest them, but you really shouldn't seek out a project because you hope to find sympathetic views. (I can't help but wonder if you notice the pro-gay marriage userbox on Drmies's userpage.) Figured as the resident gay talk page stalker, I might as well be the one to tell you all this. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 10:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, I had already warned Mike that he is about to get blocked for POV pushing, harassing and edit warring. No comment on the IP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 220.255.2.132, get yourself an account and log in to it. Whatever the merits of the content dispute, you're clearly trying to contribute in good faith, here. But currently you're sharing an edit history with things like this, this, this, and this. Get an account and get yourself an edit history that is not shared with other people. Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Francophonie&Androphilie, I've used appropriate means of WP:CANVASS. I have only gone to the WP:LGBT project and here (to Drmies's talk page) about this. It is perfectly acceptable to notify WP:LGBT about edits on a LGBT article which are or seem problematic, and that's what I did. Seeking out sympathetic views at a WikiProject is often legitmately practiced, so your point on that is odd to me, but my going to them was strictly based on knowing that User:MikeFromCanmore's edits were wrong. Not because "Oh, they are going to be on my side because they are LGBT." I'm not even LGBT, and I very much doubt that the editors of the LGBT project side with a person simply because that person is editing in a pro-LGBT way. In fact, I have seen that they don't. "Pro-LGBT way" doesn't mean that the edits are right. And I came here (to Drmies's talk page) because, as I said, I was looking for administrative assistance without possibly being told at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page that this is mostly a content dispute that shouldn't be discussed there. I had no idea that Drmies is pro-gay marriage. I usually don't check user pages, but rather user talk pages. And I don't understand how I'm overstating things about User:MikeFromCanmore's edits. Way to assume good faith. Clearly, no good deed goes unpunished.
Thank you, Dennis Brown and Uncle G. 220.255.2.136 (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noting here that I posted the initial message of this section before Dennis Brown gave User:MikeFromCanmore the above noted warning.[11] So at least I helped in that way. 220.255.2.155 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I wouldn't normally consider putting a notification at the project and one admin's talk page as canvassing, but instead see it as seeking resolution. I get similar requests on my talk page all the time. Since the requests were limited in scope to two very different areas that could possibly generate a resolution, and it wasn't shopping a variety of admin hoping to get one to agree, I see no problem. Like I said, I had already taken action before I noticed this post, but by only 3 minutes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's at it again, and has called me a vandal.[12][13] 220.255.2.127 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this,[14] Dennis Brown. I commented at WP:LGBT about it.[15] As I said there, I don't think that this is the type of editor who's just going to stop engaging in the problematic editing that he's been engaging in, not without administrators forcing him to stop. So he may edit as an IP before his block expires, or go right back to WP:Edit warring after his block expires and then come back as a different registered user once he's indefinitely blocked for continuing his problematic editing. I'm obviously going to keep a lookout for him. Thank you for your time. 220.255.2.172 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the world has taken care of another problem; thank you all. I do wish to state my agreement with Dennis, that I don't consider this Canvassing. Having said that, dear IP, Francophonie's advice is sensible. Let me also state, for the record, that I don't mind this, though the edit summary makes no sense--I know that lots of people appreciate Seedfeeder's graphics, but I'm not one of them, and there already is a very good image of essentially the same scene, with a much better background. I also wish to express my admiration for the gentleman in the [Achille Devéria]] article, who is in a difficult position, and to the lady, for showing a lovely bush. IP, what Uncle says: please do get an account. IPs are sometimes not taken seriously (this page is hopefully different), and if you share a history with such vandals then your credibility is easily shot. Francophonie, one more thing: you're not the only gay talk page stalker here, but I don't kiss and tell. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, I hadn't even looked that far yet--I don't need to, since this is ANI 2.0. I do wonder how editors find me. Anyway, good block, Dennis, and thanks for your involvement: this person is not here to build an encyclopedia in the way we claim we want to build it, and their writing isn't so great either. I haven't yet figured out what Mike's particular POV is (and I don't really want to look at all their edits), but I'm going to guess he's not a big fan of Hollandse Nieuwe. Me, I could do without the raw onion. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tell everyone to come here. Just today I put a banner on the MMA project page pointing them here as well. I hate to see you bored. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's just great. Hey Dennis, you bacon-wrapped man of the world, I need some advice. I'm growing my beard. Is that more or less likely to land me in the position occupied by the gentleman in the picture that now accompanies this section? Your thoughts are welcome--in fact, I'll make a separate subsection, since we're well away from lesbian bashing. That is, "For well he wist a woman hath no beard". And I note this. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A different editor reverted User:MikeFromCanmore at the Cunnilingus article. I'm certain that User:MikeFromCanmore only removed the lesbian image because it is a lesbian image. The point of including the image is to show diversity. There's already two images of a man performing cunnilingus on a woman.
  • Wrong... Don't make assumptions :P As I said several times before, I equated the article to the manner put forth by the male version, fellatio, (only opposite sex and of drawings), which I thought should be the template in that one as well. I'm a person of consistency, which is why I also equated the intro on lesbian erotica to a similar notion set forth by the intro on gay male erotica. Unfortunately, you have the intentions all wrong. That makes me sad. 142.161.183.162 (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an interesting article in particular the (cited) terminology section. "Drinking from the furry cup", one learns something new every day. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if Google will translate "een zoute bek halen" for you. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, but not as interesting as its "did you mean een zoete bek halen". --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyhow, Dennis Brown indefinitely blocked User:MikeFromCanmore because, as expected, he created a new account (WP:Sockpuppet) and continued edit warring. Thanks for letting me know what you think of this issue, and for the humor. Regarding this edit,[16] maybe the previous wording was trying to be inclusive of pubescent and post-pubescent girls (as in girls who are biological adults...but are not yet legal adults) having sex with their pubescent or postpubescent adolescent boyfriends? 