User talk:Drmies/Archive 43

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

Good work[edit]

...caretaking the news of the day. Agreed that such articles need to be locked down early. Congratulations to you and other responsible editors. Of the events, words do little justice. Just sadness. Have a good evening, 99.153.143.227 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's very kind of you, 99, and I appreciate it. Yes, words. Our president was most eloquent, especially in his silences. I told my oldest and she cried in the car; right now, though, they're peacefully watching Lorax under a blanket with bellies full of ramen noodles. Friday night is easy dinner night. Mrs. Drmies and I are drinking beers, also with very few words. All the best, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a message[edit]

From Cjr100B, on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Dennis. Hey, your talk page is more popular than mine. I may have to block you. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you would quit deleting everyone's perfectly good articles, maybe more people would like you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Drmies, I came across the same thing you did recently while patroling the backlog at newpages. I posted on Dennis's talk page about it and he suggested batphoning you in as you know more about the situtation. So... you know... ring ring Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for edit[edit]

Hi there, please reconsider the semiprotection. People making sourcing mistakes is not good enough a reason to semiprotect according to the policy. It's not even a BLP. 219.78.115.184 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a multiple BLP. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Protection will expire in a few hours. How long the article will remain unprotected is an open question.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10 minutes? I'm nipping to the bookies now. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That was very funny!!1!
Please operate within policy. Thanks. 219.78.115.184 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are operating within policy. Considering what I saw yesterday I agree completely with in(de)finite protection. If you think living people aren't involved, you're even less smart than I think you are. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly extended protection one week via WP:COMMONSENSE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense was recently banned by ArbCom.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only for their own use. We mere mortals are still free to use it. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question, could you indef (not permanent) the protection? I don't want us to have to scramble with edits from IPs that aren't sourced and are speculation (Jewish perpetrator, the principal let him in and shot people herself, etc.), or edit conflicts from those edits and having good edits being erased by IPs copying to resolve an edit conflict. If any of that make sense. Thanks gwickwiretalkedits 18:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as indefinite or permanent page protection; it's called "infinite"; don't ask me why. In any event, it stays in place unless it's lifted - no meaningful distinction. I see no justification for it at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indef semi-protection (which does show as infinite in some areas) is reserved only for articles that are proven targets for vandalism, and no passage of time will cure the issue. A good example of candidates articles include Fuck and Nigger, which attract a lot of lolz and more vandalism than good edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, all who responded to this request. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Been having lots of fun there, with one IP in particular. Articles like this bring out the worst in some, and bring in self appointed experts on Wikipedia, who are usually clueless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Self-appointed experts? That would be me, then. Ha ha! More seriously, as per the thread on DB's page, we may need to sort out some guidelines for issues such as this. Yes, in theory, they are covered by policies and guidelines that already exist but maybe it is time to coalesce the things for this specific purpose? - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I get a kick out of IPs who link WP:HUMAN and preach to me about how I'm violating that policy. Then I link WP:NOTPEOPLE just so they can tell me that is is just an essay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I can feel a neologism coming on: has no-one heard of "wikilawyering" before (sic)? Keep doing what you are doing, guys. Dennis, yesterday (depends where you are) you applied WP:COMMONSENSE and that one will do for me. But the generalities raised by this issue do need some sort of overarching community decision because they waste a phenomenal amount of time and cause a lot of potential legal problems etc. And if someone wants to delete the {{Timeline}} template, which causes a huge amount of grief with Indian news stories, well, I likely wouldn't say no. - Sitush (talk)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive83#Virginia Tech massacre subarticles for my experience with the London bombings. I've been WikiGnoming the talk page for several hours, fixing up edits by people who seemingly just hit "create new section" when they want to reply to things, or discuss something already being discussed. Tag! You're it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think an editor should be notified everytime their name is mentioned, regardless of how unimportant the mention is? If so, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#protector. If not, please delete this message before reading it. NE Ent 13:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. Interesting question. Thanks for the update, though--I don't patrol those boards very well. Can I keep this message after having read it? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The general case[edit]

I was thinking of throwing together a proposal for a generic editnotice to put up on any major in-progress news event; I feel like the "current event" ambox doesn't really cut it. My thinking is that, here, the vast majority of the problematic edits were indeed in good faith, but people weren't really thinking about the consequences - so create an editnotice for anything like this, that reminds people that the standards for sourcing are heightened, not lowered, that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and that verifiability and coherence is more important than reporting every latest detail. If you could get even 20% of people updating the article with the newest 50%-chance-of-being-false tidbit from CNN to stop and reconsider, it'd take quite a load off... which would be pretty helpful, considering the defamation risks in these areas - last I checked we were at 8 or 9 revdels and 2 Oversights. What do you guys think? I can draw up a sample, if people are interested in the idea. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Francophonie, I meant to leave you a response two nights ago but the internet broke. In summary: I think that would be a great idea. Look, if you like, what I said to Masem on ANI in the Sandy Hook thread (the second, I think) to see if those strengths can be blended. Thanks. Oh, maybe you're interested in a link to an NPR story I dropped on the Sandy Hook talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Old man, you have an email. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think so--the mail lady comes by before 5 on a Saturday and it's already past 6. Are you sure? Drmies (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question[edit]

If I speedy delete an article that has an ongoing AfD, is there something I'm supposed to do with the AfD?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just close it, noting what you've done. I think most admins don't apply "speedy" close to it, but I suppose it doesn't matter. Or you can drop the link and I'll close it for you, so there is a bit of oversight/consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is it with all you deletionist admin? ;) Not sure oversight is that big of a deal here, since the close is just a procedural close, no real conflict. I usually close them, but I see a lot of NACs instead. Maybe some admin don't like closing after they speedy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey swag. Uncle G (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing I do differently is I try to remember to add "by me", for disclosure. I don't think it is required, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Uncle. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, everyone. The editor who tagged the article for speedy deletion closed the AfD for me. Nice of him.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Amina Mama[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for African Gender Institute[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Feminist Africa[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

I'm pretty sure that you watch the goings-on but in case you miss this one, I've mentioned you here and, well, I'm lost in a miasma of grammatical correctness. Your thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, that's funny--this is like Ent's note in "Please unprotect Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for edit"! I'm being mentioned on ANI 3.0? Drmies (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies cannot even get the grammar right in xyr own username, and you ask for this? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you referring to my edit notice, Uncle G? What's wrong with "xyr"? Drmies (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, your username. I have, as you know, diligently kept the secret of your ungrammatical user name. Do you really want me to get M. White Background and M. Chapstick all overexcited? You know what they'll say. M. Chapstick will start asking whether you are real, and M. White Background will start weeping over some dead soap opera character. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your blanking of my edit[edit]

I made myself a promise some years ago, when I was a new editor and saw that an admin was guarding her fringe POV in Animal rights and would never allow any compromise, that I would not engage in editing wars. So, rather than reposting the info and adding the Time Magazine link I was preparing I'll move away from the argument. There is nothing to talk about with people who have a social agenda. Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for your shift[edit]

Bigh Whigh has been adequately warned about edit warring by me, fully explained on his talk page, but I get the feeling he doesn't get it. I've been sick all weekend but watching the article talk page closely. I gonna get some sleep, so it's your turn to babysit. Bring a stick. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I was just about to drop Masem a line. Sorry to hear you're sick. I just made a Rite-Aid run for Zantac, Benadryl, and Pepto-Bismal: everyone at my house is sick as well! Whigh's latest effort was not for the same thing so I don't have a good reason to block; I just hope it doesn't go any further. I'm wondering when it gets to be time to drop the hammer for full protection: it's Sunday night, and nothing real is happening--it's just reactions and hot air. I may place a note on AN proposing this; by now I've been so active that the POV warriors (see above) will have me before ArbCom by Monday morning if I lock it down. Hope you feel better soon, Dennis, and thanks again for your efforts. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already posted on Dennis's pagve. Thank you also for your efforts in the Sandy Hook article and talk pages. I appreciate seeing your oversight there. Well wishes all around, folks. LadyofShalott 03:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm checking out the backlog at RFPP. Honestly, I don't want to look at the article right now, but I will in a minute. I just blocked that edit-warrior, BTW. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can breathe! Spend all weekend with a sinus issues that made it feel like someone stuffed a tennis ball inside my head. My nose is so raw from blowing, it feels like someone took a belt sander to it. I was doubling up on Benedryl, Sudafed, Flonaise, aspirin and kleenex but much better now. Hope the wife and kiddopoos are feeling better. The article has been a trying affair, I've stayed away from direct editing and just stuck with traffic patrol on the talk page. I figure there is no shortage of people wanting to tweak it, so that was the best use of my time. I appreciate the help as well. Just knowing there are admin there actively patrolling has surely helped keep some of the disruption tamped down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
I was snooping around your user page and wanted to commend you for your work on this very unusual article. Writing about George Washington or Helen Keller is all well and good, but it's articles like yours that keep me perpetually in love with Wikipedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khazar, that is very kind of you--but let me give credit where credit's due and point you to Malleus Fatuorum, who is responsible for most of the work on that article, including everything that's correct about it. Still, I appreciate it! Drmies (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They've got one headed their way as well, then. Enjoy your evening, Dr... -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're no slouch either, Khazar. I just read Murder of Udin. Have you met my pal Crisco 1492? I'm sure you have--he and I have done a few Indonesian and Dutch-Indies articles together. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Crisco actually co-wrote that one with me. One of my favorite Wikipedia collaborators--always kind, always skilled. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Jay Westervelt[edit]

It appears that this page has not been locked after all, and user [Alan Stenberg], despite numerous warnings, continues to vandalize this page. Why can't his vandalizing be controlled?

Semperfly (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simple. I accidentally applied semi-protection, not full protection. That's rectified now, with my apologies. But that their edits are vandalism is not immediately obvious to me so I'm not going to block them: you all are having a content dispute and you should hammer out a consensus on the talk page of what the article should say. After that an editor can be warned and possibly blocked for disruption (edits against consensus)--but WP:VANDALISM is quite strict on the topic. Also, if you have suspicions of socking, start an WP:SPI so that can be looked into. Thank you, Drmies (talk)

Thanks- IF you read the talk pages for some of these sock puppets, esp. [Alan Stenberg], you will see recent warnings of suspension. Changing a caption from the subject's given, legal name to "dilletante" is not really a content dispute- it's outright vandalism.

  • I didn't see that one--thanks. That's reason enough for a block. Now, I still think you should get something going on the talk page if only for future reference: if there is socking, and if there are personal and business interests, it won't go away and future admins will have something on the talk page to fall back on. Now, I looked at Kimocarew and blocked it as a sock: the best thing for you to do is to start an SPI, even though this one is already blocked, and ask for a CU (Checkuser) so there is evidence for future investigations. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you may have blocked user kimocaraw for sock-puppetry. If you re-examine his post, you will see that another editor added text within his text box. The context of the final edit shows conflict within the text. I have nothing more to add on these pages. thank you. Semperfly (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem...[edit]

A-one, a-two. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the SPI with the further information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted, and warned for edit-warring. Report them to AIV next time if I'm not on call, and a block will be on the way. That's one way to tackle this...I saw the SPI was still not acted on, last time I looked. Patience, grasshopper! Thanks Homer, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have we gone a full set of warnings with this guy? Some admins are sticklers for doing a full set before any blocks are issued. SPIs are very slow, I know. Sometimes too slow for my liking. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but sometimes I'm a bit of a stickler, yes. But I don't believe in 1-2-3-4. Does that help? Don't worry, next time they're blocked. And if that other one returns, no matter where the SPI is at, they'll be blocked too. Domino theory, dear Homer. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you think we have issued all the warnings we can, then that's good enough for me. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, that's the nice thing about the edit-warring notice: a revert after that is blockworthy. Wow, Tom Brady is fantastic, and I don't even like the Pats. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now 38-31 San Francisco. I watched the Steelers game and they handed that thing to Dallas. Pittsburgh had a chance in the 4th to kick a field goal from their 39 to make it 27-24 and give them the win. They didn't! They punted back to Dallas! Dallas held them off, got into OT, intercepted, got within field goal range, kicked the field goal, Dallas won, score 27-24. Dammit! Pittsburgh got cocky and wanted a TD, it bit them in the ass. Steelers suck this year. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Fairbank[edit]

I've noted your comments, but the problem seems to be that IPs and, now, newly registered users - seemingly linked to the Exaro site or at least with non-public knowledge of the investigation - are repeatedly adding unsourced or very poorly sourced information, to an article about an ongoing police investigation which could potentially have significant political repercussions. The legal implications of WP repeatedly adding such allegations need to be addressed in the light of the McAlpine affair, and I would have thought that some form of page protection was the best solution. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Hopefully, more editors will take an interest in the article and help keep it on track. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can always revisit. I don't mind protecting the article, but I'm always hoping that a different course of action can solve a problem--protection often just postpones it. Drop me a line if this flares up again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question of sources[edit]

I have been lurking at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and its associated talk page and have a dumb question. I would rather appear dumb to you than appear dumb to the thousands of editors at those pages, so here goes: as a Wikipedia editor I am curious to learn why the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) has not been used in the article for fact reporting. Specifically, their press releases on this incident, which can be found here. I am particularly intrigued because during this incident, there has been proven misreporting by some of the sources currently still used in the article (CNN, Fox News and Huffington Post for example) --Senra (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's the citation for you. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Newtown School Shooting investigation continues" (Press release). State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection. 2012-12-16. {{cite press release}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • While Drmies and friends are processing this conundrum, Senra, you could get your Local Historian bush telegraph out and try to find one of your colleagues who deals in places that aren't quite right next door to you, to see about the Thomond deeds (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting question, Senra, and believe me, both at face value and in relation to some other comments on the talk page this is not a dumb question. Let me preface an answer with a disclaimer: I have been concerned with the various additions made to the article and their sourcing--I haven't been writing, just editing, and while I'm aware of some of the details that turned out to be utterly erroneous you likely know more, in detail, than I do.

