User talk:Drmies/Archive 68

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

Well[edit]

The Judgement of Paris, c.1606
Het aards paradijs met de zondeval van Adam en Eva

[1]? Is it an invention? Is the Christmas tree an invention? An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field. Hafspajen (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK; he is blocked. Hafspajen (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bonifac? Hafspajen (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the editor is an adherant of the Lutheran theory. As to Boniface, that was an oak. Beyond that, I will endeavor to maintain neutrality. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor, - was. Yes, Yngvadottir. Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look it up, Yngvadottir. Boniface lived for more than eighty years and I will fight all your efforts to reduce his life to the size of a tweet. DYK...that Saint Boniface wrote a grammar book? DYK...that Saint Boniface gave up a cushy job running a monastery to go slumming in Germany, before the Autobahn? DYK that Boniface served under three popes? DYK...that Saint Boniface told his companions to lay down their arms and accept martyrdom in Frisia? DYK...that Saint Boniface invented the Christmas tree? DYK...that Saint Boniface had asked to be buried next to a woman? etc. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And since Haffy titled this section "Well": DYK...that at the place of Saint Boniface's martyrdom a horse got a hoof stuck in the mud, which after extrication caused a well of fresh water to spring up in the brackish environment of the Frisian swamp, a well which later was claimed to be the "Brewer's Well" from which the Dokkum brewers drew their water, and which is now a basin with water from which a young child named Nefthys Brandsma was cured of the whooping cough? Well, did you know that? Drmies (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not approved the above hook. Too long, too sexy, too naked. Haffy (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DYK... that Dutch restaurant De Rôtisserie was criticized so severely by a restaurant magazine that the magazine was threatened with a boycott but that the restaurant was awarded a Michelin star a few months later? (Too bad that I still have to write the article about that restaurant, but the riot is real.) The Banner talk 22:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) As I say, I will endeavor to remain neutral and thus not to mention Redbad or for that matter Penda. But I note that Ælfric wrote a grammar book that so far as I know has yet to be rendered into modern English - one of those tasks I neglect for Wikipedia :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Ælfric of Eynsham, and I see it was done in '08, good :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wells are deep subjects... (cue trombone). --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that if all the uncited points of view are removed from that article, all that'll be left is copyvio. Responses from fairy tales??? Consequences??? Madame Hedhurtz now. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an exciting topic. Glad you're doing some work on it. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of shapes with metaphorical namesHafspajen (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat in email[edit]

Could you tell me how and where do I report a legal threat that has been sent using Wikipedia email? The help page suggests to report at ANI, but there I can not post email.
Plus could you check this short paragraph Adhisaya_Ulagam#Release_and_reception? The film had a poor box office record, the information is sourced by one highly reliable newspaper ToI and another more or less reliable source.
Now they want to remove the entire reception and box office sectionTito☸Dutta 18:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is from a registered account? Why don't you send it to me and I'll see. In the meantime, I'll ping Beeblebrox, Moonriddengirl, and Newyorkbrad; maybe one of them is online and has better advice to offer. Plus, I may not be on for very long. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is from a registered account you have found already. I have sent a copy of the last email to you. Tito☸Dutta 19:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I blocked. That was unacceptable. Keep me posted if there's further disruption of one kind or another. Beeble, MRG, NYB, see User talk:Kurtwagen18 or ping me if you have any questions or comments. Note that I removed email also (it was abuse of the email function as well), but I let them keep talk page access. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to take a look if you think it would be helpful, but beyond explaining our policy and blocking the account, I'm not sure what else we could do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Newyorkbrad. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Hollick[edit]