220.255.2.155 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so (was it you? if so, my apologies for what I'm about to say), but it strikes me as the kind of language I read in student papers all the time. Neither in my classes (I teach language and literature) nor in such articles should we write in terminology from the biological lexicon. "Drinking from the furry cup" (for pleasure, of course--my dog does it too, to herself, and for hygienic reasons) is a human activity, and "females" means all kinds of animals with female plumbing. Note also that you made it heterosexual again, talking about boyfriends. ;) Moreover, "women" doesn't necessarily mean "of a certain age", since that itself is culturally determined; see also the second sentence of our Woman article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [I had something typed up and just now I had to type it up again due to edit conflicts. Can't remember all of what I wrote.] No, I didn't add that, Drmies. I was just throwing the idea out there. As for not using "females," I'm familiar with that grammar debate. Feel free to give me more grammar lessons, I don't mind. But I don't see how "female" or "females" can't be used sometimes. Two examples are "the female sexual response" and "the female orgasm," wordings that scholars use. While some sources state "human female sexual response," not as many state "the human female orgasm." And none state "the boy or man orgasm" or "the girl or woman orgasm." With context, readers can tell that we are talking about humans. And stating "woman" often does exclude girls, which is the reason I'm sure that so many scholars stick to "female" over "woman." When talking about the human vagina, for example, anatomy books simply state "female" or "females." All anatomy books I've come across generally state "male/males" and "female/females" when speaking of boys/men and girls/women. Another example of using "female" seeming better than using "woman" is if we were to state "the first female president." Not too many sources would state "the first woman president." Also keep in mind that some people assert that while they are biologically male or female, they don't identify as a man or as a woman (third gender). And I know that legal adulthood varies. That's why I noted "biological adult" and "legal adult." But, in most human societies, a female being able to reproduce doesn't make her a woman. Legal adulthood does. But I know what you are talking about on the whole Female vs. Woman wording. See this source.[17] The author talks about when it's appropriate to use "females" and also states, "It's my recommendation that you use female as a noun only when you are speaking about animals or writing scientifically. When you are talking about female humans, the favored nouns are woman and women. Likewise, when you're talking about male humans, the favored nouns are man and men."
  • And I didn't mean to turn things heterosexual. It was just an example, and it's difficult to avoid initially using a heterosexual example due to the fact that most people identify as heterosexual and due to heteronormativity. 220.255.2.114 (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I do hear "first woman president" and such phrases. Sure, anatomy books speak on the topic in the way you mentioned, but that's anatomy. Thanks, BTW, for that grammar link: I actually wasn't aware of a real debate, and that's a useful thing to have. And I think I know what bothers me: I'll accept (in the contexts I have been talking about) "female" as an adjective, but not as a noun. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following comment moved from top of section so as not to have new text above old text. Comment is a response to the original post. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think his rationale on removing the picture featured on an article about a sex act was that on the male equivalent page, fellatio, 3 out of 3 pictures displayed were opposite sex, and paintings/art. The picture removed was same sex, and a simulation of some sort. so he tried to keep the female one in line with the male one? At least it's consistent! Also I don't believe lesbian content besides that was removed by the user in question. From what I can see, posts mentioning males were the ones edited out. It is amusing how much you obsess over this user, Proxy IP editor. Why use a proxy? your static ip is banned?.. dododoodo...142.161.182.190 (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I never thought someone here would say I made a good point. But yes, I was simply trying to equate the female version to the likes of the male version and I'm glad I wasn't harassed too much for that (besides by our friend IPfoe, of course). I would have equated the male version to the likes of the female version instead, but had no images on male-male fellatio that would be acceptable. 142.161.183.162 (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not buying your rationale, and I already made clear why that is above. It makes no sense at all. You show up with an anti-lesbian lean to your edits, then remove the lesbian image from the article when there are two heterosexual images and assert that the lesbian image is redundant? Absurd. You want to ask me questions. One can just as easily ask you why are you pretending not to be User:MikeFromCanmore? You honestly think that you are fooling anyone here, with the same type of rationale/way of typing as User:MikeFromCanmore? You honestly think that anyone buys that you suddenly showed up out of nowhere on two low-traffic articles to edit them in the same exact way as User:MikeFromCanmore? No one is obsessing over you here. Just pointing out your obvious anti-lesbian/lesbian-envy focus. You are the one who followed me to this talk page, where you aren't even supposed to be allowed because you are indefinitely blocked, and expect us to believe that you are some neutral editor who just happened to show up at the same articles User:MikeFromCanmore was at, happens to type just like User:MikeFromCanmore, happens to give the same rationales as User:MikeFromCanmore...and happens to single me out/has a bone to pick with me just like User:MikeFromCanmore? LOL!!!! You give yourself away with each statement you make. "I never thought someone here would say I made a good point." is just the latest dead-giveaway. And I'm not anyone else's "IP foe" here except yours. 220.255.2.109 (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you capable of being civil? I expressed why it was done and you freak out. Just calm down. You were wrong about my intent and accept it. No need for hostilities. 142.161.183.162 (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I capable of being civil? You are the one who has hurled insults at people from day one! You are the one who wouldn't calm down. And now you want to turn it all around on me and make it out like you've been the good editor? You haven't. I started out being civil to you. And, hello, you were uncivil to me above first! And when you got rudeness in return, you were surprised? You are one of the oddest Wikipedia editors I've ever encountered. 220.255.2.120 (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Well, you seem to have given up on pretending that you're not Mike, which I suppose is for the best. Anyways, umm, no, it's ridiculous to remove content from an article simply because it's missing from a similar one: If one article has a certain type of content, and another doesn't, and you can't find any independent reason to remove the content from the one that has it, then you should add the content to the one lacking it, not the other way around. As for images, there's this, which should be perfectly acceptable, and actually a whole lotta this, which probably deserves mention too. Point is, there's not really an excuse for arbitrarily deleting homosexual content. Also, umm, yet he without sin cast the first stone - you seem to be on a dynamic IP yourself, Mike. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 10:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but how was I supposed to know it wasn't supposed to be missing? In my mind, the male article was set as heterocentric, and I can't tell if it's missing the homosexuality aspect or if it is intended to be that way! See what I'm getting at? I have no idea on the wiki's policies for leaving an article as mixed orientation or keeping it exclusively straight. If I had known the policy was for mixed, then I would have suggested to add something gay to the other article, rather than deleted the mixed orientation presented on the female page. Maybe I guessed wrong. Sorry! 142.161.183.162 (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts[edit]