    I can give you a philosophical answer: in general we use secondary sources, not primary ones, so mistakes in reporting may seep into the article, yes. Personally, I don't think I would have a problem with citing reports such as the one you linked--I think you can make a case on the talk page that such reports ("According to the Connecticut State Police,...") are acceptable. Now, the reminder there that social media may not be used to harass people, I'm not sure if that could find a way into the article: we all know what it means, most likely--people have been harassed, but that's not a conclusion that we could write up. (I'm not saying you'd want to consider that; I'm sure you know better than I do what is and what isn't acceptable.) There may be a practical answer as well--editors just haven't looked at it; I'm sure those communications don't have the highest ranking among Google results...

    The way to go about it is probably to identify one or more problematic statements in the article (I'm almost afraid to see what happened between 11 PM last night, when my internet connection gave up, and now) and bring them up on the talk page with the relevant links to the correct information. I hope you will engage this on the talk page: it needs cool heads, experienced Wikipedia editors. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am aware that primary sources are discouraged but not, I believe banned; especially were facts are concerned. Perhaps I should not have been afraid to raise this issue on the talk page. Still, you have answered my initial query, so thank you. I think that Uncle G jumped in here, in good faith, and may have partly destroyed my thesis by linking to only one DESPP press release when, in fact, I was talking more generally about all DESPP press releases on this incident—three at the time of writing. I have taken the liberty of re-factoring Uncle G's citation to make it clear that it was not part of my initial question --Senra (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I think WP:PRIMARY provides every opportunity to use these sources in this case. It's always a matter of editorial judgment--one exception (though I can't find a link to any policy or guideline) is that such documents as court transcripts are strongly discouraged. Someone can set me straight if I'm wrong, or point to the relevant guideline. Again, in this case, please go for it. I mean, it's easy to argue that one problem with primary sources, "They offer an insider's view of an event," is actually a strong point here: there can be no reporter who misunderstood. There was a clear case of inappropriate use of primary sources, currently at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#witness_states_saw_man_in_handcuffs_taken_out_of_woods (quick, before it's archived) where our primary source policy was used to remove the material for all the right reasons, but this is obviously a different case. After all, Pendle witches cites heavily from The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thorsø, Norway[edit]

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful amplification and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumping to conclusions, I don't suppose you'd be interested in making it a hat-trick of "articles expanded lots of by Uncle G and friends to make an AfD collapse" and early close this? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I refuse to accept any sort of blame for that article whatsoever. I was never there, and you never saw me. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only because somebody else got to the sources first. We felt you were certainly there in spirit. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do like a good gerbil story. In this case, the earlier version is not a completely different article from the current one, though it is radically improved, so I'm hesitant to close this per SNOW, for instance, and it's way too early to close it normally. What I'd do is ask the nominator to have another look at the article, even invite them to help improve. There's a DYK in it, methinks. This is charming but unfortunately unacceptable; I haven't been able to find more. Of course, I do not have Uncle G's talents. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't you go mentioning snow, now. M. Chapstick and M. White Background are all quiet and calm. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know, Uncle, I can't find your first mention of this mysterious error of mine. I do vaguely remember it, and I remember it going completely over my head--it's not that your incomprehensibly cryptic, but you do sometimes remind me of Borges, and combined with those Harvard references I reach brain overload quite easily. Moreover, you make me stray, since I'm now reading on Power and Society in the Lordship of Ireland 1272-1377 when I was already doing three other things. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you can see, Ritchie333, I have to endure the blame throwing of Aymatth2 and Drmies, who both think that it is exceedingly funny to get some some robot to come and post on my talk page asking me whether I know things. Fortunately, I now have the {{Drmies-user-talk-substub}} template for combatting this, used to great effect at /Archive 42#Asega. Thorsø, Norway (AfD discussion) required the abilities of an editor who could read Adûnaic. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which reminds me: I need to put that Frisian book up at DYK. The Fifteen Signs ought to be a huge FA. In the meantime I'm trying to work on Under the Volcano: I may need some more mescal. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • One of the sources that I read mentioned that there was a flurry of scholarly interest in the Fifteen Signs before Doomsday in the 19th century, and cited a whole bunch of sources as examples. I agree that factoring in the French and German traditions would probably make the article a lot more substantial. Uncle G (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's me...[edit]

Hi, Could you perhaps have a quick look at the discussion at Talk:Seminars of Jacques Lacan when you have a moment to see whether I really have gone totally bollocks? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

With this page we are moving previously used references to the bottom of the reference section and hiding them in a HTML comment section so that if they are reused we dont have to dig through 100's of revisions looking for the reference content. Thanks, Werieth (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I know what we're doing with this article. But if anyone restores deleted content, they should probably add that reference themselves. An article from the NY Post isn't worth saving anyway, nor is a Russian press release. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently removed a picture of a rifle from the article and said to see the edit summary of North8000. I looked at that edit summary and no factual sources were presented. I've started a section on the talk page regarding the picture. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what you mean with "no factual sources were presented". The edit summary presented an argument, one which sounded acceptable to me. I saw the talk page entry; thanks for starting that. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name?[edit]

Since you mentioned Borges and confusion, I think that it has finally reached the time that we had a small walled garden of substub encyclopaedia articles.

M. White Background

An editor has suggested that this be merged into List of fictional characters who inhabit Drmies' user talk page (Discuss)

White Background has been a Hoovian ever since xe was a child. After watching a genericized trademark on television, xe has, ever since, conscientiously vacuumed behind the sofa, with xyr hands over xyr eyes. Following in the footsteps of Sylvester McCoy, xe introduces xyrself with a small white calling card which has a big blob of old chewing gum in the centre, and in the corner of which can be found the mysterious symbols \e[47m. Of course, as you are well aware, this is but a pale imitation of a pale imitation.

Doctor Who? This article is a substub; you can help Wikipedia.

M. Chapstick

An editor has suggested that this be merged into List of fictional characters who inhabit Drmies' user talk page (Discuss)

Chapstick has lurked on the shelves of airport duty-free shops in Canada, the United States, Australia, Mongolia, and other places west of the Hudson. Xe has written several unused Wikipedia essays, including Evils of lip gloss, More evils of lip gloss, and Do you have shares in Revlon, or something?. After mind-melding with a tin of Spam, xe became a fan of Dr Glue, a children's television show starring Tim Allen about a supply teacher in Art who dashes from school to school in a Ford Ka that is even smaller on the inside than it looks from the outside, and is so obsessed with the show that xe is thinking of changing xyr name to Pritt Stick.

Doctor Who? This article is a substub; you can help Wikipedia.
This page was proposed for deletion by Drmies, with the rationale: Oooh! Twinkle! What does this button do? Deletion was challenged at the last minute, however, and now you have to use AFD. Ha-ha!

Drmies (Drmies character)

An editor has suggested that this be moved to Drmies as a primary topic (Discuss)

The grammatically incorrect Drmies can be found fighting, episode after episode, against Daleks, Cybermen, Ice Warriors, the Wraith, and Wikipedians. As of 2012, xe will close discussions citing the likelihood of snow. Although M. Chapstick and M. White Background have tried to out Drmies in the past, only one person managed to work out the jealously guarded secret of xyr name.

Family and species background

Drmies is an alien from outside of known human space. He is a remnant of what was once a vast empire, that largely fell as a result of the Time War. So advanced was the civilization, that its citizens had long evolved beyond the need for consonants. Indeed, much of its writing needs only Code Page 437. However, as a result of this linguistic advance much of it is unpronounceable by the human vocal apparatus. The nearest that a human being can come to speaking Drmies' name, for example, is when an automobile runs over a Frenchman's foot.

Drmies has a daughter and a wife, in episode if not chronological order.

Name

Drmies' pseudonym is, of course, a grammatical mistake that is obvious in hindsight. Any native Esperanto speaker knows that it should be mi estas. Even whilst trying so hard to hide it, subconsciously Dr mi estas is, by making a grammatical error for people to catch, giving a clue to xyr real name — a name that will be spoken, according to prophecy, from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, just before elevenses. If the answer is "I am.", then the question is, even on this very page, hiding in plain sight.

Doctor Who? This article is a substub; you help Wikipedia by giving the Doctor a crash course in Esperanto.

Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{like|num=7}
    • This Hoovian applauds the above post. I also remind everybody that the Dr. Who special is coming up on Christmas day. A new companion is to be reveled, of course she will pale in comparison to my beloved Amy. Bgwhite (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • i have no idea where this came from. But I like it. Currently on time off, so perusing the Wikipedia tends to be via mobile Device (iPhone today), so I don't always "catch" everything. . We have a Marathon on Christmas Day BG, oceans of Pond. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One person didn't like it. Uncle G (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh, I liked it. Much better than reading Althusser at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're done with Lacan and Heidegger? I recently had a brief engagement at Seminars of Jacques Lacan. Crisco, when you're done with all your reading you might be smarter than my uncle. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, ended up analysing Kubah with Lacan. How well I did is another story. M... oh well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now have just five days to rescue this. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

breast cancer awareness[edit]

Thanks for taking a look at Breast cancer awareness. I agree with you both about the fundamental POV issues and also about the toxicity of the talk page conversations. I'm hoping that the article will improve with the involvement of experienced outside editors. GabrielF (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it saddens me to see two editors who obviously know their stuff get at each other in such an unproductive manner. It's an odd situation, since I am quite sympathetic to the POV of the most blatant POV warrior and convinced of the (in my opinion misdirected) good faith and MO of the other party. I am not the one to improve the article by addition, though; it seems to me that you know more than I will ever learn. I am also hoping, indeed, for experienced outside editors--if nothing changes, an AN thread may bring attention to it. This has been going on for far too long. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notorious[edit]

In case you miss it blended with the other traffic, perhaps this is an essay you would be well suited to create. WP:BEANS and all that, but there appears to be a void. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe. I'm hoping Masem will come up with something. Ed has me writing already. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad to see that link has turned blue. Hoping to see it expand into some good guidance on where to draw the line as it applies to BLP and WP:N in general. I did notice Drmies has been slacking off and has yet to pontificate there... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Westervelt article name[edit]

Just a curtesy FYI as you're the protecting admin: I've submitted a page move request at WP:RM/TR (a technical move, as I don't believe it's controversial as it's not part of the content dispute, and is supported by the article text and by all the sources attached to the article). The proposed move is: Jay Westervelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Jay Westerveld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I would move it myself, but I am involved in the content dispute over the career label, so do not want to use my admin abilities to move the article through the page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Those Dutchies and their silly last names. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYA[edit]

Re [1]: [2] --213.196.212.146 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well done. Next thing you know I get bacon delivered to my house. Seriously, playing nice is a good way to get things done: I should try it more often. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else sane look at this please?[edit]

Talk:Universalist Church of West Hartford and the relatively slow - and very lame - edit war on the article - between two established users who should probably have an interaction ban. Thanks, LadyofShalott 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at WP:RFPP.
Message added 23:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Hammond[edit]

Hi Drmies. After our discussion yesterday on the Sandy Hook talk page, someone changed Hammond's title from vice principal/lead teacher to vice principal/teacher, and removed two of the three sources. And the cite that remains even verifies she is vice principal and lead teacher. Can you restore the content? Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do me a favor and find me the edit? I hope it's just one. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have given that to you originally. Actually, this involved edits by multiple editors. First, an editor added a 4th cite (which is overkill, I think). Then this edit is where 3 of the 4 cites were removed. Then this edit removed the word "lead" from lead teacher. Even Hammond's web page shows her title was lead teacher. Hope this helps and sorry for any inconvenience. However you decide to handle this is totally fine with me. I know you have a lot more important things to handle. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is that the page loads so slowly, so getting all these diffs is a bit of a hassle, but I'm on it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 02:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: December 2012[edit]

Hello, Drmies. Nice to meet you. Sorry for my very bad english. But, the user Zz2zz I'm sure he edited from before with an IP (76.228.74.139; I'm sure he is, just have to go with a CU). The problem is that he endeavors to remove references equally reliable and, edit arbitrarily, for example: [3] or [4]. And in "Thalía" he removes all without consensus or, as I say, arbitrarily. With your account, he does the same. What I can do?, I do not know English very well But please, could you help me?. I just want to do a job in good faith. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, then you shouldn't have been edit-warring. Rest assured, I saw the IP edits, and Zz2zz is blocked like you are. When your block expires you can discuss it on the talk page with them, like adults. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harryzilber[edit]

Thanks Drmies, and good choice on the block length. It is probably just enough time for the user to step back and re-evaluate. Ryan Vesey 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure thing. I wonder how a long-time editor makes such an error, and I figured a short block would be sufficient to stop the disruption and get the point across. I hope I'm right. Thanks for keeping an eye open--ha, it was your edit summary on Recent changes that caught my eye, so good work with the prose. Drmies (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes? You're keeping it old school. I think I used recent changes once or twice in my first month and then found lupin's tool and never used recent changes again. I use newbie recent changes sometimes. Ryan Vesey 06:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's like Adrock said, "in the next millennium I'll still be old school". Haha, lupin's tool? Never heard of it! Drmies (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool I use it when I don't have access to Huggle. It filters the recent changes for likely vandalism. Ryan Vesey 06:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am now worried it was too short. He doesn't understand why he was blocked, and while he has no stated intention to continue restoring the information, his comments imply that he doesn't understand that further restoration of the material would violate policy.[5] Ryan Vesey 06:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook archives[edit]