This article came in via AFC this evening about the man who might well have pioneered the concept of sex with a hoover, and I'm sure one of you lot can help improve it. There's some content on Google Books that can be used. I'd love to help, but I've got to break up a fight between two children upstairs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ritchie, sincerely, would you like to have sex with a hoover? Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm opposition toward masturbation, homosexuality, celibacy, and interracial relations was upheld by Hollick Nature abhors a vacuum. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything or my laptop would have been ruined. Thank you for the laugh. Now I will be trying to figure out your username for the next few hours. Bgwhite (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ritchie, the two girls are sleeping outside, in the tent. Nice and quiet. But last night I found them on blankets in their clothes closet. Children are idiots, don't let anyone tell you different. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I call that inventive. YOU would never thought of sleeping in a closet, right? Hafspajen (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I've never intentionally fallen asleep in a closet...although woke up in one at least once the panda ₯’ 10:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive Chilean IP is back on Ian Gow[edit]

Indecisive Junction, go left or go right, perhaps neither, who knows, do nothing. Tell the editors to engage in talk and take the piss when they ask for help dealing with an abusive editor who has no respect for anyone.

Remember that IP editor from Chile who responds with abuse every time there is a content dispute? User talk:200.104.245.226 may jog your memory. Just a heads up, he is back [2]. WCMemail 09:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I don't see any abuse--where is it? "Cruft"--well, what you all have been fighting over is the brand of the car, and it strikes me as cruft as well. It's just another stupid edit war, and I'll tell you what you can do, given that the article talk page hasn't seen discussion since 20 fucking 11. Actually, this goes for the IP as well. There needs to be an RfC here, with one or two sharply formulated questions to settle this nonsense. Because this is really nothing more than a content dispute in which neither party has some kind of automatic upperhand. In other words, as long as the IP can keep their nose clean, language-wise, you are no more right than they are and I see no need for admin intervention. In yet more other words, if you're both edit-warring you're both at fault.

    Sorry, but them's the shakes. You know I like to shoot straight, and I give no advantage to either party--not to you because you're registered, not to them because I think they have a good point. Thank you, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't ask for admin intervention. (emphasis added) As you noted the last time, at User talk:200.104.245.226 I didn't treat the guy differently just because he was an IP. His response Cunts, Cunts Cunts You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster". You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster". and to make the singularly untrue claim that I reverted him solely because he was an IP.
  • Were this a named account the abuse he handed out would have seen him blocked long ago. He repeatedly gets away with it as he rotates IPs regularly. I simply alerted you, as you were familiar with the previous problems not to seek advantage in the vain hope I could edit without being abuse. I disagree as to your point on the make of the car, it was a modest cheap little car which gives insight into what the man was like. You can dismiss it as cruft if you like, I disagree and the consensus on the talk page agreed with me at the time.
  • Shoot straight by all means and I have no problem with that. Cooper's 4th rule is know what your target is and more importantly what is behind it. Don't shoot the messenger when all they want is a lid kept on the abuse. WCMemail 15:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WCM, there is (as yet) no abuse, only a continuation of an old conflict. I'm simply telling you that the only way to solve this is to get broad consensus, and then, if that RfC goes your way, every continuation of the edit war on their part is disruptive and blockable. (I do not see any consensus on the talk page at all, by the way.) I have no opinion on the "what if it were a registered account" thing--well, I do, and I think you are not correct, but I'm not shooting anyone here, I'm just trying to get this settled. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, any editor whose talk page contributions are CUNTS, CUNTS, FUCK YOU, YOU DOPEY CUNT wouldn't be blocked? As for not shooting the messenger, all I asked was for someone who knew about the past to keep a lid on abuse, whilst I tried to discuss it. As for shooting the messenger, you state above that I'm equally at fault. Really? Who remained civil, who tried to engage in talk and who simply yelled CUNT. WCMemail 20:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP 92.234.25.254 has no talk page contributions. The other IP did, and didn't I block it? There is no abuse as of yet so there is nothing to keep a lid on. And I'm not talking about you being at fault in civility, so please don't put words in my mouth: I was talking about the edit war. I still don't see how you don't see that putting the make of the car in there gives insight into the man's character: it's OR, SYNTH. Now, for the last time, I have supplied for you an avenue through which you can solve this once and for all, something that will give you carte blanche to revert, since it can easily be argued that your last revert was not kosher. I don't know why you're not listening to that, instead of harping about insults slung months or years ago. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reminding our IP friend not to disrupt talk pages by interleaving his comments in mine please. I would do it but on past performance he'll simply get abusive. WCMemail 07:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, btw do we have to do the "you're only reverting me as I'm IP" routine again? It is starting to bore me rigid. WCMemail 12:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[3] RfC poll: you're just being vexatious. stop wittering on about other articles and discuss this article. if you don't want to do that, bugger off. Regards, WCMemail 11:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WCM, you must understand that I'm a bit loath to start with warnings and blocks there. You'd be better off posting at ANI, perhaps. But note that "bugger off" isn't very different from "fuck off" (except for the original point of entry, perhaps), and that's not usually deemed blockworthy. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was the combination of refactoring of the talk page to remove the comments of others as well as the abusive edit summary I was bringing to your attention. I tend to just bring it to the attention of an admin and leave it to their judgement. WCMemail 15:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[4] And again, he edit wars over every time frigging detail. WCMemail 20:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again, this is getting decidedly ridiculous, he is separating the comment from he post that spawned it, now you can't follow the discussion and no I won't revert again. I should really but I don't want a block from you for revert warring even that restoring talk pages is one of the exceptions. WCMemail 20:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venomous Voice[edit]