  • I now have a short, well groomed beard. I hear it tickles, and she hasn't asked me to shave it off. I have found that all that is needed to assume that position is willingness, however, so I'm not sure the beard is a factor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very useful information, thank you. BTW, how long does it need to grow (the beard) before it stops tickling (oneself)? Drmies (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2 or 3 weeks. Then some days it bugs me, most days it doesn't. Usually dry or oily skin causes it. If it gets too long it bugs me, or too short. A beard, she is a fickle thing. Just have to find the sweet spot. I keep mine trimmed like this fellow's [18] but a little shorter. Just long enough that you can tell I have a beard and didn't just fuck off shaving for a week. I've a lot of Irish and Cherokee blood in me, we aren't a hairy people anyway, so that is about the best I can muster. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • At least you two can grow one. I have approximately three hairs where there should be a beard. I'm sad. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And another one[edit]

[20]. Reverted already - figure it's faster to just post it here than to take this to SPI. Oh, and, to the IP, I owe you an apology: If I'd been aware of all of Mike's actions, I doubt I would've been so critical; there was nothing wrong with bringing it up at WT:LGBT, and you definitely made the right call bringing it to Drmies and his cabal. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With 142.161 insisting that he's not a sockpupet, I'm holding off on further reverts out of empathy as much as anything else. Admins, que pensez vous ? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to block, but I've reverted and semi-protected the page for 48 hours. Hopefully that'll cool his jets. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WK. Sounds like a happy medium. You might want to revert and protect Lesbian sexual practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) too, fyi. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So ordered. If he actually wants to talk about things, now is a perfect time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. And he's been going on at his talk page (142.161.182.190‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), but I think I'll leave the actual content stuff to someone more familiar with what he's complaining about (and by that I mean the studies, not lesbianism). Although, speaking of lesbians, and my radical feminist friends who therewith associate, I, for one, have heard enough lectures on sexism that I tend to disregard any content complaint alleging "misandry." — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, listen up everybody, bearded or not. Can we not work together to make this a decent article? IP 99, I'm talking to you as well--you're supposed to know art. The Lady knows modern sexuality, Dennis has now been taught how to write, Writ Keeper can do fancy shit that makes it all look good, Francophonie can practice his writing skills (and maybe we can do an experiment in conversion therapy? see if it works?), I have access to JSTOR...can we not all drink this furry cup to the bottom and make it something to be proud of? Drmies (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I was looking at some of the diffs given above, the note about this being for a male straight audience, I was reminded of something I came across today, an RfC for "Pray the gay away" on--now I remember, let's see: Talk:Conversion therapy. Anyway, this current article shouldn't be so difficult to straighten out; the rest of the article, below that misplaced gallery, has references and all. Let's play around with organization a bit? Drmies (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, Francophonie&Androphilie. And User:MikeFromCanmore's latest sockpuppet should be blocked as a sockpuppet. I can't find anything productive about that user, and, if he wants to continue editing at Wikipedia, which he clearly does, he should appeal to be unblocked and see what happens after that. But I appreciate the help reverting him and locking down the article. I've already replied to his rantings in detail before.[21] He just ignores what the sourcs say, asserts that this research about lesbian sexual practices shouldn't be in the article titled Lesbian sexual practices because it compares heterosexual sexual activity, he asserts that there are opposing studies (although he only cites one, which is a discredited study and isn't even an opposing study), and he goes on and on with this absurd talk of sexism and lesbianism bias, as though all of these researchers were/are sexist and had/have a lesbian bias. His rationale is just odd to say the least. 220.255.2.114 (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
220, you know your stuff. Can I get you to contribute to Lesbianism in erotica? Don't let me do it--I did not study this subject matter, and I know women only from pictures. Mike will be blocked again and again until he's tired of it. I'm not worried about it; Dennis has it under control. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just hope he stops posting 8,000 byte screeds on my talk page. I gave him some advice, and challenged him to prove me wrong. Somehow, I'm not worried about it... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you have access to JSTOR I know, but does anyone here have access to Highbeam? I've been looking for some sources for the discussion of Henry and June (gods know why I've focused on that); Highbeam has some interesting articles, but my seven0-day trial has expired long since. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also also, this is a very inconvenient topic for me to work on. I can't edit it while at work, while I'm...uh...waiting for my code to compile. yeah, that sounds good. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it doesn't matter how many times things are explained to User:MikeFromCanmore,[22] he's never going to understand and/or he simply doesn't care to understand. Either that, or he's just ignoring the fact that he's wrong.
Drmies, what were you expecting me to help with? I don't know much about lesbianism in erotica. I know more about research on lesbian sexual identity, lesbian sexual activities, and human sexuality in general. 220.255.2.120 (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm right about the conclusion stated in the erotica page as being fallacious, I am confident on that one. If you want proof just google the most purchased adult videos? See what they're about? That would correspond to male arousal quite well. As for the sexual practices, I am neither right nor wrong, simply because there is no evidence for the claim in the source besides a one liner. No surveys, data, or anything. Not reliable! See WP:Verifiability as my friend Writ pointed out. And if you can't verify it, it shouldn't be in the article :). 142.161.183.162 (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are so wrong that it's just sad. You maintain that you are right in the face of WP:Reliable sources. You are 99.9% WP:Original research. And it is especially sad that you are misusing the WP:Verifiability policy. Ugh. Wikipedia is not the place for editors like you. 220.255.2.170 (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to turn this into a childish argument it seems, hmm? Well no, you're wrong! You are 50% unreliable conclusions and 50% bothersome. And don't be upset I used your own tool against you. It's not misusing, it's correctly using. Have you verified yet? 142.161.183.162 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, back it up. You turned it into a childish argument up above. Pointing out that you don't follow WP:Reliable sources, are almost always citing your own personal opinions, go by WP:Original research as you did with the "just google the most purchased adult videos" line above, and that you are misusing the WP:Verifiability policy is not childish. That is serious. Serious concern over seriously troublesome rationale. Anyone here will tell you that you are misusing the WP:Verifiability policy. How you don't understand that you are is mind-boggling. 220.255.2.120 (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Since there's such a lack of English professors on this user talk page, let me present to you the Frederick G. L. Huetwell Professor of English at the University of Michigan:

  • Traub, Valerie (2002). The Renaissance of Lesbianism in Early Modern England. Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture. Vol. 42. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521448857. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Professor Traub has an interesting note at Traub 2002, p. 450, for those of you who want both points of view in the matter of François Boucher and homoerotica, which definitely trumps Adult Industry News. It's the Erica Rand who is the professor of Art and Visual Culture and Women and Gender Studies at Bates College that she is citing, by the way. Stefano Zuffi, a simple art historian by comparison, gives a broad overview of the topic, and states that "Courbet deserves credit for lifting the veil" (Zuffi 2010, p. 232), which you ought to consider when burying Courbet in the middle of that list of artists.

  • Rand, Erica (1994). "Lesbian Sightings: Scoping for Dykes in Boucher and Cosmo". Journal of Homosexuality. 27 (1 &amp, 2): 123–140. doi:10.1300/J082v27n01_06. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Zuffi, Stefano (2010). "Lesbianism". Love and the Erotic in Art. Guide to Imagery. Getty Publications. ISBN 9781606060094. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Uncle G (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • UNCLE! Are you kidding me, or are you stalking me? Erica Rand? Drmies (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither, in fact. I deduce two things from this:
      1. She is the professor of Art and Visual Culture and Women and Gender Studies and Snow Globes.
      2. Clearly the lack of English professors on this user talk page is sucking them in from the world around like a vacuum.
    • There is also the possibility that it is Valerie Traub who is stalking you, and that she just went back in her time machine to cite Rand in her book. But I view the English Professor Vacuum Hypothesis as the more probable. Uncle G (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not burying anyone anywhere, Uncle--I'm still in the clean-up stage for that section, with no idea how big it would be, what kinds of sections there might be, etc. You'll have noticed that what I found did not exactly give a trustworthy view of history, though it did have lots of juicy links to reproductions that were for sale.

        I usually start with what's there. What happens next depends on the sources I get my hands on. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got a source for you to read..[edit]