Someone renamed them without my realsing and now I can't seem to move them back.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC) There are redirects on the others so it must be because I have been copy pasting the titles without seeing that they were named wrong. I will redirect the new archive.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wish you hadn't left that to a Luddite like me: I managed to screw up the reversion of that process. Geek alert--I posted a note on the talk page. The right one, I hope. Who goes around renaming archived talk pages? Drmies (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bot. TAP's bot, to be specific. I'll take a look. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, that should do it. What happened was that Tvoz had moved the page on the 15th, which was quickly reverted. Three days later, TAPbot came in, thinking the page was still moved, and completed the "move" by moving the archives to where they should have been, had Tvoz's move stuck. I'll drop TAP a line; sounds like some sort of bug. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A user was involved as well. The screw-up is mine, though--copying and pasting those names (to get the capitalization correct) I put a 3 instead of a 4, or the other way around. I'm not looking anymore: please have a little bird tap on my window to say that everything is fixed. Thanks. (after ec: did you check to see if 3 is 3 and 4 is 4? The one starts with the Bushmaster, so the other shouldn't.) Drmies (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I think they both start with Bushmaster; apparently it's a hot topic. I made me moves by comparing timestamps, though, so we should be good; double-checking is welcome as always. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I'm afraid to (and I apologize for the non sequitur in the preceding comment, nicely undercut by the popularity argument). Thanks Writ Keeper. Someone should make you admin one of these days. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* <-- That's a tiny barnstar for Drmies for making me laugh on that talk page. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read all of the above....and then my head exploded. I kept thinking the easiest way to deal with it was destroy it all and sort it back out afterwards. LOL! Thanks to Writ...no archives were harmed in the making of this thread. LOL! I support the tiny barnstar. Put me in a good mood suddenly. It probably won't last though.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was in a good mood until I saw a bunch of white men on TV purchasing AR-15s; gun sales are spiking especially on such weapons. Ha, we should probably put that in the Sandy Hook article. Funny--people who probably don't have a nail to scratch their ass with (as the Dutch might say) shelling out $1000 for a weapon for which there is no legitimate (I'm speaking morally) use. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- about User:MikeFromCanmore[edit]

Thank you for all your help in dealing with User:MikeFromCanmore. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's emailed me, I haven't gotten around to reading it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, now that I just confirmed my email, I'm sure that he'll be emailing me. I say bring it on. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, yeah, that one. Sure thing--it led to collaborative editing and article improvement. Maybe Milton was right. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Blocked another one of his socks today; fun times for all to be had. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Writ Keeper; I appreciate you staying on top of that. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian devilry[edit]

You've nominated something for deletion by proxy. Also note the copying and pasting from tourist brochures that I've pointed out to Prioryman. Uncle G (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would have thought that Priory man should stay away from Gibraltar (he's one of the reviewers on DTR) given how many Gibraltar DYKs are praised on his talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't paid any attention to the whole Gibraltarpedia fiasco, so I don't know who has the conflicts of interest and who does not. I notified Prioryman simply because xe was apparently doing the DYK reviews and looking for copyright problems. Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, your application of the BLP policy to roads is faulty. Uncle G (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to explain what you meant, but it would be better coming from you. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured consent[edit]

"you may do so, in a calm and non-accusatory manner" - "if you want to persist living in dreamland"

Aren't these two statements of yours contradictory?

My complaint is that debate is being stifled. What is wrong with that? Why aren't you allowing a debate to happen? --MacRùsgail (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that I live in Dreamland is an accusation. It means you are accusing me of being some kind of fantasist. My main interest, in fact, is in the lack of an international outlook in that article. This has become a global news story, with global responses. If you looked at my edits on the actual page, you'd see that I'd put nothing about winter on it. I mentioned it on the talk page, in passing, but didn't put it on the page. It is a discussion page. That's what it's there for.
I am sceptical of your definition of "consensus". So called consensus on Wikipedia appears to have a different definition from the real world. Especially when the one side of the debate is censored and stymied, and not counted in the vote.
By the way, I don't use Facebook, and never intend to. I consider it to be trivial junk. It also sells people's personal information, which is inexcusable.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking discussion notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HarryZilber (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a card carrying member, but I would have removed the material just the same if it had been the other way around. POV material is POV and inserting it without discussion is ridiculous. Ryan Vesey 19:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are? Hmm. Next thing you know Dennis Brown is one too. After all, he likes cars and bacon. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had the FFL, not normally a license held by those opposed to guns. It's pretty hard to oppose guns after you've had a chance to do some target shooting with my Ruger MK III. Ryan Vesey 19:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An agreement that's easy to make. There's no reason everyone has to like what I like or think what I think (except when it comes to John Hardy's BBQ. Everyone has to like Hardy's BBQ). Ryan Vesey 19:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never belonged to NRA and neutral about it, but I used to sell a lot of guns and gold. I let my conceal to carry expire since selling the pawnshop, something I should rectify. Most people wouldn't have guessed this because I don't wear my politics on my sleeve or allow it to enter my work here. We are building a neutral encyclopedia, so it shouldn't matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone signed me up as an NRA member some years back. I got all sorts of mail from some really interesting organizations after that, until it stopped. I never found out who did it, or why it stopped. I think I still have the card somewhere, probably with my NYCLU card. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I never had an interest in all the "interesting organizations", never wanted to be involved in the politics of it all. People hear you had an FFL and usually assume you read Soldier of Fortune and all that. I find those guys just as nutty as you likely do. But it takes all kinds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, allow me closing remarks on "my" talk page. You all use "political" in a way-too limited sense, typical of Americans (sorry). You mean it as it relates to your party or to Washington. That's too narrow. "Political" involves any kind of ideology. If I buy free-range eggs (I don't because I can't afford them) I am committing a political act. If I don't buy free-range eggs I am also committing a political act. The company that's selling its interest in those weapons of mass murder, whatever their motives are, they are making a political statement.

    If you go out as a private citizen and buy a gun you do not do so in a value-free environment. First of all, you (US citizens here) do so in a country that has long supported the private ownership of guns, and has extended those rights in recent history, some might argue to a ridiculous extent. When you do buy a gun, then, you affirm that you believe in that right--or, if you say no one has that right, but you buy your gun anyway because others buy guns and you need to protect yourself from them, you still affirm the basic right to ownership, pragmatically if not theoretically. Ergo, if you buy a gun, if you consider buying a gun, if you decide not to buy a gun, you are making a political statement one way or the other.

    If you buy a gun, the gun makers make a profit, you support their industry--and they in turn can influence politics in the way you were using "political". If you buy a gun, you say to yourself and to others (and possibly to God, if you believe in such an entity) that you have a moral right to it, that you are responsible, that you can handle it, that your kids will NEVER have access to it, that you won't do crazy shit with it, that you will make sure it won't get stolen by a criminal (which is what happens to a lot of guns, and you know it)--all those are political statements also since they take place in an environment where none of those things are value-free.

    You know I respect you all as Wikipedia editors and chances are I love you like a brother, but when you say "I don't get into the politics of it" you're fooling yourself. I'm not going to chastise you for it, but you're fooling yourself. Every gun that's bought supports the industry, the gun lobby, the NRA, the general sentiment that guns (at least some kinds of guns) are OK to be handled by private citizens. That's fine--you just need to be aware that you can't be unaware of that. Every gun that's bought without FBI background check (40% of all sales go without check) adds, possibly, to the amount of poorly monitored guns and gun owners floating in the country and out of it, to the south, into Mexico. All these are political acts, yes, in the broad sense of the word.

    You can say "I'm not interested in the politics of it", but that just tells me that, usually, someone is unwilling to think through the larger ramifications of their private act. Don't think you can buy or own a gun and it have no consequences. Even if that gun is buried deep underground, it's still loaded with ideology, with market values, with politics. I don't care if you believe what some say the second amendment says (personally, I don't care very much about what some white guys centuries ago came up with), I'm a realist--but don't say that "politics" has nothing to do with it, because it has everything to do with. The Soldier of Fortune is easily laughed at, but Mr. Lanza didn't get his guns from a soldier of fortune; he got them from his mommy (a fine, tax-paying citizen), who got them legally from a gun dealer (a fine, tax-paying citizen), who got them legally from a gun manufacturer--who provides a fine boost to our economy with an impact of almost $14 billion in 2011, thanks to Prez. Obama (by proxy). So, of course it's political. Christ, I'm sounding like Christ here, crying in the desert. You think Christ would have advocated gun ownership? A bumper sticker sure to get me my car keyed down here. </soapbox> Now, where were we? Drmies (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your note on my archive...[edit]

...when Miszabot came by to do her chores. I'm flattered it took you only six months to see it, shows how you've stopped visiting my TP after Miss Silverstone was banished. I'm still sort of around, just not active anymore. It's just way too much nonsense to deal with, all the way from the standard POV pushing in India articles to sometimes having to deal with rather strange interpretations of policy etc. I'm also glad that you've finally come out of the closet and identified yourself as an NRA member. And apparently I'm now back just in time to pop some corn in the microwave and watch the arbcom case page. Jeez! —SpacemanSpiff 19:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll shoot you right out of outer space, Spiffy, if you keep this up. I for one miss having you around. I could say I understand your concerns about Wikipedia, but I have yet to see people being falsely accused of (NRA) advocacy, POV editing, personal interest, admin abuse, censorship, waging vendettas, and commafucking, so I reeeaaalllllllly have no idea what you're on about. But I do miss you. Did you see James Tod is on the front page? TTYL, Drmies (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ["Meh" instated, excised, restored, then withdrawn]
      • Writ Keeper, instead of yanking my chain (a clear example of battleground mentality), why don't you bow down in front of SpacemanSpiff, a true master and a free spirit, and ask him to stay? Man, we should all get together for beers. What's Saturday like for you all? Drmies (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]


AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The M-word[edit]

Nice op-ed (and I agree thoroughly). But I found a cute ass for my write-up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

👍 The ed17 likes this.
Crisco, what's with the language? What if some innocent passer-by sees it, and doesn't know what you're referring to? Hell, I don't even know what you're referring to! BTW, those are nice tits I have, aren't they. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All you need now is some of Ernst Blofeld's penises. But, some of his penises are too huge to be concealed weapons, so they are probably not allowed here. Bgwhite (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance please[edit]

Who is our best Reliable Sources expert on Wikipedia? I need to gain a better understanding on using some particular sources quickly.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it depends. What kind of source? Drmies (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • School publications, handbooks etc. (here's a dollar).--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's ... difficult. As in, a school yearbook? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, probably no, but this is to be judged individually, probably. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • These [6] publications to cite facts to the alumni page. Would these be acceptable as primary sources without problems or issues?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would say, generally speaking, that the facts you can reliably cite from that are of the directory type--name of principal, address, number of AP classes. So it's limited. I wouldn't cite alumni BLP info from it, no. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • We just got a question at the Teahouse regarding this type of sources. I wasn't quite sure there either. Go Phightins! 01:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article[edit]

Well done. Toddst1 (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, nicely done. LadyofShalott 02:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent article actually. I am also a little surprised by the numbers of page views you stated in it. That is staggering.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Writer's Barnstar
For your Sandy Hook Signpost article. Excellence is so common with you it makes me sick. LOL! Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, they ran it already? I hope they proofread it a bit... Drmies (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're a newspaper, dear Doctor; we have to be timely, or we won't run it at all! Yes, much proofing was done by Tony. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hollisz[edit]

Yeah, those warnings aren't working. I reverted per your previous revert "edit-warring, previously warned by admins". Time for a block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would go indef, as the user has made no attempts to communicate with other users/admin, doesn't seem to be listening to warnings, doesn't appear to be here to edit constructively. I would also recommend temporary indef-protection (until after the holidays) for WICL, WNUZ and WLTF. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to AIV as well, which is currently backlogged. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I blocked them for 31 hours--which is pretty usual for a first-time edit-warring block. No, you won't get your protection, sorry. But I did look at the SPI, and with an editor blocked we may see what happens. If the other editor comes back, we know, and DQ will have something exciting to look at. If an IP comes back, we know (and I will protect). Drmies (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understandable, eliminate the problem, no need for protection. I will keep an eye on the articles and let you know if I see the other account or IP pop up. Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't since the guy knows he has eyes on him...but stranger things have happened (this is Wikipedia after all). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do wonder about these people. They're editing against consensus, they know it, they know they're being watched and talked about (hey Hollis, how you doing?), and they don't say anything, just create a new article. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup and think that we aren't going to connect the dots between the two accounts and the IP. Numerous editors do this over and over and it gets laughable after awhile. Same thing, same act, just a different person and a different set of accounts. It does make you wonder. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lanza[edit]

That article is hard to revise at the moment due to edit conflicts, but the father's name is worth including in article space, though his employer is not relevant. We include the father's name in one of the refs, and it helps clarify that Adam Peter Lanza and Peter Lanza are different people. I am sure we will also be hearing more from the guy about his involvement with his son (or lack thereof) in the time leading up to the murders. Jokestress (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion closed after 2.5 hours doesn't seem to be based on consensus, but on the decision of the few editors who weighed in during that brief window. I'd like to see a more thorough discussion, as we are having with the Ryan Lanza redirect. Jokestress (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to begin the discussion anew, but in the meantime the name won't be allowed in the main body of the article. I'm looking at the redirect; I didn't know there was an issue. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well....there went my good mood. I knew it wouldn't last. And I thought the "Queen Jimbo" thing would keep me smiling for a while.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, Wtmitchell accidentally reverted the father's name back into the article when he was trying to ungroup a reference. I left him a note here, although for some reason when you look at his talk page, the text of my comment doesn't show up. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He fixed it, and he fixed a missing ref bracket on his talk page such that comments show up now. All good... AzureCitizen (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw, thanks, and in the meantime I corrected the "correction" of an "error". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at Peter Lanza while you're at it, if the goal is to suppress his name in the article where he's mentioned and quoted. Jokestress (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you pre-protect the soon to be created 'end of the world' page?[edit]