Contrary to the notion set forth in the article that I was correctly trying to revise and make more fair (as I said, that "research" is very one sided!) "* Sexual communication. Similarity breeds comfort, so compared with those in heterosexual couples, we would expect people in lesbian and gay couples to feel more satisfied with their sexual communication. But in the survey, satisfaction with sexual communication was "virtually identical" for all groups." "* Satisfaction with sexual activities. It was remarkably similar for all groups. The only difference was that women, both lesbian and straight, felt somewhat more satisfied with non-genital caresesses than men, both gay and straight, presumably because compared with women, men tend to be more genital-focused. But all groups expressed very similar levels of satisfaction with their lovemaking." "* Satisfaction with orgasm. All groups enjoyed the same satisfaction." "People in lesbian, gay male, and mixed-gender couples have their differences. But bottom line: Contrary to the conventional wisdom, in terms of sexual desire, communication, and satisfaction, people in homo- and heterosexual couples are much more similar than different." (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200905/gays-vs-straights-any-differences-in-sexual-satisfaction) As we can see from a correctly done survey, all groups of people regardless of orientation receive the same level of satisfaction with their sexual lives, and communication. It simply isn't fair to state that one group has it better than the other, when it's not the case. Now, understand why that article needs editing done? My guess is it was written by someone very pro LGBT who wanted to make gay couples seem better than hetero couples for some reason? Homocentric? heh. 207.161.178.51 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add the link to the study where these conclusions (identical satisfaction, communication, etc) are based. complete with data too!: http://www.klbresearch.com/KLB_Research/Research_files/Sexual%20Satisfaction%20Holmberg%20Blair%20Phillips.pdf Sorry about that, don't want to make the admin's job difficult or anything. I'll add this study in once the page protection goes down. 206.45.16.72 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, you won't. Stop evading your block. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh c'omn, learn to stop posting when you are blocked...except for when posting on your own talk page when you are not blocked from posting there. Here you are again stating that research about lesbian couples having more partnered orgasms and being more sexually satisfied than heterosexual women is very one-sided (although you agreed that lesbian couples have more partnered orgasms than heterosexual women), when it is research that has consistently been replicated. You act like Alfred Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, Marilyn Frye, Peplau, Fingerhut and Beals (2004)...and Diamond (2006) all have some pro-lesbian bias. Each of these researchers reported the same thing about lesbian sexual satisfaction -- that lesbian women have more partnered orgasms and are generally more sexually satisfied than their female heterosexual counterparts. Research consistently showing that is not a coincidence, and it's not something that one study trumps. Research has most definitely consistently shown that a large portion of heterosexual women are not satisfied with their partnered orgasms, so I'm highly skeptical of the source stating "Satisfaction with orgasm. All groups enjoyed the same satisfaction." I've told you already that research is typically only strong if it is repeatedly replicated. The findings concerning lesbians being more sexually satisfied than heterosexual women has been repeatedly replicated. And that's likely why the information about that is currently in the article without a source stating otherwise -- because there are far more sources reporting that information than not. Don't let that "just two studies (1983 and 1991)" line fool you. It's speaking of studies focusing on (meaning largely being about) differences in sexual satisfaction between heterosexual and homosexual people. Humorously enough, is contrasts your statements about lesbian sexual satisfaction. It clearly states that "sexual desire was pretty much the same for all couples, with gay men and lesbians expressing slightly more desire than heterosexuals." And again, this is just one study, and even states, "Of course, this study has limitations--modest numbers and a sample that's not truly representative." If any bit of that is to be included, a better source than Psychology Today and/or the WP:PRIMARY SOURCE should be used for that information, of course only the parts comparing lesbians to others should be mentioned, and it should be mentioned with WP:DUE WEIGHT (with respect to what the majority of sources report about lesbian sexual satisfaction). Also try to understand that, other than WP:DUE WEIGHT, what goes into and what is removed from a Wikipedia article is not about what's fair. It's about what the sources say. In the case of one study vs. several studies, the one study either does not get as much weight or it gets no weight. 220.255.2.128 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Men kissing. Don't worry, they're legally married, apparently.
      • For the last time, probability of orgasm != sexual satisfaction. There you go again kid, denouncing a scientific study as not credible simply because you don't agree with it. And there are plenty of other sources that say the same thing as Holmberg, Blair, and Phillips. Also, this will be the link to be referenced http://www.klbresearch.com/KLB_Research/Research_files/Sexual%20Satisfaction%20Holmberg%20Blair%20Phillips.pdf, because it contains the study and results within. The Psychologytoday article merely acts as a summary of what is found in the study. You know what the difference is between this source and yours? This source has data, collected from women, men, of all orientations. Not simply a one liner with no backing, as in your source. Admit it, you're wrong. You have no data, I do. Get owned and accept it. So this is what will be replacing whatever's on the page, AS IT AS DATA. AND HAVING DATA MAKES IT MORE CREDIBLE THAN A SOURCE WITH NO DATA! You would think this would be obvious, but you're blinded by your ignorance. You can't accept reality; You can't accept that gay couples are no more satisfied than hetero ones. You know what the problem with you is? You don't practice critical thinking. You blindly accept what your source tells you simply because you agree with it, when no stats or evidence in the source are presented. Again, I have stats based on feedback from women and their satisfaction levels. You don't. What now? In a case of evidence versus no evidence, guess who's gonna win? Mhhhmmm. I love this though. In my naivety, I expected some kind of concession from you, having provided sources backed with factual evidence. But you would not listen! You deny evidence. Therefore, you shouldn't be editing anything relating to information. You can have your bias, I'll have my evidence compiled by statistics. Have fun :). 142.161.185.4 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • For what seems like the 100th time, you don't know what you are talking about and have again resorted to ridiculous personal attacks like a child who can't get his way. Your posts should be removed per your being indefinitely blocked. Nothing you state is worth replying to anymore, but since others are still letting you post here even while repeatedly blocking you, I state the following: I don't denounce a scientific study simply because I disagree with it. You do that. You also stated that there "are plenty of other sources that say the same thing as Holmberg, Blair, and Phillips" without presenting those "plenty of other sources." You did the same thing when citing the discredited Pepper Schwartz study. First, you state that Schwartz is correct and that there are plenty of sources showing that. Now you present a source reporting the exact opposite of what Schwartz stated and are insisting that "plenty of other sources" support that information. You are wrong, as always. And this is why information from studies being consistently replicated is important. You talk about knowing what "the difference is between this source and [mine]." Unlike you, there has never been one source that I'm speaking of on this matter. The research from Alfred Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, Marilyn Frye, Peplau, Fingerhut and Beals (2004)...and Diamond (2006) is all based on data as well. They didn't make up those findings. Just because you can't see the data in the WP:SECONDARY SOURCES presenting that information doesn't mean that the information has no data or that the sources reporting the information shouldn't be used. They summarize and point to the studies, as most secondary sources do. So to borrow your craptastic words: "Admit it, you're wrong." and "Get owned and accept it." Your comments about data and stating that I "blindly accept what [my] source tells [me] simply because [I] agree with it" shows even further that you do not understand WP:Verifiability, WP:Original research, WP:UNDUE WEIGHT or any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and certainly not that one study does not trump what the majority of studies state. You won't be replacing anything on the Lesbian sexual practices article with this information. Because, per WP:Verifiability, the studies that you want removed from that article will stay, and because you are indefinitely blocked and a group of administrators are watching that article and will obviously continue watching it and protecting it from your irrational edits. 220.255.2.102 (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle et al, thank you all for your interventions/commentary. To the block evader: if you want to make some kind of case, do it on the article talk page, not here. You'll have to hop around some more, but I'm sure you can manage. Also, "homocentrism" bleeeeeergh--I hear that often enough and it's crap. Next thing you know you're charging everyone with political correctness or some other fabrication. In the meantime, it is my hope that the attention you have brought to these articles with your impetuosity serves to improve them. That homophobic readers and editors of those articles will experience their own conversion therapy, that's probably too much ask, but I'll post a nice bearded kiss for them anyway (Dennis, it's coming along!). Drmies (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, I know that Psychology Today is summarizing the study. I was stating that, if we include this information, we should use a different source to report the study. Secondary sources are preferred and are what Wikipedia articles should be mostly built on and that Psychology Today source is not a a great secondary source.
As for User:MikeFromCanmore, what's the point of continually blocking him if he's going to be allowed to post here or elsewhere? He's an indefinitely blocked user and shouldn't be allowed to post at all unless it's on his own talk page or unless his main (rather initial) account is unblocked. And there are statements, including ones from me, about exactly why he shouldn't be unblocked. So thank you, Francophonie&Androphilie, for this. 220.255.2.102 (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. Shall we DENY from here on out?[edit]

Doc, I hope you don't mind this, but I've reverted a few comments from Mike's latest sock. I, for one, see no reason to continue enabling disruption - if he's gonna sock, he might as well do it somewhere constructive. Does anyone object to switching to revert-on-sight on this page? (Obviously, Drmies, if you have any interest in continuing this discussion here, feel free to restore Mike's comments.) — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not interested. Feel free to hit rollback. Mind you, I'm not really interested in the comments from either side anymore. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Francophonie&Androphilie, you already know that I agree. And I agree with Drmies on not really being interested in comments from either side anymore. I long ago lost true interest in replying to him. Drmies, if briefly semi-protecting your talk page is needed to keep User:MikeFromCanmore from replying, I don't mind at all. My point in the section above this one about his postings is that he shouldn't be allowed to post at article talk pages either because he is indefinitely blocked. It's like Dennis Brown told him at User talk:142.161.183.162. But Dennis Brown has also since stated: In this case, I will stay open minded but I fear this editor will never be able to contribute here productively. Some people just don't get it, and can't understand why others don't see their "wisdom" as undisputed fact. He is probably really good at something else, but not so much as an objective and neutral editor of an encyclopedia. 220.255.2.142 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.171 (talk) [reply]

Re: User_talk:Dennis_Brown#Curious_about_some_new_articles[edit]

Have you followed up on contacting the instructor at User_talk:JohnRobinson94#Welcome_and_a_question? I don't want to be redundant if you've already started. I would be happy to transwiki copy the out of scope articles to Wikiversity and/or help with any future classroom projects at Chapel Hill. --mikeu talk 20:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I told you Drmies, I hate to see you bored. Besides, you outrank me, you're like some UberDoktor, and my being an autodidact just proves I had a fool for a teacher. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very timely...[edit]

...indeed. —Theopolisme 23:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, she's much more likely to be plagiarized than me. Have you seen the list of FAs she's responsible for? Very impressive. She's also a really nice person, and some plum job will fall in her lap soon. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got nothing else to do...[edit]

I've been wasting my time trying to clean up articles on high schools and law societies, and have found the venture an uphill slog. Inspired by your example, this evening I tried Westmalle Tripel. Cheers, 99.153.143.227 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't it totally worth the five bucks? It makes one believe in some divinity again. And Wheeling Park High School was fun, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Five? I think it was eight here, and still worth it. No, I know that sort of copy editing is a tremendous pain, and you're the best to take care of it. As for Cambridge University Law Society, I wouldn't know where to start. The moment I think about plucking out the peacock stuff, I realize that whatever's left is still unsourced. Seven, eight years on, and articles like that remain little more than publicity vehicles. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good [23]. My favorite edit summary of the evening. Also I liked Dennis Brown's link to the infomercial. Gives one hope. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Notwithstanding your several shoutouts to me to help with the lesbianism/erotica article, as an IP I'm blocked from editing there. More to the point, there's not much in my library on the subject. Though this does suggest a need to add to my list of holiday present requests. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sorry about that semi-protection, but this twit is making it necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite alright. Fields of heavy crossfire are not my favorite venues anyway. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, 99--maybe my forgetfulness indicates that I don't favor registered accounts over IPs...and you could always log in! ;) Also, I really should be grading. I did one enormous stack of final exams this morning; I have one slightly smaller stack of finals and an enormous stack of term papers left. None of which came with $20 bills or even $10 bags of weed. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I logged in it would be to remove the non-notables at CULS (see above), but by guidelines that wouldn't be cricket, whereas someone else can continue restoring the names with impunity, using multiple IPs. Good luck with the grading. If it's a smattering of graft you're after, perhaps you should be clearer in the 'student expectations' section of the syllabus. Hmm, maybe that's why I'm not teaching in colleges now. As for my afternoon, I'm all caught up on the writing, except for a piece I'm still working on for publication about a fellow Wikipedian....that's all I can say. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been changed to pending changes protection instead of bog-standard semi-protection, so you just lost that excuse. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure you don't get my birthdate from the Social Security administration: they have the wrong one. I saw in some discussion the other day that we should use birthdates because in the US they're public knowledge, so to speak, but that don't make it correct. Writ Keeper, I saw that; I was unaware we still had it until I saw it a few days ago somewhere else. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know; probably have to recuse myself, as the mere idea of lesbianism makes my eyes glaze over, breath get shallow, etc. 'Course, a good meal prompts much the same Pavlovian response, which is why I don't write about foods, either. One is pretty much reduced to cleaning up articles about high schools, the least interesting topic on God's earth. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of you...[edit]

...when I saw this.[24]. Yes. It is real. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Dennis, that's just lovely. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I just saw this and thought of all good things in the world. All the dirty good things anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of dirty things, make sure you clean your balls.[25] The marketing guy in me loves a good commercial. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are a bad man. I wish I'd been in that studio audience. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

Hi, I'm Francophonie&Androphilie. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Francophonie&Androphilie has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Glad to be of assistance. I kind of like this - we should all just communicate through Twinkle warnings from now on. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's cheaper than sending chocolates and flowers, that's for sure. You're kind, with your level-1 warning. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "You're kind," says the professor to the young man, deleting the encyclopedia's only reference to the latter. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not completely: the name is still in the infobox. I don't mind the names of the children being reinstated (with an explanation of some sort), but these things are judgment calls and I follow my own drummer. I think the best we can do is to make this article as good as possible--it would improve already if someone wrote up National War Correspondents Memorial. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take issue to the "was survived by" statements in articles (not just this one), it makes it seem like an obituary, why not just say "he had three children", also isn't it two (Franco should be able to answer that one better). --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree--I was actually wondering whether the "was" should be replaced by "is", which would call for later updates maybe, etc. I'll tell you something, K, just between you and me: that's some legacy he left. He's well ahead of me and I only have two more years. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Haha I know. I was just teasing. And yes, just me and Jack - is there a source that says differently? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Chances are I screwed that up. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with the National War Correspondents Memorial is that, while yes, it's really cool that it hadn't been used since the Civil War, well... it hadn't been used since the Civil War. And it hasn't been used since. On that note, do you think either this or this (or a similar photo) might be useful to the article? Both are CC-BY licensed. As for mentioning me, I can make a very strong argument that my brother and I should be included in the body of the article, but that's going to be my reward to myself for when I actually get around to uploading a picture of my dad. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, we'll ask someone else. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll[edit]

Hey! Reader! Help us out!

Should the sons' names be mentioned, yes or no? We'll do a straw poll, with (very!) brief rationales. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't feel like re-finding the section where I should add this information[edit]

Here you go. I wonder though if it should just be redirected to Gathland State Park. LadyofShalott 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Lady! I think this should be fine as a standalone article. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK :) LadyofShalott 02:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A second pair of eyes, please.[edit]

Nominating 18 articles in 10 minutes doesn't set off alarm bells all by itself. But combine that with re-nominating Slut-shaming (AfD discussion) mere days after its discussion closed, the identical boilerplate rationales, and the fact that most of these are in Category:Conservative American magazines, and alarm bells are going off. Please review. Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something is definitely fishy. LadyofShalott 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left a note asking at the nominator's talk page if s/he has done any looking for sources, given that "Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing" has been repeatedly used as a rationale. LadyofShalott 00:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedily kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cornell Review and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish World Review: the boilerplate was in both cases belied by the actual available sources, and I do believe these are bad-faith nominations. I've also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Digest--yes, these should be shut down. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • California Patriot also passed an AFD about 3 weeks ago as Speedy Keep (nom withdrawn) due to additional sources added. I was going to call someone's attention to this at ANI, but it seems to be handled. Thanks.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can spend the time that you would have spent at AN/I renaming Squoval (AfD discussion) to an appropriate overall subject, per what can be found in books and the like, and expanding it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't really want to boilerplate speedy close them all...some help would be appreciated. Look at the article, look at the AfD, and decide. I haven't found one yet that looks like a valid nomination. Uncle, Lady, can you check to see if this person needs shutting down? Are they active right now? Drmies (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen any new edits since the "bitch" one, so apparently not. Uncle G (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, editors had weighed in on a couple of these with "speedy keeps" and reasons of some substance--that kind of thing makes my job easier. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to help more later, but right now I have shelving that needs to be done. LadyofShalott 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shelving? Now what is that code for? Drmies (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If only it were code for something exciting. I'm afraid that it's code for "stuff on carts that needs to be put on shelves", but right now my someone's looking at the cart, so I have a minute until he's done. LadyofShalott 01:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, they're all done. Don't shelve too long, Lady, or you might miss dessert. ;) Drmies (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TWO THINGS, UNCLE[edit]

  1. I could have spent all this time looking at lesbian erotica, for crying out loud.
  2. Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is for me to click "keep" in an AfD, let alone "speedy keep"? Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'll be disappointed to learn that Kosinski 1988 apparently has no pictures whatsoever, and that Kosinski is merely the director of some art museum in some town. Valerie Rohy, however, is yet another English professor being sucked in by the English Professor Vacuum, this time at Bowling Green State University.

Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have this fancy flag...[edit]

Would you mind P.C.-protecting my userpage until Mike tires himself out? He's coming to me now to whine about the fact that I'm rejecting his changes to Lesbianism in erotica. I figure it's like prostitution - deny access. Except that's a bad idea there, and it's a good idea here. (Just pending changes, please, no semi-protection.) Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, 142.161.185.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Not that blocking it will change anything, but we've gotta at east keep him on his toes. ;) — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Pending changes is not for use on userpages. Furthermore, it is technically impossible to apply it to any page in the user namespace. If you want, I could re-semiprotect your userpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TWIS. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. Some part of me definitely knew that. Well, semi's better than nothing, so no objections. Now it's just a game of Whack-a-Mole to see whose page he comes to next. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