As you have experience it protecting breaking news stories, could you pre-protect the soon to be created 'end of the world' page? When the world ends on Friday, I don't want to be reverting some IP's BLP violation while dodging brimestone, bombs, earthquakes or whatever happens. Hmmm, maybe it will be like the Dr. Who episode, The End of Time, where everybody will be turned into Bieber or Honey Boo Boo. Eh, my world ended when I got married, so I'll enjoy the end of my suffering. Bgwhite (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It'll end up prosline-style
  1. 12:00 UTC Nothing happened
  2. 12:01 the first signs of trouble, a rumbling in the earth
  3. 12:03 rumblings grew more intense, earthquakes recorded around the world
    ...
  4. 5:00 New York and London are reportedly destroyed by aliens
  5. 5:01 Paris's destruction also reported
  6. 5:02 A terrorist cell rereleases Drmies nude pictures
  7. 5:03 Great Firewall of China goes rampant, shutting down most of the internet
    ...
  8. 12:03 Derrida rises from the grave, chases literature students who read the Wikipedia article on deconstruction
  9. 12:04 Barry Bonds begins protecting old women with his baseball bat
    ... (Bonds eaten by zombies sometime around 12:15 p.m.)
  10. 17:51 tsunami wipes out Yogyakarta, Oahu, and Timbuktu
  11. 17:55 waters recede, Nyai Roro Kidul's palace revealed. All persons in green shirts are abducted
    ...
  12. 00:00 The Flying Spaghetti Monster captures the last living human while singing "On Top of Spaghetti"
Terrifying. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standing a drink[edit]

Wait, what?? Are you saying that "standing someone a drink" is a Britishism?? Gosh. I honestly had no clue - I just thought it was general-use English! Holy moley, one learns something every day. I'm going to have to go and waste time looking it up now ... Cheers! DBaK (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, totally--few Americans would know what you're on about (and they don't say "what you're on about" either). Well, it seems my OED access is unavailable, so I can't be proven wrong right now. "Standing a drink"--I imagine a bunch of gruff, bearded Brits standing at a counter drinking big pints and muttering incomprehensibly about the weather and the government. I'd love to join. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha! Well you learn something every day - or at any rate I do, on a good day. Thank you. I am neither tough nor bearded but will be delighted to stand you a pint on your next visit to London. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hehe I can't wait. I've only spent time in London once, on a bus layover, and man was it impressive. I'll give you a call, or a buzz, or a ring, or whatever. Thanks! And when you get on the wrong bus and end up in Warehouse City, tell MF I said "toodles". Drmies (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually "standing a drink" used to be reasonably common in the U.S., especially in the West ("I'll stand the house" crops up in older Westerns...the print not screen kind). This is prior to about 1920, though. <slinks away after cutting loose with historical trivia> Intothatdarkness 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • My OED access works. Earliest recorded use is Dickens, Sketches by Boz, 1836, when the usage was new enough for him to put the verb in quotes: "Mr. Augustus Cooper..‘stood’ considerable quantities of spirits and water." JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete user account[edit]

I reverted the blanking of user:Lis4930's page by User talk:Lowczarek. I then got an email from Lowczarek: Please delete the wiki Lis4930 as it was only used for instructional purposes, and the course it was used for has ended. Thank you. I replied on Lowczarek's page, why I could not / and suggested that Lis4930 blank it. A reply on Lowczarek's page by an IP was I created the Lis4930 account with no e-mail and cannot retrieve the password. Please delete the page as previously requested and as mentioned in the first line of the wiki (the course has ended, the students want that information down). Any suggestions? Willing to help? Best Jim1138 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm in it, and I don't imagine this is a malicious sockpuppet, so I blanked the page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I put some info on the various talk pages involved here, but I'm curious about what was meant by "as mentioned in the first line of the wiki". I'm pretty sure nothing here would have promised that the account could be deleted, so is the reference to a course-related wiki? In that case, the instructor (perhaps Lowczarek?) should be made aware that such a promise cannot be kept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The first line of this wiki" was a message at the top of User:Lis4930 when it was set up, which read:

"Hello, This wiki is for the class LIS 4930 at the University of South Florida. This page has been set up for students in the course to learn how to use and edit a wiki. At the end of this course, this page will be deleted."

I added a note to Lowczarek that he should have pointed out to his students the "irrevocable release" message below every edit screen, and also pointed him to WP:SUP.
Then I looked at the pre-blanking versions of User:Lis4930. That's a terrible "course". The page history shows entries from seven students, not one of whom has anything on their talk page, or edits to anything but this single page. They were just using WP as a scratch-pad to practise editing. Still, at least they weren't doing any actual harm, unlike Sandy Georgia's favourite Psych101 classes. JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that "Lis" was part of a course identifier, I thought it was part of a person's name. So... it was a role account in the first place. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to set up an edit filter to try to catch stuff like that before it happens, so that we can get the instructors the information they need (but don't know they need) about editing Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're walking a fine line between inviting new editors and inviting trouble. Someone at some point got it into their heads to let a bunch of students loose on Marie de France, and no one knew what the f*** they were doing. That's damage. A filter would be great, but I don't see how that could be filtered out. There's still a case on Dennis Brown's talk page--that I suppose I should have a look at. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of the filter more as a way to alert our education people that a course using Wikipedia was being set up, so they could step in and help out, if necessary. Since there would be no actual "filtering" per se, false positives wouldn't be much of a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, you were absolutely right--just a notepad. I was going to leave welcome messages and stuff, but it's from months ago and they won't be back. Those instructors should use BlackBoard--their institution is paying out the ass for it anyway, might as well use it. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't we have some kind of Ambassador for these college issues? If not, it is likely overdue as this is starting to get more and more common. And problematic. We want to greet, help, and direct these people in the right direction, as to be actually helpful here and not an accidental burden. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh there are ambassadors; I'm also one. However if the instructors (or even students) don't make themselves known to us; it's a little hard to help them. Just creating a user page for a class isn't enough to get the attention in the right places. To be fair, they may not know, but it seems incumbent upon a university instructor to learn how to use the tools and collaborate with the people upon whom he/she is unleashing students. LadyofShalott 02:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be yet another consequence of being "The encyclopedia anyone can edit," a slogan we ought to retire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the encyclopedia some winners can't edit either. I wonder if Malleus will be back; I haven't stopped thinking about it. Drmies (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the word encyclopedia is being misused. —SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Says the spaceman who used the phrase "moving forward". The only thing worse than that is "Having said that, ...." Crisco, please send me your doctoral thesis before you hand it in so I can make sure you don't abuse this beautiful language in that way. For Spiff it's probably too late. Drmies (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take cover under the guise of Indian English -- anything the Yanks, Brits, etc. can't understand or don't like is allowed here. I'd slap {{Indian English}} on this page, but Sitush would come after me with an aruval. —SpacemanSpiff 06:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey now. Yanks? Them's fighting words. Spiff, you must have gotten stood up for the night, or your local jam band is even more boring than you had feared. As for Sitush, he'll have to gather his toes before he comes running after anyone. Remember, his brother got the bike. Drmies (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My doctoral thesis? Geez, that's a little far off. Haven't even finished my master's yet. I think Spaceman Spiff is upset because he doesn't have to ride the ark — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, thanks for the link (never heard of that before). Check out mine; the "ark" was a secular reference. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, as an atheist, any reference I make to religion is secular IMO -- my belief in them is the same as my belief in your link, sorry if it came out as suggesting anything more than a preference or a need for a transport system. —SpacemanSpiff 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. So Drmies, why didn't I get a seat on whatever bacon-blimp you used to escape the FSM? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the Drmies juniors[edit]

This has kept my nieces/nephews etc amused in recent years. And driven me barmy as it whips up their expectations. Enjoy, with my best wishes. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Here's wishing you happy holidays and a successful Wiki New Year! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha Kudpung! Thanks! I was just thinking about you the other day, and about how GWU should have had a bar in every venue. Imagine how much more fun we could have had. Hey, feel like dropping by this spring? I'm teaching History of the English Language; maybe you can do a little spiel on something exotic. All the best, Drmies (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Thanks for your timely op-ed in the Signpost. Pine✉ 08:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that. I didn't plan it as an op-ed, but I suppose the editors had no choice since I can't keep my mouth shut very well. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Varlaam[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but you have been involved with this editor before. Thanks to your warning he stopped attempting the change that article. However more recently he made the same change to another article - in this case a list. He must have know it was controversial but engaged in an edit war while making no comments on the talk page. This included "revert vandalism", "revert recidivistic vandalism and started with "Persistent nationalistic vandalism from single-issue editor: blocking of this editor is now officially requested". The editor concerned has an outstanding track record of article creation and work by the way, as a simple check by Varlaam would have revealed.

As in previous incidents Varlaam ignored the talk page until this morning. This edit involves him calling the other editor a "punk" and a "parasite" as well as exhibiting ownership issues. Now all of that said, this is an editor who is putting a lot of work into many articles, but seems incapable of interacting with other editors. If thwarted s/he lashes out. The block history speaks for itself. Is it possible to have a word? I half thought about taking it to ANI but that history an indef would have probably been the result and we would have lost someone who is making valuable contributions.

If you don't want to take it up fair enough! ----Snowded TALK 10:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Another revert (up to four now) with the same vandalism accusation this morning

Thank you![edit]

I know you've opened a discussion of this block at AN, but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for finally doing something about Varlaam. Having been the object of his ire in the past, to the degree he once likened me to Joseph Mengele because I removed one of his pet bits of trivia from an article, I have long believed that Varlaam's copious editing has allowed him to skate by with this kind of abusive battleground behavior far too long. I have also long questioned the quality of many of his edits and his obsession with numbers of edits versus content. I'm glad to see an admin finally stand up to him and draw the critical line in the sand. Behavior like his and a coterie of others (and we all know who the president of the club is) must stop if this community is to survive. --Drmargi (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drmargi, I'm not aware of a coterie. I mean, I am aware of some coteries, but not of one related to Varlaam. Is that what you meant? Please enlighten me if you like me to look into something (as long as it's not related to K-pop--not during the holiday season). Drmies (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was just referring to that small group of editors who seem to be able to teflon out of abiding by the same civility expectations as the rest of us. You know the ones -- they're at ANI over and over again. It's nothing you need to do, just me being pleased one has been indeff'd and blowing off a bit of steam at the same time. --Drmargi (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A thought for Sitush[edit]

Please keep Sitush in mind today; he's in hospital for a procedure. I don't know if he wants to handle best wishes on his talk page since that might flood his little smartphone, but I'll gladly accept flowers on his behalf. Hope all goes well, Sitush. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid overwhelming his talk page, I'll stand him a pint here. Best wishes, Sitush. —SpacemanSpiff 16:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All good wishes Sitush's way. Rapid healing! LadyofShalott 19:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sent him an email earlier today, short, thus suitable for a smart phone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For your continued good work to enforce policy and maintain order. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Westerveld (again)[edit]

Thanks for stepping in over there. Hopefully, with the request at WP:BLP/N#Jay Westerveld, the article will get the attention it needs to clean it up. I had never heard of him before I saw the post on a user talk page (now archived at User talk:LadyofShalott/Archive 24#Jay Westervelt), and I had done some initial cleanup of the most egregious unsourced promotional content, but then got bogged down in the career naming nonsense. At this point, I'm feeling a bit burned out on a subject I have no strong connection about, so am thinking of just taking it off my watch list for a while and focusing on areas I can be more productive. Thanks again for your involvement over there - and good luck! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: just saw you comment at ANI. I had viewed myself as involved, as I had done several of the reverts in the profession area. But, given your ANI comments, I may keep the page on my watch-list to still keep an eye on developments and to act if additional BLP or NPA issues develop. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Coral Island/GA1[edit]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Talk:The Coral Island/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The entire review needed to be transcluded to Drmies's talk page rather than just pointing him back to the discussion? LadyofShalott 20:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, supposed to be a talkback but I typed the wrong thing.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now corrected by the nominator, to whom I also managed to transclude the review... sigh. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, ok. ;-) LadyofShalott 21:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lady, thank you for looking after me. Grandiose, the issue was a license and it's taken care of? Good, I'm glad. Lady, I bought a digital recorder--you should hear Sippy sing and then sing along with herself. Also, while she sings (all improvised and full of cliches) she does interpretive dance...it's quite charming (unless you're tired from cooking and cleaning). I'm watching her now. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now Rosie is in on the action--"'Up in the Sky' and it's a new one! It's now available!" Drmies (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The cuteness that is little girls. I'm so looking forward to seeing the nieces. LadyofShalott 05:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings![edit]

Happy children want you to be happy too!

Happy children join me in extending the best possible Season's Greetings to you and your loved ones at this time of year, and if you don't celebrate the usual holidays (Diwali, Xmas, Hanukkah, Eid, Kwanzaa, etc....), then we will still wish you a Happy Festivus. All the best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Harry, I appreciate that. The same to you and your loved ones. We'll settle for Christmas here and the kids will bargain for whatever will get them more presents. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support during my "block". As for my Survivor habit, well... we all have our guilt pleasures. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rock on, Dodo. I'll keep mine to myself; people might start respecting me if they knew what I watch. Thanks for dropping by! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nun's Well that starts badly[edit]

Nun's Well, Cannock Wood was unmitigated drivel for six years. I'm not convinced that it is properly a primary topic, either. An equal weight disambiguation seems the best. I am more persuaded of this having found Nun's Well, Brigham, a poem by William Wordsworth that doesn't seem to rate much literary analysis by itself, but which is discussed in the context of an aspect of Wordsworth that we don't appear to have. That would make for an equal weight disambiguation between Nun's Well, Cannock Wood, Nun's Well, Gibraltar, Wordsworth's friendship with geologists (when it is written), and the other Nun's Wells that there are. If you turn the English Professor Vacuum up to a higher setting, maybe one of those English professors being sucked in by it will remedy this gap in our coverage of literature and Wordsworth.

And maybe Senra might be persuaded to deal with the St Nun's Well in Pelynt, U.K. (after the saint variously named Nynnina, Nenyna, or Ninnie) which is listed at Hope 1893, pp. 17–19, the St Nun's Well in Altarnum (also called Altarnun) U.K. (after Nonna) that is at Hope 1893, p. 19–20, and the Nun's Well at Sedgwick Castle (also called Sidgwick Castle) that is in Sedgwick Park (Hope 1893, p. 165).

I found all of this as fallout from the Gibraltarian devilry. I'm dropping it off here for much the same reasons that I dropped off some cat in Staffordshire elsewhere. I have work on Gibraltar International Airport on my to-do list.

Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sshh! we keep it raw on the set. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • After this, I could not resist a question. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice. Mrs. Drmies doesn't have to go to work, so my WP time will be limited over the next days and weeks. I'm having to be social, which also involves cooking and cleaning and taking care of her visiting mother. I love the holidays. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I can't log in to my library--very irritating--so I can't look at JSTOR etc. Are you sure it's Nonna of Nazianzus and not Saint Non? The latter is venerated widely in Wales, and Staffordshire is (according to Wikipedia so, you know) in the neighborhood. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just wikilinked Nonna without worrying too much about it, sure in the knowledge that Senra would be on the case. And what do you know? ☺ Checking, it does appear to be Saint Non, yes. Welcome to the world of those of us who have no JSTORrery, Tex-Mex Lexus, or Main Beaming.

          Black Kite has been secretly writing about that cat in Staffordshire, by the way.

          Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          • For those of us who live in a country with a history prior to 1776, er specifically the UK, a local library card may give you access to Farmer, David Hugh (2011). The Oxford Dictionary of Saints (5 (Online) ed.). OUP. ISBN 9780199596607. which may be useful in this context. For example "Non: mother of David of Wales. Almost all that is known of her comes from Rhygyfarch's Life of David. According to this source (11th century), she was a nun at Ty Gwyn, near Whitesand Bay (Dyfed), who was seduced by a prince called Sant: David was their son" --Senra (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh my oh my. Nobs knobbing nuns. ODNB (2004–12) says "Rhigyfarch's narrative begins thirty years before David's conception with the prophecy of his birth by an angel to his father, Sant, king of Ceredigion (fl. 6th cent.), and to St Patrick. The angel warned Patrick against settling at St David's (here given the Latin name Vallis Rosina), while Sant received a dream in which symbols of David's virtues appeared. Thirty years later he was sent by divine power to Dyfed, where he raped a beautiful nun, Non [Nonnita, Non Fendigaid] (fl. 6th cent.); as the mother of St David she became known as Non Fendigaid (Non the Blessed). Miracles attended the pregnancy, and David was born during a thunderstorm, supposedly on the cliffs near St David's" --Senra (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Well, well, well! I am not sure that Hope is to be trusted. He confuses Eltesle with Ely—Hope even misspells it Ellely. For those who do not know the area, Eltisley and Ely are over 25 miles apart. In Hope (1893) p. 5 under the heading of Ely: Pandonia's Well, Hope quotes Leland as saying
    • "At Ellely was sumtyme a nunnery, where Pandonia, the Scottish virgin, was buried, and there is a well of her name yn the south side of quire".
  • Leland (Vol. 1, p. 1) actually says
    • "At Elteſle was ſumtyme a Nunnery wher Pandonia the Scottiſh Virgine was buried. and there is a Well of her name yn the South ſide of the Quire".
  • Hope also says on page 5 that "St. Audry's Well is situated southward of Cratendon about a mile from the city of Ely"! Well I never! If there is/was a document locating Æthelthryth's Well about a mile South of Cratendune we would perhaps be able to locate Cratendune.
  • I accept the above dismissal of Hope is a little parochial but for me, those two errors call into question the rest of his treatise.
  • --Senra (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew that you'd know these from holes in the ground. ☺ For what it's worth, there is other stuff written about the Nun's Wells in Pelynt, Altarnun, and Sedgwick Castle (such as this). There isn't just Hope to rely upon. If you look at Orme 2000, for example, you'll see a lot more about Pelynt, chapel and well. I didn't check, or mention, the Nun's Well at Rusper, also described by Hope (Hope 1893, p. 164). Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Kite thinks that there are even more Nun's Wells than above. Uncle G (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nadolig hapus[edit]

Martinevans123Santas Grotto wishes you and yours

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....

Holiday cheer[edit]

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

2012 Delhi gang rape case[edit]

Since you seem to have done a wonderful job with another recent problem, how about devoting some admin electrons to this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't torture poor Drmies with prose that will make xyr fingers twitch! Even in Indian English, the pronoun "her" needs an antecedent, in the singular and feminine. Similarly, "the accused" is not a pronoun. And that's overlooking those awful and completely unnecessary section headings, and the ridiculous navbox that purports to place a crime with victims of both sexes into a "series about violence against women" which it clearly isn't a part of since it isn't in the navbox and isn't in the series. And am I the only one who has spotted the false citation, where the article cited has a quite different headline and content if one checks, about intestines? Uncle G (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't edited the article yet (tbh, I haven't even read it properly, just skimmed through), I just came by as it's linked from Google News (which typically doesn't happen for India events) and have so far only tackled copyvios, one source misrepresentation, and one change of a quote. I don't like editing current events so I'm only "adminning" it right now, but I believe another admin in a different time zone is required; the copyvio problem has to be addressed immediately -- semi protection won't help as it's coming from autoconfirmed accounts. If you say there are more source misrepresentations I won't doubt you, there are likely to be many, I just haven't had the time to sift through -- and if I get to that point, I obviously can't use the admin tools. —SpacemanSpiff 10:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want something to use your edit tool on, try rescuing Quantifier shift (AfD discussion), a nice calm article about a well-known and well-documented concept in philosophy and logic that has no current events, Indian English, or anything. ☺ As noted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, if you are prepared to delve into the philosophy side, and be one of the very few article rescuers that tackle philosophy articles (compare Illusionism (philosophy) (AfD discussion)), there are examples from Aquinas, Aristotle, and Locke to bring into the article. If I'm going to be tackling Indian English, the least other people can do is rescue philosophy articles.

        The copyright violation problem is the perennial one, of course: people who cannot write their way out of a paper bag "write" by filching the work of others. I notice the influence of tabloid journalism rearing its ugly head in the article, too. People are "rapped". Police make "probes". Gah!

        Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Apparently "being forced to eat shit which the jail wardens denied" is very important to the article. At least now the denial is there, earlier edits included only the first part which have denials in the media. I promise to look at, and edit one of those two articles within the next couple of days (it appears that the first is going out of AfD now anyway). As far as getting on to philosophy articles -- my to do list is ever piling up as there's a lot on women's cricket and Carnatic music that I have left undone for almost two years. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thinking of you, whilst correcting the bylines, headlines, newspapers, and agencies of most of the others, I have left the citation of CricketCountry entirely in its original link-rotting bare URL form. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That one actually has to go, ESPNcricinfo should be used for the man of the match while why that tweet is highlighted over all the others is beyond me. These will probably have to wait a while as it's just going to waste talk page time right now (something that the good doc has immense patience for). The reactions section is overly pop-culture oriented with little real information presented -- The Hindu, Times of India, Hindustan Times, Salon, The New York Times, etc have loads of more relevant information. —SpacemanSpiff 15:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Would that I'd been able to get to the actual content! I've spent hours so far simply fixing the citations. Most of them were erroneous. A goodly fraction had incorrect headlines, even. Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This showed up at DR/N[edit]

DR/N filing, and the history of the article (which seems to show a long standing slow revert war. [8] I am not sure if it is even a content matter as it is looks like edit warring back and forth. If you could take a look and see if a hammer is need for anyone...be great. If you feel the soft touch is appropriate I will let another DR/N volunteer decide whether to close or not. I reverted the last blanking as unexplained and the talk page looks like an argument but is not extensive enough for a DR/N filing at the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's an edit war that has been going since June 2012, over content that in one form or the other has been in the article since August 2009. Talk page discussion has only dealt with one of the two sections, ironically the one making the extraordinary claim about airport watchlists. Personally, I wouldn't have put that section back in, especially since the only source for it is the subject talking about xyrself, directly and indirectly, which isn't adequate for extraordinary claims like that. The content dealing with sslstrip and the NUL attacks, in contrast, can be found supported by books on computer security and cryptography written by other people, with a quick Google Books search. It's daft to lump the two together. Once again we have edit warriors who only use the undo tool, and don't confine themselves to editing only the bits that they actually disagree on. Uncle G (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again[edit]

Thanks. Sole Soul (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PC protection of Jay Westerveld[edit]

Hi.

I have started at discussion at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes#PC for a content dispute about the protection of the article on Jay Westerveld. Your opinion would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Wonderland[edit]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Buster. If you want the opposite of serenity, spend Christmas with us and my mother in law. If you can take over for me, that'd be great. I'll be somewhere else--anywhere else. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Breast cancer awareness 2.0[edit]

Drmies: You are far more experienced than I. How should one reason with an experienced editor who has a self-declared annoyingly high IQ when, it appears to my inexperienced eye, she is at best not assuming good faith and at worst may even be displaying signs of article ownership? For example, I do not see a coherently supported rebuttal from her either here or here. In the first case, she has since obfuscated my proposal and in the second case, I have taken the unusual (for me) step of serving notice to change following what I thought was a reasoned and supported argument --Senra (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Breast cancer awareness. You are very brave to be discussing anything on that talk page. As for the supposedly annoyingly high IQ, it's irrelevant, except maybe it explains the presumptions. In any event, ignore it, and treat her as you would any other editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I poked around, and they are very, very active, but seem to support lots of other people's ideas as much as their own. I didn't see anything problematic, and they seem to support their idea with specific examples and diffs. Maybe I just missed it but it looks like a pretty normal discussion with occasional mild heat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Drmies pops in, Dennis, I think he might disagree with you (see here and here).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, I'm sorry to (indeed) disagree with you. That article and its talk page are a mess and the attitude of that one editor is, in large part, the cause of it. I think Bbb and I are on the same wavelength here. I will check in a moment, but what Senra indicates is par for the course. I had asked both editors to back off. But let me check and I'll get back. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Let me make a few small observations as an editor. I fully support a change in the referencing format. I'm a big fan of MLA style in-text parenthetic citations in my own writing, but not on Wikipedia. I use a footnoted variant thereof; if I were smart enough (my IQ is merely annoying, not annoyingly high) I'd use that sfn template that established quality editors like MF and Uncle G use. Charles35's point about the one sentence and all has nothing to do with that basic question. The term "universal" is a rhetorical one; we don't know if breast cancer occurs elsewhere in the universe and while it's accepted hyperbole, I suppose, in some of the sources it should not be used here, especially not since it only adds to the advocacy flavor of the article.