As per the discussion above, I suggested Speedy Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics Of Reality – Essays In Feminist Theory - you may want to have a look at it if you haven't already. If you're not convinced it fits into the above then feel free to disregard. Stalwart111 02:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks--there are more?? Drmies (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look through Herp Derp's recent contributions, and I think all the AfDs are closed now. LadyofShalott 02:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I was just reading of Egon Schiele, whose pregnant wife died of the Spanish flu in 1918, and he died three days later. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of AfD's, I just noticed our exchange at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination) due to your comments at the t-shirt giveaway. Now I remember why I always knew you were a deletionist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! That's you! Drmies (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was looking it up solely so I could point to it and say "I agree", but once I saw your delete vote and our tit for tat, I had to laugh. We both are still the "slightly smart-ass yet polite enough" types even today. That is probably our first encounter. And I was right, the nom was a sock ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep. And MQS and I have developed a pretty good working relationship, though we see less of each other these days. He must be busy out on the West Coast. Note also this, as well as your conspicuous absence there. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I avoided admin back then, didn't have a use for them, was (and still am) a big a believer in community decisions. I had only voted in ONE RfA before my own [27] back in 2008, unlike some of the admin hopefuls now. Instead, I patrolled AfD back then, trying to ramp down the drama, which is how I have over 1600 different AfDs in my history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've always wondered this: is the plural of "admin" actually just "admin"? It keeps weirding me out every time I read it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think we prefer using the collective noun "schools" to describe a "school of admins". It is certainly preferable to the other term, "$(!tload", as in a "$(!tload of admins", which I think I've seen other editors indecorously used, sometimes just quickly because one of the school lowered the block hammer on them shortly thereafter. ;) John Carter (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strings[edit]

I like your thinking. Hekerui (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The professed Welsh Wikipedians are doing themselves no favours with respect to stereotypes. I mentioned boots at User talk:Martinevans123#Inflation and their thoughts immediately switched from chapel to sex.

    Luckily, they clearly don't know the secret of your name to realize what its proper Welsh translation is. Don't worry. I haven't told them, M. Chapstick, or M. White Background. ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got bacon?[edit]

The perfect stocking stuffer for bacon lovers ==> Mmmm!

...although I'm still off bacon after seeing that photo of you. :P
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wasn't me, pal. Besides, I'm growing a beard now and bacon and beards don't mingle. Everybody knows that. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, someone gave me a bar of bacon soap that I'm still trying to get rid of. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too cruel [28]? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've decided that I am going to make my own Bacon vodka. They say it makes the best Bloody Mary. You can buy it, but the closest seller it pretty far away, and it is not every hard to make your own. Lord knows, I have plenty of fixin's to make it with. And your beard shouldn't get in the way of eating anything, assuming you use a knife and fork like the rest of us. Soup can be tricky if you let it get really long. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

long soup

Wikipedia currently does not have an article on long soup.
You can improve Wikipedia by writing one; once you realize that it is a real thing.
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopaedic content must be verifiable.
No credit. No cheques. No refunds. No original research.
  • "Old Doc Micey, he pay top dollar for true ethnic delicacy... like heavy wun tun and long pig". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, this long soup, I can gather, from pulling together, that this is a Chinese dish that became popular in Australia, but I cannot easily find a few good things to put a decent stub together. Sorry. I'm sure Uncle G can pull it of in a minute, Harvard style. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "defaid coesau hefyd, eich bod yn gwybod" lol Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was rather expecting the Bacon Cabal to be all over this, and the old book in some language (that only interests English professors and Nederlanders) to garner no attention at all, especially as one can have long soup with pork. Quite the reverse has happened. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great to see "steamed filled buns" now and again. Butt this is the long soup you really need (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Glad to see I've helped elevate the quality of discussion here. And yes, what Uncle G linked, that is exactly what I meant... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asega[edit]

Hullo Doctor. Can you proof this for me?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proofing is not what it needs. It has to be completely rewritten, and I have therefore userfied it to User:Drmies/Asega until it can be. Machine translation dumps that make little sense should not go straight into mainspace. LadyofShalott 03:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, yes. Sorry, I got grading to do. Lady, that seems fair to me. Dr. Blofeld, I'll get on it when I can. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you need are books. Have a book. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asega-bôk

The Asega-bôk, the name literally translating as "Book of the Judges", was the legal code for the Rustringian Frisians.[1][2] It is the oldest surviving work written in Old Frisian,[1] and one of the oldest surviving continental Germanic law codes (the Gulating law, possibly ca. 1150, may be older).[3] One codex survives in the archives at Oldenburg.[4] Joseph Bosworth believed it to have been written somewhere between 1212 and 1250 A.D.[2] The first modern scholarly edition was published in 1962 by Wybren Jan Buma in Dutch;[5] a year later Buma, in cooperation with Germanic law scholar Wilhelm Ebel, published an edition and translation in German.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b Mallet & Blackwell 1847, p. 48.
  2. ^ a b Bosworth 1838, p. lxi.
  3. ^ a b Lear 1965.
  4. ^ Bosworth 1848, p. 63.
  5. ^ Jellema 1962.
Reference bibliography

Further reading

Translations:

  • Wiarda, F. D. (1805). Asega-buch ein Alt-friesisches gesetzbuch der Rustringer, herausgegeben, übersetz und erläutert (in German). Berlin. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Philology:

Doctor Who This article is a substub; you can help Wikipedia by putting all articles for creation on Drmies' user talk page.
  • Uncle, surely you noticed that Rolf has an article here. You should learn Dutch and read the book I referenced when his article was on our front page. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that the one that currently says "dead link" next to it in the article? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's the one mentioned here, but thanks for the cleanup. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another English professor being sucked in by the English Professor Vacuum, I see. With a Dutch book of dirty words, no less. Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice. Uncle, will you please move that to article space? You should have the credit for it. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was waiting to see what Dr Blow-Dry said. Per User talk:Ipigott#Asega, it seems that Dr Blow-Dry doesn't like my gift of a book, even though it was properly stub sorted and everything. See also User talk:Ritchie333#Thorsø, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mreow! Drmies (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's one of those Dutch dirty words from that book, isn't it? Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dr. Blow-Job didn't see anything written here below "What you need are books. Have a book." and thought that your beige background extract was another section! Didn't scroll down and see this here! Asega-bôk looks good Uncle Fester! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can include all this additional material in the article after it has been moved back to the main space. --Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That professor of molecular chemistry who was born in 1961 is going to be a bit miffed about not having the Google Web results all to himself any more. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. They must be related--I may drop him a line. Our Buma became professor in Utrecht in 1949, but I'm having a very hard time finding biographical information. I know that Rolf will know. And no, those aren't dirty words unless you think that Protestantism is an abomination. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our house internet is bouncing something awful, but I was right - these are the guys from the Fosite legend. I've added a weird ancient Germanic paragraph in addition to a couple more sources. Ipigott had already got to the translation improvement. It's definitely ready for re-mainspacing after all this collective braining - who's going to do the honors? (In certain quarters the word has also been discussed as a possible cognate of áss but, umm, no.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh gack, he forked it, histmerge now needed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not any more. Go and read fy:Oerlis:Asega, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh thank you! For some reason I'd forgotten you were an admin too, and the thought of doing a history merger gives me hives. ... That's an interesting discussion of the sources, although I have a feeling they've missed some of the etymological ones, Chadwick on the priesthood should be used with asbestos gloves, and Northvegr is thankfully gone (extremely unreliable). If my internet will stay up, in the next few days I'll see what I can glean under alternate spellings. (I rewrote most of Fosite a while back and I wrote Heathen hofs.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You might enjoy von Richthofen 1840a, p. 608–609 and von Richthofen 1840b, p. 609–612, then.
            • von Richthofen, Karl Freiherrn (1840). "asebok, asekbok". Altfriesisches Wörterbuch (in German). Göttingen: Dieterichsche buchhandlung. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
            • von Richthofen, Karl Freiherrn (1840). "asega, asiga, asga". Altfriesisches Wörterbuch (in German). Göttingen: Dieterichsche buchhandlung. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
          • Uncle G (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's time for another substub, and yet another article that we didn't even know that we didn't have. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen Signs before Doomsday