[Puts admin hat on:] I'll repeat what I said earlier: I think the article will be much better off if the two main editors stay away from it, and by "two main editors" I mean Whatamidoing most of all. That's kind of a sad statement, and one I make reluctantly, since those two main editors seem to have some knowledge but there is too much zeal in their edits. Moreover, Whatamidoing's attitude on the talk page makes moving the article forward a practical impossibility, and both suffer from TLDNR-itis (that is, they cause it in others). I would fully support a motion somewhere to have those two editor back away from the article and its talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Cancer Awareness article!? *Backs away slooooowly* *closes door quietly* *Runs the opposit direction fast* But seriousy...while still running in the opposit direction...good job Drmies! 👍 Like --Amadscientist (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I've done since your warning was make a few (4) concise (1 small paragraph), factual, non-controversial, and well-mannered points to the discussion lead by senra (ie I backed off). And my contributions to the article were solely removals of harmful and very poorly sourced original research (which I have now completed). They weren't challenged at all which I hope goes to show that they weren't controversial edits. I hope you give me the opportunity to keep this up.
I also hope you consider what I said about (1) responding to stress more poorly than others but editing properly in absence of those stressors, or ceasing problematic general/aimless/TLDR discussions (which I am currently doing) and (2) penalizing innocent editors that have good faith in order to be fair to both sides, especially when those editors have stopped being disruptive and/or wouldn't be disruptive if the environment was less stressful. And please consider that much of that disruptive editing (eg TLDR & aimless edits) occurred when I was naive about how wikipedia worked.
Please give me the opportunity to "continue in the same vein" unless/until I regress. For example, I am going to stop complaining about other editors and leave that in the hands of the admins. From this point forward I plan to focus on adding new material. Please don't block me from doing that. Charles35 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

citations[edit]

Senra, getting hyperlinks in whilst preserving the Harvard parenthetical cross-linkage style is dead easy. Just replace (Levine 2005) with {{harv|Levine|2005}} everywhere and ensure that the citation for Levine begins {{Cite news|ref=harv|…. That's it. Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Uncle G, but I believe Senra is actually proposing a switch to footnotes.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said, I'm not smart enough to be of much use here. I think any change would be a start already. Parenthetic citations are distracting in non-academic writing. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Drmies says. Erm, except the not smart enough bit. Any acceptance by the current editors of any reasoned change is a large positive step towards more collaboration at that difficult page --Senra (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "not smart enough" bit is one of many that is turned on when one becomes an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would have to just take your word for that.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yup, my IQ dropped precipitously. I'm still trying to find it on the floor, but I think it rolled underneath the desk and became ensnarled in dust balls. I now refuse to vacuum under the desk for fear my IQ will disappear completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) If we use the definition of smart as: "Cause a sharp, stinging pain"...then yes, I agree....Drmies isn't all that "smart". ;) LOL! But don't let that fool you. They can be both "quick witted" and "intelligent".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Senra is proposing a means to an end, not the means itself, and on the talk page, if you look, xe is discussing WhatamIdoing's "non-standard solution". The aforegiven is the standard solution, in contrast. And it is simple to execute, in contrast to WhatamIdoing's proposal. There's a lot of distraction going on in that discussion. Uncle G (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I don't understand the ins and outs and pros and cons of sfn and a bunch of other things. I have tried to read those pages and defenses of it on talk pages (MF's and others), and I just don't get it. Also it bores me terrifically. I understand how the older generation (MF, Uncle G, Dennis B) finds some attraction in those technicalities, but they don't see, I believe, that we, the others (Bbb and myself, for starters), are young and beautiful and have so much to live for. We can't be bothered by your persnickety detail--we want to LIVE. Oh yeah, I just opened up a rad beer, "Lucifer", by Het Anker Brewery. Someone should give them a decent article one of these days. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo, I'm not "the older generation"....although I am certain my "young and beautiful" days are pretty much behind me. (hey...I was a hoty! LOL! ;) )--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Amadscientist, I had to do it--I'm not that young, contrary to public opinion. Meh. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know.....I have never actually read that. The pretty birds are always more distracting than the tiny text. Can I giggle like a schoolgirl with a happy face? =)--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used "Meh" on Facebook the other day and my spouse asked what it meant. I am laughing inside (that's not what it means of course, but what I am actually doing).--Amadscientist (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality[edit]

By the way: Professor Gayle A. Sulik, who has been proposed as the "highest quality academic source", is a sociologist at Texas Women's University. Of the next most often used, James S. Olson is a professor of history and Samantha King is a professor of the Sociocultural Studies of Sport, Health and the Body at Queens University. Sulik's viewpoint is very clear in Sulik 2011, pp. 1104–1105. One of the things to counter that reliance on one viewpoint is to use Klawiter 2008, which is languishing unused in the Further Reading section. Marin Klawiter was a professor at Georgia Tech and is now at Yale Law School, and the cited book points out the at least two viewpoints on the subject. Page 174 et seq. of the book discusses the conflicts between the screening activists and the feminists over the issues, and why they clash. Here's a quotation:

The culture of empowerment and feminist breast/cancer activism thus took shape, in part, through conflict with the culture of screening activism.

— Klawiter 2008, p. 176

One wouldn't know any of the history from the article at hand. Such a lot of the waffle on that talk page could be eliminated if editors knew what they were about and pointed out that the neutrality issue is that there are several major viewpoints in the history of breast cancer awareness. Kirsten E. Gardner, assistant professor of history and women's studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio, isn't even mentioned on the article and the talk page, yet her book (Gardner 2006) documents the historical shifts in breast cancer awareness, setting the post-1970s feminist viewpoint in historical context showing how it came about and how it challenged the viewpoints that preceded it. The answer to the person only using the single academic source is a whole lot of other academic sources from historians rather than sociologists, putting Sulik's views into historical context.

Get the history in, and you'll discover that we didn't even know that we didn't have Joseph Colt Bloodgood (Mansel, Sweetland & Hughes 2009, pp. 16–20) and didn't mention the Amanda Sims Memorial Fund (that Bloodgood founded) anywhere in the encyclopaedia at all. I thus leave Drmies' talk page lurkers with a present:

Did you know … that Joseph Colt Bloodgood was the first U.S. surgeon to insist that all members of a surgical team wear rubber gloves at all times?
Did you know … that the Amanda Sims Memorial Fund for the Protection of Women from Cancer by Correct Information, founded by Joseph Colt Bloodgood, was promoting cancer awareness in the 1930s?
Did you know … that the ASCC's Women's Field Army, also promoting cancer awareness in the 1930s, was inspired by the Amanda Sims Memorial Fund?
Did you know … that on 1931-11-18 in a lecture Joseph Colt Bloodgood told the Bronx County Medical Society: "Without doubt annual examinations of all women and semi-annual pelvic examinations of mothers during which the breast will be carefully surveyed, should increase the protection of women from death by cancer of the breast."

No, we don't have John Birkett (Mansel, Sweetland & Hughes 2009, pp. 12–14), George Lenthal Cheatle (Mansel, Sweetland & Hughes 2009, pp. 14–16), or Charles F. Geschickter (Mansel, Sweetland & Hughes 2009, pp. 20–22), either.

Uncle G (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said many times, I have no opposition to additional reliable sources being added to the page. Adding these would be excellent, provided someone takes the time to integrate them. I'm planning on reading Sulik over the coming weeks and integrating it into the page, and if I have the time will read the suggestions on this page as well. Most of the disputes were over the phrasing and current sources, in very few, possibly no cases, were missing sources proposed for integration. Had these been proposed, I would have heartily endorsed them. Consider this my contribution to the consensus to use them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I posted here earlier because senra linked this page from the BCA talk page. My "agenda" up to this point was to take care of non-source-related issues first, and then remove the original research that I suspected was present under Sulik citations (and it certainly was present), and finally add new material. I guess that little 3-stage approach wasn't optimal and may have indeed played a part in the escalating problems, but either way I have given up on correcting non-source-related problems, and I have completed removing original research under Sulik's name, so my main objective now is to add new material. WLU said how he welcome's new sources. Of course, I agree with that, but I thought that article needed something more than new sources, which is why I took the approach that I did. But this is in the past, I just wanted you to understand that. Charles35 (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is good timing anyway because there's a lot of talk here about adding new material. One of my main objectives was to get admin(s) involved anyway because I felt things over there were not going to budge without them. So basically from this point forward, as I said, I will not be leading aimless discussions, I will let you all lead the way and focus more on adding sources that I have found than on disagreements and maybe chime in when I think there's something valuable I can add. I hope I am not prevented from doing this.
Oh, and like amadscientist, I had a very difficult time following Uncle G's post. But it looks like good stuff to me. Charles35 (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I know I said I will only be adding more material. I wasn't lying about that. But I just got Olson's book and the amount of original research in the article behind these citations disturbs me. I am going to verify all of Olson's citations and might do King as well. But as I said, I am nonetheless not going to partake in aimless talk page disagreements and the like. I just wanted to let you all know this so you don't think I was lying. Charles35 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I follow Uncle G completely. I just wish I had time to really follow him, but Christmas is getting in the way of my work here. ;) Drmies (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It took me some time and following the replies etc. but I got the jest of it. I think Uncle G is a fabulous editor and intend to follow them a bit. Not too difficult as prolific as they are.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move Request[edit]

Hey Drmies, could you move NBC Nonstop to Cozi TV? "Cozi TV" is the new name for the network as of December 20, 2012. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Needlessly, Homer. I did it hours ago, including a merge of the histories. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sir. :) Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Almost) anytime, Homer. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are those times where it is best not to bug people. Birthdays, anniversaries, Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, etc. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

 Drmies, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day.
Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Next "Article on Individual Twitter Accounts"[edit]

Articles on individual rocks. Happy holidays! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas
Hey Drmies, hope you like all the eggnog. We need bacon-nog next, get on it! Keep safe over the holidays, and hopefully I can see you at the next Wikimania! Merry Christmas for you and yours! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas - 2012[edit]

Christmas Greetings. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hate to do this, but... non-free image removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's funny--I was just looking to see if I could use a Norman Rockwell illustration and decided I couldn't, for the same reason. Thanks Crisco, and Kierzek, thanks for the greetings! Drmies (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Merry Christmas! I have a question for you (or any of your stalkers) regarding a question I got at the Teahouse. Can you link to a category within an article (e.g., There are many metaphors referring to elephants)? I had never really thought about that, but I figured perhaps you'd come across a situation like that in one or two of your 100000+ edits. Sorry to bother you on Christmas Eve, I told the asker it may take a few days to get a response, but I didn't even know where to look for something of that nature. Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 21:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you too. I prefer to be labelled a lurker, he he. Consider Help:Category#Linking to category pages for example [[:Category:Villages in Cambridgeshire]] leads to Category:Villages in Cambridgeshire --Senra (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Lurker, I think you misunderstood my question. I am asking if, when in article space, it is good practice, acceptable, etc. to link to a category. Go Phightins! 21:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised that and was about to undo --Senra (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen it happen but really only (AFAIK) in a "See also" section. The problem with doing it in an article is interesting--Wikipedia articles shouldn't cite Wikipedia, and by the same token they shouldn't refer to themselves as Wikipedia articles. Now, there isn't an external source in the world that would mention a Wikipedia category, so inserting it in an article is a kind of original research. Anyway, it's probably not a good practice in article writing. Is the Teahouse serving cocktails for Christmas? We're sampling Christmas beers: the Corsendonk is tonight's winner. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to consult our current Maitre d', Writ Keeper for information on our beverage selection. Go Phightins! 04:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings[edit]

Merry Christmas
Wishing you a Merry Christmas and all the best for 2013. Blethering Scot 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you and your family![edit]

Have a happy holiday and a great new year!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Home[edit]

I have been allowed to escape and Malleus now knows of the wotsit and seems to be agreeable, so thanks for the thoughts etc relating to both of us. I need to catch up on talk page replies and will do. On a totally different subject, I've mentioned you towards the end of the thread at User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#Thank you. My gut feeling - and my gut is one of the few bits of me that have so far escaped medical interest - is that this is a pretty significant subject and that it would be useful to involve people who have or have access to specialist knowledge. I'm not sure whether Chomsky etc really figure in what you do but, hey, you understand non-English English and that makes you better than me. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't ask Dr mi estas for language advice. Remember: Xyr species evolved beyond the need for consonants many aeons ago, although they do use the letter ÿ and other things from Code Page 437. And don't go tempting xem with your Wotsits, either. Uncle G (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis that season again...[edit]

Happy Holidays!
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Drmies! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table of results in Lebanese general election, 1968 in Beirut II[edit]

So, I looked at this article in preparation to do a DYK review. In the original version, each time a candidate was mentioned his exact vote count was included in parentheses. I thought this was distracting from the prose, so I removed these parentheticals in favor of a couple of vote-count summaries.

What I'd really like to do is to include a table of results with the precise vote count. Such a table is included in the google books source by Zuwiyya [13] on page 19.

I seek advice. All the information in this table was included in the previous version of the article, just in an annoying and hard to read manner. Is it legit, though, just to reproduce this table? And if so, would it be okay to re-order the table to group the Sunni, Shiite, and minority candidates separately? And if not, is my general summary of vote-counts okay with folks, or would people prefer the exact count appearing after each candidate's name?

And oy, reading election tables from Lebanon 1968 is far preferable to listening to my motherwhomIlovedearly ask repeatedly whether it's safe to let Amazon.com know her credit card number... Thanks! (P.S. I can't for the life of me figure out how to get this message out of Ed's greeting, so I'm sorry, Ed, and those who have the knowing of the wikitext please reformat for me!)Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks, Dennis!Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your mother is always right, Moishe. I had a quick look at the article and it seems fine to me, but I don't know if there are standards for such articles that yours might deviate from. So, I guess I'm not really qualified to answer your question. An additional table would be fine, I supposed--there is no requirement that we represent every bit of information, but then again, "folks" might feel differently. Same applies to a grouping by denomination/persuasion. Did you check if the WikiProject Politics has any guidelines? I'd check--but I have my mother-in-law here, and well you know, maybe. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..[edit]


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

happy holidays[edit]

Happy holidays to you and everypony. /)(\ 174.141.213.63 (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Muy excellente, as Dora might say. The best to you and yours as well. My youngest daughter is pleased as punch, playing with her new MLP mermaid set. Yes, they're merponies too, I learned! Drmies (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pecan pie[edit]

I broke my usual habit of avoiding wheat, sugar and corn syrup to have some of my wife's pecan pie. Best. Pie. Ever. Wish I could have shared some with you. She baked 6 for the family get together, but held one back in case she needed it as a gift for a family or friend that was in need (Mrs. Brown is very thoughtful that way, one reason I completely adore her). If you lived nearby, it would have been yours. Of course, since you don't live nearby, I just might have to sneak in the kitchen, make a half pot of decaf and carve me up a slice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like a plan, sir. I snuck off after everyone went to bed and I'm polishing off a (big) bottle of Rince Cochon. Sounds like Mrs. Brown had a busy day! I did too, with roasting root vegetables, making ambrosia, and slicing up a pork loin that I turned into a rollade with duxelles in it. I'm stuffed. Cheers, Dennis, and happy days to you. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You two have me salivating here. However, I need a disambig for "ambrosia" because in the UK it is a brand name for a vaguely-acceptable product. I am sure you were not working in a cannery, nor could you possibly descend to making the poor substitute that is UK Ambrosia, which is nothing like my ma's rice pudding that has a thick, slightly charred skin and holds a spoon upright. Being a singleton etc, my usual Xmas Day meal is a Hollands tater pie with mushy peas. My poncy dog has more spent on him than I spend on myself ... but I do sometimes plug the gimmick 3-inch Christmas Tree into my USB port while continuing the endless clean-up of, well, Indic stuff. And I think that the dog does a better job of cleaning up his bowl than I do cleaning up WP. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should clarify the mushy pea reference. I soak and then boil a ham beforehand, then save the juices and some carvings. The carvings are broken up and added to the dried peas in the reserved juices. That is a pretty classy and very thick pea soup, I guess, rather than mere mushy peas. But the pie comes from a factory 'cos ma (whose 'tater pie is also a work of art) is elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And now I've just had to amend the Tater disambig. It is unsourced but sod it. I've never fully grasped the limits of disambig pages: Doncram goes to one extreme, I would go to the other and my guess is that somewhere in the middle is probably right.. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Growing up, "ambrosia" was a fruit salad with stuff like pineapple, grapes, apple and orange slices, etc. that is sweetened with honey or mixed together with Cool Whip or whipping cream. Mini marshmallows, shredded coconut, mango or just about any fruit is optional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrosia (fruit salad), yes--but I got a pretty decent recipe, involving fresh citrus fruit and pineapple, whipping cream mixed with orange zest and powdered sugar and sour cream, and toasted sweetened shredded coconut. My guide for this and many other recipes from Americana is Cook's Country (the magazine), besides The Joy of Cooking. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. I'm not fond of fruit salad but since you are then indeed it is living up to the description of food of the gods ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously from an entirely different social milieu, as Ambrosia to me is a rather disgusting tinned rice pudding. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I called it "vaguely acceptable" above. If you've had nothing to eat for a few days ... - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather go for a few more days without eating, and then more likely eat the paper label on the tin than its contents. It reminds me of everything I hated about school diners: tapioca, cemolina, and other stodgey monstrosities. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fruit salad kind is really not bad--the recipe I use calls for fresh fruit, and lacks Cool Whip (a US monstrosity). Cemolina: semolina? I kind of like that. I discovered that one of my Dutch childhood favorites, griesmeel (a porridge/pudding you love or hate) is not unlike the American Cream of Wheat, but a bit grittier (and yellow) and usually served with a raspberry or other coulis. Tapioca...yum! Rice pudding...yum! I suppose I'm a grain junkie, or really a carb junkie. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, Malleus is not a fan of porridge either. I'm no fan of tapioca or semolina but was always the odd one out at school in really enjoying sago pudding, which everyone else called frog spawn. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten about sago, which was the worst of the lot as far as I was concerned. Despite having a Scottish mother and being brought up in Scotland until I was 12 I absolutely refused to even try porridge. For all I know it may taste OK, but I set my face against it. My English wife likes it, but I won't touch it even today. Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I always liked oatmeal (which is similar to porridge, isn't it?). Oddly enough, I've always much preferred it to grits, which are the Southern US analogue, despite being nominally Southern myself. The secret is brown sugar and cinnamon, and plenty of it; as people "fondly" say when they watch me eat, I like a little oatmeal with my cinnamon sugar. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Drmies points out, if it is done with fresh fruit and either honey or fresh whipped cream (ie: US style) then it is very, very good. Crunchy and sweet and tangy and sour and crisp and fresh and...okay, now I want some. It is actually a very good summertime meal, and goes very well with white wine or champagne. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writ Keeper, "gries" = "grit" -- it's a word denoting some size measurement. I'm talking out of my butt, of course, while I'm getting access to the OED. Ah yes. Same word as in grit-gruel, also as in girt-brew. And if so, it must be the same as Dutch "grut" and "gort". I wish I had access to the Dutch equivalent of the OED, the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal. Wait--apparently access is free? That's crazy. Shoot, I think Flash isn't working in my Firefox. Anyway, my theory is that these words for size (very coarse, like tiny pebbles) in their respective languages have come to stand for the grain product most often used in that format. In the south, that's grits from corn; in NW Europe, it's gries from wheat. FWIW, I don't really much care for grits, and when I first ran into it I ate it with sugar. Now, will someone write up griesmeel please? Drmies (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grits are like tofu, no flavor, but great when you add something to them. I prefer a crumbled piece of bacon and an egg over easy mixed in, and/or maybe some red-eye gravy. American cheese is also good. Sugar and cinnamon is rare but acceptable seasoning as well, but those are better over rice and milk. You uppity types just don't appreciate quality 'merican cuisine. ;) I fixed Griesmeel for you as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the texture that weirds me out about grits. Too...well, too gritty. I have had grits that I like, but it was so finely ground as to basically be corn cream, so I'm not sure it really counts. As I recall, it had sausage gravy with it, which was delicious. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you probably would like hominy. Same thing without any grinding. I like it drained, then fried in real butter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redoing a deleted article[edit]

Dear Drmies, would it be possible to redo a little article on a retired now "emiritas" prof of economic history that you deleted. The old afd is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Grantham and my current version is here:User:Msrasnw/George W. Grantham.

Best wishes,(Msrasnw (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

  • Hi Msranw, I'm sorry but the only difference I see is the addition of this link for that Cliometrics award--the rest is the same, down to the flag in the infobox (which should be removed). At any rate, you don't need my blessing to restore the article, but the problem is Wikipedia:CSD G4: any editor can slap that tag on it and right now I would have no choice but to delete it again. Other admins may feel differently--though honestly I don't see why. You will probably have to address the issues signaled at the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Grantham. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Drmies, thanks anyway. Perhaps I will try to introduce it later and see what happens. I had hoped the Clio Can might be the thing that makes a significant difference. To my mind anyway is a venerable retired old notable Economic Historian of the French Agricultural Revolution but my mind is obviously not enough! Best wishes anyway. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The thing is, that was there already in the deleted version. A new version really needs to be a new version, significantly different. But you know what, there's smarter folks to ask: try DGG or even Randykitty. DGG is pretty nice, and Randykitty is pretty mean, and both of them know lots about those indices that were brought up at the AfD. Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'll leave it a bit - I think the I understand the indices OK - and can see he is marginal by that criteria - but when you have studied an area a bit (Econ Hist and Development) and think you know the notable people in it - it is funny when they don't get accepted perhaps by those who are going on metrics rather than on knowledge of specific content. No worries and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hollisz again[edit]

On the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimmermanh1997 front, User:Hollisz has, once again, posted more "poor edits" here and here. These are the first two edits after coming off a 31 hour block by you. I will post this information to the SPI page and have alerted User:Dennis Brown (the clerk on the SPI). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, DQ had a point at the SPI: no overlap, no abuse. Dianna blocked them for the same old thing again. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I took them to AIV (per your previous instructions) and she gave a manual warning, the user continued, she blocked 'im. I figure we will see Hollisz back in 60 hours up to the same ol' tricks as before. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tits or GTFO[edit]

Where's your lovely pair of tits? I feel like life has lost all meaning... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with vandal edit on Papua New Guinea[edit]

Hello, doc! Someone has stuck in a stupid phrase ("singapore fucking sux !! they have no future !! singaporeans are total bitches !!!! sg sux !!! never go there") in between the topics at the bottom of the article. It's not visible when I try to edit the article itself, so it seems to be coming from elsewhere. I haven't been able to find it in the topic templates or anywhere else that is obvious (to me). Can you help? Thanks and a belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Cheers! Geoff Who, me? 00:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. I was going to tell you I was going to look through the templates... well, I am doing that anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it--after clicking through a bunch of templates I figured it might be a template in a template or something, and then found that this was the fastest way. Problem is corrected. I wanna look at those templates, but it's dinnertime. Thanks Geoff, Drmies (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks - and now I know another way (too obvious so I missed it) to find these fiendish imps!. Just sitting down to a nice breast of turkey and a Zaca Mesa Viognier, myself. Enjoy your dinner and cheers, salut, slainte and prosit! Geoff Who, me? 01:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lanza protection[edit]

I understand why this page was full-protected at the time given the mistaken identification of his brother as the perpetrator, but at this point there appears to be no reason for keeping the protection as Adam Lanza has been confirmed as the perpetrator. History tells us that individuals involved in spree killings of this magnitude will have enduring notability and be mentioned in detail for many years to come in scholarly papers and books. Already there is talk of geneticists studying his DNA.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't protect it because of identification issues. From the talk of the shooting article it seems clear to me that there is as much speculation and disagreement about him as there was about the shooting (at least initially). The section "Schitzophrenia claim" speaks volumes: I am not ready for us to have yet another article that needs constant supervision because of editors rushing to insert every bit of information filtered (or not) through the media. You are welcome to seek another venue, of course; perhaps a discussion (between administrators) at AN is a next step. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you or a friend handle this?[edit]

User_talk:Cyberpower678#Update_request. You seem like someone with clue who isn't already involved in the debate. Thanks. MBisanz talk 03:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's high praise. I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry MBisanz. You are correct that I'm not involved in the debate, and one of the reasons is that it's a bit above my (intellectual) pay grade. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No seriously, I am sorry. I don't have that much interest in such matters, and while I know they are important I don't have the time these days to thoroughly get into them. I feel like a pretty lousy admin in that regard, but that's the way it is. Fortunately there are people who drop by here sometimes who are much better versed in them. Thanks for asking anyway, Drmies (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Hassie Fletcher[edit]

I notice you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Della McCullers because you were moving the article(s) to userspace. Would you be able to move Aunt Hassie Fletcher as well? It was also included in the AfD. StAnselm (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a related subject: StAnselm, please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Elizabeth Maconchy and see what you can do with Elizabeth Maconchy, a composer whose life and works are documented in quite a few other encyclopaedias. The situation of our not even having as informative an article as we had in January 2012, let alone anything even approaching the quality of other encyclopaedias, thank to eight months of misapplication of content policy and a destructive rather than collaborative approach, is patently ridiculous. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey St Anselm--I'm sorry I missed that one. It was a tedious exercise, and it's only halfway done. Thank you Uncle for taking care of business. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's interesting stuff, Uncle. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think it's better if I don't get involved in the article, considering my past history with the main editor involved. StAnselm (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hollisz/Zimmermannh1997, Part 2[edit]

Well, looks like there is officially some crossover between the two named accounts and 98.204.145.138. What should I do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've blocked both the IP and the Hollisz account for a month. Will you drop Dennis a note? He can make something out of the SPI now, maybe. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted something to you, Dennis and Diannaa (she blocked Hollisz first) to keep you all in the loop. Dennis said "the real world is keeping me busy", which is cool since you had already blocked. I will track down another clerk and see if they can't take another look at the SPI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I asked User:Jpgordon to take a second look. He is a CU and can probably give us a good idea of any sleepers as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English expertise needed[edit]

Lieve professor, please see this. As I stated in my preliminary response, the post is impressive (big words and all). The article the IP is referring to is Andy Kindler. Is the IP right? If so, why? Am I right? If so, why? Neither of the above? If so, why? Please keep your answers brief. Incorrect answers may result in a block of your brain.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din". I would see the poster's "Could you ..." as a personal attack! --Senra (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not serious, are you?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Just a linguistic observation --Senra (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Bwilkins has changed the text back to the IP's version. I've now reread it and decided I was wrong in the first instance. No further help (not that I got any :-) ) is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) I'm sorry I was not able to help. I spent the last 30 minutes looking for this similar event. Besides, possessives are beyond me --Senra (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, it was really all my fault; I should have read the sentence more carefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Bbb for my lack of help. Then again, you didn't help me clean up the kitchen, fix breakfast, get the kids dressed and their teeth brushed; you didn't help me load up fence boards at the lumber store or take apart the old fence; you didn't haul a single piece of the old piece out to the street. I noticed you were missing when I had to pick up the play fort to put some pieces of lumber under two of the posts so it'd be more level. Then, when I reinstalled some fencing boards that I had borrowed to repair that other fence (which you didn't help tearing down), I found you missing as well, just as you weren't there when I discovered that yet another old fence was coming down. So, I apologize. :) At any rate, what Bwilkins did looks fine to me. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Roger Ellory[edit]

In case you missed it, Drmies, the newspapers just published this three-month-old story, yesterday and today. Bwilkins, Beyond My Ken, and others, do not get sucked into this, here or elsewhere. I also recommend an immediate visit to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 122#San Francisco and Stanford University. Journalists reading this: Drmies is no more an "official" than I am, and despite some erroneous statements here, there is a subtle but important distinction between a "block" and a "ban". This discussion is closed. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Hello Drmies,

I believe the blocking of Roger Ellory was wrong. Here's why:

  • You issued a warning at 18:17.
  • Just a few minutes later at 18:35 you blocked the user indefinitely.
  • Between your warning and your block the user made only two edits [14] and [15]. In both edits he asked for help, yet you decided to block him instead of helping him. In your block rationale you write: "I could go on, and I should, but I'll be brief. In addition to adding such unverified content, you have removed verified content, in violation of the same policies and guidelines already cited. In addition, by browsing through the history I have just discovered that you have made those edits not just with your registered account but also with a number of IP addresses--that means that the edit-warring has been waged partly in a way that avoids scrutiny (contributions by 94.11.171.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.11.177.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 77.100.46.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS))." But have it ever occurred to you that the user has never tried to avoid scrunity by using IPs. He simply forgot to log in. Please see this edit made by one of IPs you mentioned. The user has never tried to hide his identity and to avoid scrunity. He clearly states who is behind this IP.

Please try to understand that most normal people have difficulties in understanding what it means to use socks to avoid scrunity. Most normal people who just started editing Wikipedia sometimes simply forget to log in.