The Fifteen Signs before Doomsday (alternatively known as the Fifteen Signs of Doomsday, Fifteen Signs before Judgement, and — in Latin — Quindecim Signa ante Judicium) is a list, popular in the Middle Ages because of millenarianism, of the events that are supposed to occur in the fortnight before the end of the world.[1] One of its many versions can be found in the Asega-bôk.[2] Another version can be found in the Saltair na Rann.[citation needed] One of the earliest versions is De quindecim signis (PL XCIV.555) written in the 8th century by Pseudo-Bede.[3]

References

  1. ^ Giliberto 2007, p. 129.
  2. ^ Giliberto 2007, p. 130.
  3. ^ Gow 1995, p. 120.
Reference bibliography
  • Giliberto, Concetta (2007). "The Fifteen Signs of Doomsday of the First Riustring Manuscript". In Bremmer, Rolf Hendrik; Laker, Stephen; Vries, Oebele (eds.). Advances in Old Frisian Philology. Rige Estrikken. Vol. 80. Rodopi. ISBN 9789042021815. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Gow, Andrew Colin (1995). The Red Jews: Antisemitism in an Apocalyptic Age, 1200–1600. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions. BRILL. ISBN 9789004102552. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Further reading

  • Heist, William Watts (1952). The Fifteen Signs before Doomsday. East Lansing. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Doctor Who This article is a substub; you can help Wikipedia by putting all articles for creation on Drmies' user talk page.

Wheeling Park High School Article[edit]

I understand you are editing the Wheeling Park High School (Wheeling, WV) article. You have done a great job, but I am a student who was looking to make the article more accurate and I have a couple of recommendations. I think it is very important to include the two incidences I put under controversies. One was a bomb threat in April of 2010 and I would recommend you add that in, because they have had other issues with that, but haven't found any other threats credible. It was a HUGE deal in the Wheeling area when it happened. Also you should add in about the racial disagreement that happened in 2011. Although none of the articles on the internet refer to like this, it is commonly known as the Wheeling Park Race War. It was a major issue where kids were getting pulled out of school. Also neither of those events really put the school down, but it shows how competent the administration was in dealing with those problems. I advise for you to include those because they are considered a big deal in the area around the school and provide good information about the school. --Sportsfan123456789 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read your comments elsewhere; thanks for your question. Sorry, but this is not a big deal in the encyclopedic sense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools for what is acceptable in such articles, and WP:NOTNEWS for what in general we won't do. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Batman 1989[edit]

Why hell you revert my edit?. I'm olny put the deleted scenes besides other films articles have sectiones of deleted scenes. Then why don't you delete the sections of deleted scenes in the other articles?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Han2007 (talk • contribs)

  • Because you're adding unverified and likely trivial information to a Good Article, detracting from its value--that is how I read the three reverts of your edits made by two different editors before me. You can take it up on the talk page. Other articles are not the issue here. Continue and you will be blocked. Also, please play nice. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Falling in Reverse[edit]

[29] Okay so this was to backu p from people removing members man, all of the links prove that all the members being removed were in at one point. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd[reply]

  • Maybe. But this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of fan sites. Text needs to be written neutrally, and it needs to be verified by reliable sources, man. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Have Email[edit]

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

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gotcha. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Drmies, I know you have been busy, but I was wondering if you had time to look at what I discussed in the email? Just wondering. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure--but I thought the action I took was enough. I'll drop you an email. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • My watchlist is updated so many times, every couple minutes, things tend to get lost. :) I responded to your email. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus over citation style for an article one year old[edit]

If an article is a year old and there is a dispute about what citation style to use and the major contributer has been debating this against multiple editors over that period, do we still just use that last discussion which had a single editor not agreeing to the style against three others or should we be looking at the entire history about this particular subject? It seems that it keeps coming up as the article is using parenthetical referencing. The only reason I am asking is that I happened to notice the major contributer make the statement that the referencing has been used from day one.....but they failed to mention how many times this comes up and how many different editors are actualy against the use of that style. Is this a matter of silent consensus as the major contributer has been able to fend off the challenges thus far (generaly by simply reverting good faith attempts to reformat using footnotes or endnotes) or do we need to look at the entire history of the past year to see that there are more concerned editors. (disclaimer: I am not an involved editor)--Amadscientist (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it depends. In general, if that one editor is Uncle G or Malleus or one of the many other FA editors, I wouldn't mess with them, but it depends on whether they're on my shitlist or not. ;) Such a dispute has all the possibilities of never ever ending--it may well be that an RfC is the best and only way to go, short of the death of your main editor. And I suppose you can invite all previous participants to the discussion; hopefully that's not just one against many, or it'll easily look like canvassing--but if that's what it is, that's what you do. Parenthetical referencing...that's something I would do...

    I'm sort of kidding by naming a few big shots, but I'm really not: this is one of those matters where some editors simply have more weight than others, by virtue of frequent edits to that article, their experience and quality, etc. If Malleus says "such and such is better" then I won't dispute it. If Malleus and Brer Rabbit (whatever he goes by) have a dispute between them, I stand back, since I can't hold a candle to their combined experience. If NewEditor1234 has an opinion, I probably won't care about that opinion at all--it's not an equal opportunity conversation. Yes, I think the temporary hassle of an RfC is probably the way to go, but no doubt there are visitors to this page who feel differently. Drmies (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not one of them, no, but I can see what you are saying in a way. From my point of view as an outsider to the situation, it does appear that the use of the parenthetical referencing in this case could (let me stress...could) be a format being taken advantage of with an over-use of opinion sources that would be far more obvious if using footnotes. Something that was brought up by a different editor. I am actually considering switching all further articles I create (and changing a few articles I just created) to this style. It is easier, especially when referencing the same source multiple times.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's half a dozen or more editors who occasionally drop by here who know everything about every style--usually a sentence out of their mouths is enough to send me to sleep. I love parenthetic citations, but for some reasons some folks like using sfn templates with more parameters than I have children. Drmies (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I do lots of article rescues and AFD patrol. So I'm lucky if there are any citations at all. Consider yourself privileged to work in an area where the style of the citations is the problem. As for overuse of opinion sources: Yes, that's less obvious if one doesn't have the a b c d e f g h … in the references section. But one can still challenge the overuse without bringing the citation style into the mix. In fact, given that people like to debate style over substance, introducing the style element is liable to derail the discussion completely.

    On the subject of article rescue: All of this work on stuff that only interests English professors and Nederlanders has meant that all of the stuff that I had stored up to rescue Cinematic television (AfD discussion) (which I can find discussed in books, and which our article erroneously informs the reader is a recent concept rather than a 30-year-old one) remains unused.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Move Request[edit]

Hey Drmies, could you move WXCF-FM to WHTU, please? Reason is the station officially changed it's callsign on 12/12/12. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank ya, Sir. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenzie & Chocolat (band)[edit]

Okay. I shall do something about it, move it forward. However, those aren't just mere lyric websites and I feel offended by the way you simply disregard them simply based on the fact you don't know them. You're a good wikipedia editor and also experienced, yes, fact. However, don't forget just as me, you're a human being and much of your editing is based on you as a person, the way you perceive things and what your personality is like. Though you might think of what is said is irrelevant because you personally don't have the familiarity with it, you might reconsider thinking of what is still information that is sourced. Not trying to sound rude, just stating a fact. By the way, I'd appreciate it if when you kill an article, for lack of a better way of explaining, that you'd take care in keeping the format, like no problems with the reference list or deleting bold words, since that's part of the format that was there before. Chocolat ≈ Dubulge (Chat Me Up) 06:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like for an example, I'd never edit an article of yours because I'm not familiar with your area of knowledge. However for you to claim something I said is wrong based on an assumption you make, it's rather offensive and frustrating. You don't think it's a comeback? That's okay. But that's what it's called either way. If I don't explain the promotion cycle, then some might not understand that, and then even when I do, some still don't. It's a promotion cycle. First one, single. Single was not part of the mini-album. Why? Korea. In Korea a single is an album release. A single has its own promotion cycle. A single is not part of an album, it's not a song to promote an album, a single is a separate release and promotion cycle altogether. The mini-album? Second release after some months of inactivity. Because of your point of view, the article might end up having some false information. I hope you understand why it might end up being frustrating. A comeback is called a comeback because it is what it is. When you skim through, please be sure to re-read and know what exactly to delete without changing the meaning behind the contents of the article. Thank you.