Yes, the user made some mistakes, but I know quite a few prominent Wikipedians, including Jimbo Wales, who edited or even created their own bios and have never been even warned. The difference between Roger Ellory and these Wikipedians is that they knowingly violated the polices while Roger Ellory did not understand how Wikipedia works. He simply needed some help. I believe you should AGF and lift the block now. Thanks for considering my request. 71.202.120.247 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The person behind that account has apparently been disruptive since September. If they refused to heed the warnings they were given 3 months ago, and continue to behave the same way, the indef was the only possible response - it's not like the 18:17 warning was their "first ever". Now Mr. Ellory (if it's him) can no longer edit this project - not as an IP, nor as a named-account because it is he, the person who is blocked by no fault of anyone but himself. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you'd agree there is a difference between being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive, and being disruptive because one does not understand how Wikipedia works. Please see the edit just before the block "Please could you explain to me why certain sections of my biog are permitted to remain and others are not. This biog has been up for many months, and all of a sudden you have decided that some of it is invalid. This is my page, my life, my biog, and you are telling me that it is not valid? I do not understand what you are doing, nor why?". This edit clearly demonstrates the user did not understand why what he was doing was considered to be wrong. Besides he was blocked (at least partly) for so called "avoiding scrunity", and I've proven already he has never tried to hide his real identity. In any case, a few days block would have been more than enough. The user did not deserve an indefinite block.71.202.120.247 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what "indefinite" means on Wikipedia? It means "until the community is convinced that the behaviour will not recur". It does not mean "infinite". Based on the fact that he's been told time and time again how to edit, and when to edit, and pointed to the various policies around his edits, it's tough to swallow that he's still asking for help. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The community? Please do not start me on the Wikipedia community, but I wonder, if you and other Wikipedians understand that a regular person has difficulties in reading and understanding Wikipedia policies? A regular person who just started editing Wikipedia should not be hit with links to policies, he should be explained kindly and in plain English how Wikipedia works. Besides, where is your assumption of good faith? Isn't this assumption is also described in one of Wikipedia's policies? This block is wrong.71.202.120.247 (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm wondering if you understand that the block of User:Roger Ellory was not a block of the account, but rather of the person behind that account. This means that person cannot edit Wikipedia, even using an IP address as long as the block is in place, even to protest the block to the blocking admin. Doing so is block evasion, and is likely to make it more difficult for the block to be undone.

If Roger Ellroy wants to be unblocked, he should make his case on his user talk page using the {{unblock}} template, but first he should read WP:Guide to appealing blocks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what Roger Ellroy wants although I doubt he cares about editing Wikipedia ever again. I came here after reading this article. I cannot understand why this article was published now, the block was imposed in September, but as I said I do not believe Roger Ellroy cares about editing Wikipedia.I assume he cares about the article I linked to. I believe unblocking of Roger Ellroy's account will not endanger Wikipedia, and I believe unblocking of Roger Ellroy's account will make Roger Ellroy the person feel a little bit better about the whole ordeal. To me there is nothing better than to make somebody feel better especially at this time of the year, but of course I am different, I am not a Wikipedian. 71.202.120.247 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Roger wants to read the biography of living persons, the stuff about autobiographies, the very very important stuff about what is and what is NOT a reliable source (hint: HE is not one, period), and conflict of interest, and then can go to his very own talkpage and create an unblock request as per WP:GAB that shows a) he will not edit the article about him except to remove unsourced derogatory information, and will suggest other changes - with appropriate citations - on the article talkpage, AND that b) shows he understands each of the policies I just linked, then I would personally feel a little bit better that we will not have these problems recur, and would personally unblock (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better idea. You personally unblock Roger, and if he ever again violates a policy you personally, or somebody else, re-block him. I promise to you Wikipedia will survive this unblock. Probably Roger does not care about being unblocked, but the article I linked to above probably hurts his feelings, and such a small thing as unblocking his account could make him feel just a little bit better, if of course he notices this unblock at all. See, he's not just another anonymous Wikipedian, he's a notable person, and he edited under his real name. This block and the article could damage his reputation. Just think about this: if he ever wanted to edit his bio anonymously, would have he used his real name to create his account? This block was an overreaction and should be undone. Thanks. 71.202.120.247 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That cannot happen for the reasons above. The block was valid, and if he wants to be unblocked he can ask (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a question, if I may please. Uncle G, why did you link to this discussion User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 122#San Francisco and Stanford University? I hope you do not imply I am Carl Hewitt.71.202.120.247 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did miss it, Uncle, for reasons related to fatherhood and fences. Did I really miss anything? I'll have a look (possibly after nap time). Drmies (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Daily Mail has it. Interesting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Ed. I don't rightly see any problem with the block and there's plenty of explanation for it. Don't know if I should be happy or not that those articles don't mention my name, but I guess it's for the better. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is... well... geez, it's like the whole site's been coming down in the past two days. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda[edit]

Well, the end of the world came and here we've all been raptured. I missed my chance to go out in style, though — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who'da thunk, eh? Or perhaps Sartre was right and Hell really is other people. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course Sartre was right. Does it need pointing out that you're also yourself's other? Drmies (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking below, I agree. If we were to make a film about the cabal, it might turn out like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tacit cogito is lamo. The superego and forebrain inhibit the id and reptile brain, which in small doses are more entertaining. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuck this place! (saw your block just now below) The rarity of a two-sided block takes my breath away.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Drmies, I've blocked you for 24 hours. Your comments on Scottwong's talkpage was completely unacceptable - leaving aside, for a second, the utterly inappropriate tone, you do not insult or denigrate another editor for not adhering to your view of What Makes An Editor. Whether he has 10 edits, 100 edits or a thousand and a dozen TFAs in a row, Scottywong is an editor in good standing and you will treat him as the colleague he is. We do not argue for supremacy based on extent of contributions, because to do so is to set up a wiki based on the principle that he who jumps through the most hoops gets to shout loudest. That's not how the wiki model works.

Incidentally, even if we entertained, for a second, the possibility that "I don't have to listen to you, you're not as good an editor as I am" is a valid argument: Scottywong is one of the most hard-working new page patrollers I know. You can argue all you want for the people who improve the quality of existing articles: he's one of the people who ensures they're not diamonds in a turd. Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Calling Scottywong, after his comments at ANI, an editor in good standing is fucked up, almost as much as this block. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I give this block 5 minutes life expectancy. Well, a bilateral block is at least arguable. I saw just this block. 22:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that Scott was blocked and is still blocked. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I wrote quickly to avoid ecs. I saw the one block and the statement about SW being in good standing, which I though would preclude his having been blocked. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all: being in good standing does not protect someone from my banhammer. Not being a dick protects someone. It's perfectly possible to be both in good standing generally and dickish occasionally - my point was more that the only plausible situation in which throwing someone's contributions or lack thereof in their face is justifiable is if we're talking about $banneduserX and his long history of copyvios/trolling/direct vandalism/whatever. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironholds, I would have thought that a block against a long-time editor "in good standing" would come maybe after, you know, a warning. Speaking of tone--do you have any idea what this "my banhammer" sounds like? It sounds like you're running the joint by yourself. Well, I guess it had to happen: I went well over 100,000 edits without running into someone this trigger-happy. Mind you, that's over 100,000 edits not devoted to defending one editor. And now it's dinner time, and that's more exciting than an ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Less "running the joint by myself" and more "to distinguish from people who allegedly do have a double standard". If you think long-term editors deserve extra-special care and warnings and chidings, you may have missed the part of the manual where people are expected to learn what they should and should not do along the way to making 100,000 edits. I actually came here in response to your comment on SW's talkpage, which ran " I got fucking blocked for responding to your sneer, so eating some crow on your part is no more than fair". Do you really think that's going to help matters, for you or him? Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironholds, you blocked me, with your banhammer. (Blockhammer, I suppose--but really, consider how your personal pronoun sounds.) I got very little to say to you, Mr. Civility Police, just this. Scotty Wong and I could have handled our disagreement very well without someone running in to block people. I don't much care for Scotty, but I'm sure they're a grown-up, and I think I am too. Actually I went to his talk page to see if he was still blocked; if he was I'd have unblocked him. I would never block someone for saying something like what Scotty or I said. You did, and look what good it did us. You said, I believe, that MF was lucky you weren't on call when he called someone a fucking idiot. I hope you find lots of things to do that don't involve administrative tools on Wikipedia, since these kinds of blocks are just not helpful. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would believe your "we could've handled it!" claim a lot more easily if your first action on Scottywong's retirement hadn't been to drop a note on his talkpage along the lines of "hell, you got me blocked, you deserve to be slapped a bit too". This does not smack of future mature resolution. Ironholds (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironholds, I'll accept an apology from you, not more grandstanding about how right you were. You weren't right. It's was a bad block, two bad blocks, two stupid blocks even. I'm not the only one to tell you that what should be handled with a warning shouldn't be handled with a block. You seem to argue that there was some imminent risk of escalation which would sink Wikipedia--bullshit. Feel free to check my article history: after I left my note for Scotty I was away for two hours. I didn't even cuss him out while I was outside working on a fence, nor did he (AFAIK) seek any kind of escalation with me. In other words, no imminent danger. No flare-up. No dramah all over the boards--just a shitty note on his talk page and a shitty edit summary on his part.

    That you felt it incumbent upon yourself to intervene where there was no need for intervention made the whole thing so much worse, and no amount of ":p"'s on talk pages is going to make up for that. Instead, Bbb catches heat for undoing your bad block, the poor guy, and gets blasted for being involved when he only did what was right. Having a block log is not funny, you know, "gentleman-assassin". And if you want to know how it makes it worse: I feel like shit, and Scotty may not be back for a while. So great job. Again, I'll take your apology, nothing less.

    Oh, you wanted to know how you being you makes it worse? You represent Wikipedia in ways that I do not. That makes your bad block worse, first of all, since you should know even better. And it makes it worse for me, since anyone looking at my damn block log now will think, 'Oh, blocked by Okeyes/Ironholds, must be really bad.' And now you got me pissed off enough that I'll Drmies (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually came back to this thread to apologise: I'll admit that reading your message above made me want to simply walk away, but I decided to be...probably bigger about it than I normally let myself be with mistakes. You're right - the blocks were not done properly. While I stand by the argument that as an experienced user you should know what is appropriate and what isn't, I appreciate that particularly around the debate over Malleus, standards can get skewed and warped in localities. Even were that not the case, my job is ultimately to find the solution that resolves the situation. A warning would quite possibly have done that with far less drama. In future situations (albeit not with you, for obvious reasons) I'll go for an escalating series of measures culminating, rather than starting, in a block. I should've thought this one through far more than I did.
  • If it makes you feel better - I'm pretty sure that in my "official capacity" I once launched a tool that, for 18 minutes, made it so anyone blocking someone ended up blocking themselves. So you're not alone in having a block log tarnished by me not coming to the optimal solution :/. Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:26, 30 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.

PRSA RFC[edit]

Hi Drmies. I saw your name listed as a closer[16]. I am involved in an obviously non-neutral RFC[17] that I suspect needs to be closed prematurely with a request to re-write a neutral RFC. This user has been trolling me for more than a month and this kind of thing is standard fare. I wasn't sure if I should be doing something or just let it run? CorporateM (Talk) 01:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi CorporateM--let me have a look. One problem with RfCs is to stay uninvolved: on occasion I've considered closing RfCs but instead commented as an editor. I'll have a look to see what I can do for you, in which capacity. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as it happens I think that this was not a good way to start an RfC. I've closed it, with some suggestions to the editor on how to write up a more productive one. Mind you, I mentioned something about commenting on other editors there, but the same goes for you: you say they've been trolling, and that's a pretty serious allegation, which reflects badly on you in this case. Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. He has been following me around a half-dozen articles like Crashplan and astroturfing. Four editors familiar with the situation supported an IBAN, but the closing admin didn't institute one, so it has become difficult to actually edit anywhere - I'm a little peeved at this point. CorporateM (Talk) 03:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

I guess you need them. All this drama makes more harm than good. — ΛΧΣ21 02:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not me
  • Oh, I'm fine, thanks--but thanks anyway. Really, though, who eats strawberries without cream? Drmies (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmmm. Tonight we ate the last of the pine nut caramel I made, with vanilla ice cream. Very tasty. I suppose you're eating breakfast now, Crisco? Drmies (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just ridiculously beautiful. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad it is of no higher quality. Otherwise It could become another FP for the project :) — ΛΧΣ21 03:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong: your Erbeerteller is of great quality, better than the current image. Schwabin does great work. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had... toasted sandwiches with chocolate, peanut butter, and beef-flavoured cheese. It was an interesting breakfast. That is a nice pic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beef-flavored cheese. Who knew it existed? Drmies (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this has been an eventful day on the wiki. I'm not sorry to have missed it, and I'm way too tired to want to know what it was all about. LadyofShalott 04:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who says they know what it was "all about"...probably doesn't know the half of it. Strawberries and cream sounds good about now though.......--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins at play[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyoA4LXQco4

I hope I keep such good humour when one of them finally gets me for ... nothing. Keep up the good work, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sandy, that's one scary baby. I love the bunnies with machine guns--I'm sure there's an allegory in there somewhere. Thanks for your kind words; I appreciate them. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Mandarax, I'm very sad about that too. It does feel like innocence gone. I wonder if Scotty feels the same way, though his edit summaries suggest he was a lot angrier than me. Anyway, so it goes, indeed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized/remembered that Ironholds is Oliver Keyes. That makes it worse, for him as well as for me. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my user for "he who speaks a word of consolation" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I took the day off to barbecue with friends, and missed all the drama. What a mess. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YGM[edit]

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

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds[edit]

...owes me a new pair of underoos. /)(\ 174.141.213.63 (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_43&oldid=1094782590"