Chocolat ≈ Dubulge (Chat Me Up) 06:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checked citing and YouTube links are relevant. You don't accept the own members of the group saying stuff about themselves? You don't understand Korean? Cool. I do. When I wake up definitely, I'll check on the articles and do the appropriate edits. For now, just an edit on format is all I can do to at least keep it neat. Also, the table thing. I think it's only fair if you'd delete it for every single k-pop article out there, or any music group article that includes such a format of editing. It'd be only fair, if not then it's rather an irregular rule. Chocolat ≈ Dubulge (Chat Me Up) 07:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. Lyrics sites are not reliable sources since usually they're user-submitted; if you think they are, post it on WP:RSN to get a consensus. A comeback in December after a single in August is not a comeback: it's the promotional language of SM Entertainment and other companies--your signature indicates that you may not be entirely neutral here. I may not read Korean but I know a little bit, just a little bit, about how to write a decent article. Your bolding and all that is not in agreement with the Manual of Style, and no, what an artist has to say about themselves is not necessarily reliable, especially not in articles on groups that are totally run by management. I understand it's a cottage industry with its own rules, but those are not our rules. Finally, I have no obligation to remove it from other articles, but in fact I have been doing just that, and I probably have more edits on K-pop articles, unfortunately, than you have total edits. I'm sorry if you are frustrated in anyway: all I can say is that Wikipedia is not a site where every little factoid needs to be mentioned in every band's article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is what has gotten me frustrated. This is the language used in korean music as a whole. When an artist finishes a cycle of promotion and prepares for another with a new release, then that is called a Comeback. Likewise, in the USA an EP is called an EP and in Korea it's called a mini-album. Both terms are valid, but one is used in one country and one in the other. Comebacks aren't the term for returning artists who have been inactive in the USA, but it is so in Korea. Also, that was not a lyrics website. M.net is like iTunes in korea, it happens to include lyrics because it just does. Nobody can submit information on those websites. All the websites I referenced to, were official music websites like iTunes in Korea, because if you knew, the korean iTunes only allows the download of apps, books and Tv Shows but not music at all. Hence, all other websites which hold just as much credibility should be valid for referencing. I'll give it to you about bolding, if it's the right way then I apologize for writing the wrong way. Your last point, sure. I won't say anything more to that, since you are an admin, I'll respect your opinion. However I still disagree that an artists' own words are not reliable. All the girls say are their parents' ethnical backgrounds, I doubt a company told them what to say and what not to say in that case. I'm a fan, so I thought including everything would be relevant, since it's an encyclopaedia, but if you disagree, then I can't say much. Nevertheless I can clearly hear them saying their parents ethnical backgrounds in a 30 second span, the link is quite accurate if you wish to watch and try hearing the nationalities/ethnicities. Lastly, could you explain EXACTLY why those links you deleted weren't relevant? They weren't fan links, they were their official pages from naver, daum and youtube. Those three again, Daum and Naver are the Google of Korea, except with a bigger range of content and networking, including things like Twitter-like mechanisms, which are the cafes I linked. Youtube is also an official music portal in this case. Chocolat ≈ Dubulge (Chat Me Up) 15:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, iTunes is not considered a reliable source, nor is Amazon, with one exception--for citing things like date of release or catalog number. I don't care about whether something is a single or a mini-EP; I don't have any problems with that. But the subject's own words are not usually deemed reliable, unless what's cited is their opinion on something. A subject may claim an ethnicity, or a Ph.D., but that doesn't make it true, and at any rate it's tricky territory. If a subject claims to be Jewish, for instance, or Protestant, that's something we usually accept. But the question of encyclopedic relevancy remains. Now, comeback and all that, and you mentioned the promotion cycle above: that's just not relevant unless it is proven to be relevant by reliable sources--not allkpop and such sites.

Finally, the bit about the links: see WP:ELNO. We will usually accept one link to a personal or official website, only one, for a bunch of reasons including that we're not a directory of links, and that usually someone will link on their website to their Twitter etc. So pick the best one. (BTW, no need to apologize about the bolding or anything else: you followed a format that's found all over the place, but it's found all over the place because a. there's a lot of K-pop editors and b. many of them care more for their fave band than for the WP:MOS.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your last edit. I'll accept that and if the rules are such that only one link is to be added, I will comply. I accept the latest edits too. Those websites however are credited websites. iTunes usually doesn't include such information and though I'm aware that this is an encyclopaedia, I must still add that all information in such websites is always accurate with physical albums. It can't be edited by users online either, it's a website with songs released with information being credited to that of the publisher. I still argue that the compositions referenced are reliable because then, how could any form of composition reference be reliable? Also, anyone would claim an ethnicity but one can't verify that. Must that kind of information be only added if one's reference is a government paper? There's not much we can't do but accept what's said, since a written article is based on things said during an interview. Chocolat ≈ Dubulge (Chat Me Up) 19:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interest is that these articles are as good as they can be. I'm not out to spoil anyone's fun. Again, if you think that something that's not a newspaper or magazine or otherwise accepted source should be deemed reliable, you can discuss the matter on WP:RSN, and (again) that doesn't change what I said about what a decent article should and should not have. As for the last thing, in that case we could say that such-and-such claimed a certain ethnicity (if the newspaper publishing the interview is reliable), certainly. It's self-reported but that doesn't mean we can't cite the interview; however, I believe that it's not strong enough to put the subject in the particular ethnic category, for instance. But categorization is not the most important thing, I think, for the Chocolat article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dorothy Kosinski, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Guggenheim Museum and Bruce Museum (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) 11:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Good to see you working on art-related articles.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't notice the greeting until now. Sorry for the lackluster stalking. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mandarax--I meant to take care of things. Kunst is still een konijn dat kut zegt, but this one was easy. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting user:TheREALCableGuy[edit]

This user TheREALCableGuy is once again edit warring. He keeps messing up my favorite article. It's the Thomas & Friends article, he keeps saying all the stuff in it is unsourced but it's not, I tried to add them all back but he wouldn't listen to me and ignores it! He want's the article his way. He's also trying to blame me! and he's making me mad. Can you plese block him so he won't cause anymore trouble please. Supermariokart64 (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker): I can't see anything wrong with TheREALCableGuy's edits. On the other hand, calling someone a "SMARTASS!!!" isn't a good idea (read WP:NPA) and only you are edit-warring. You need to source your edits, as TheREALCableGuy is indeed right. We can't rely on original research for an article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Homer. I see that both are blocked now, by Bwilkins--sad that Cable Guy got drawn into another one. I'm glad that Supermario made this edit--Supermario, if a user tells you to stay off their talk page, that's what you do. If someone is making you mad, step away. That both of you got blocked is proper. Finally, Homer's point (and Cable Guy's) about verification is very valid. Oh, also, what are we doing here--fighting over Thomas the f***ing Train? I thought that was for three-year olds. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I watched when I was home sick from school when George Carlin was Mr. Conductor...for the sole reason of I got a kick out of seeing George Carlin on a kids show. It was just plain funny. :) Carlin later referenced it in one of his specials. :) Yes, my parents let me watch George Carlin when I was little, I turned out just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you say, Homer. ;) Hey, thanks again for your comments here. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're Welcome. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So this is the Apocalypse of Thomas, is it? ☺ The sad thing, per this edit, is that this was once again an edit war between people who were not competent enough to use the edit tool to edit only the bits they disagreed about. Either that, or the editor really did think that Toby the Tram Engine is a voice actor. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_42&oldid=1114530662"