Drmies, can I ask for you to double check my translations of the Dutch quotes at Soeara Berbisa? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes you may. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow Crisco 1492, that's a pretty patronizing quote there. BTW, are you sure you want to call the Soerabaijasch Handelsblad a "Dutch newspaper"? Dutch-language, sure, but doesn't "Dutch" mean "published in Dutchland"? And you cite that paper pretty regularly: shall we just write up the article? Drmies (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, eh? "Civilised". I'm pretty sure these papers had different reviewers, since the review of Harta Berdarah even used the word "Indonesia". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for writing an article... I'll see what I can get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User abusing multiple accounts for making unsourced edits/inflation of numbers on articles relating to the Armed Forces of Albania[edit]

Hello Dr. The other day you blocked DHalilialbania201197 indefinitely for being a sock of Denis Halili, created and used in order to avoid scrutiny, and previous warnings. Today a new obvious sock popped up, Denis20Halili01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), adding the exact same unsourced material to the exact same articles. So I thought you might to whack both the new sock and the until now unblocked master. I could file an SPI, but a), it would most probably take several days (not for me to file it but for someone to look at it), and b), the socking is so obvious here that it doesn't take much of an investigation to see that they're one and the same... Thomas.W talk 13:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Thomas.W. Blocked, and now I blocked the main account as well, indefinitely. Listen, go file that SPI please, even if it's just pro forma, so we can collect some CU evidence in case this does not stop and gets more sophisticated. I can't rightly figure out if we're dealing with some teenage vandal or with someone who works or worked for that army and is genuinely interested in improving those articles (or, really, the army's reputation), and doesn't want to figure out how to edit positively. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the blocks. The SPI report is underway, in fact it was half completed when your notification popped up... Thomas.W talk 14:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work[edit]

I happened to read your comments on an RM for the Assault Weapons Legislation article. Very thorough, very methodical, very clear. That is some first-rate admin-ing.

  • Thanks, I appreciate that.

Ping[edit]

I left a reply to you on the Assault weapons legislation in the United States talk page. It begins, "No problem." I am typing this on my phone's little touch pad. Will be gone one week but will check in as able... most likely this way unless son lets me take his notebook computer. Will you please help me keep an eye on that discussion while I'm gone? I'll be back May 26. Lightbreather (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, maybe. I don't know. I'm getting kind of tired of the whole thing, and this latest move edit war is the icing on the cake. A little netbook, BTW, makes a nice birthday gift to yourself: my Toshiba NB505 is less than 300 bucks and has a great keyboard. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. But I want you to know, that in addition to finding Scal's comments and edits to be against policy, he personally scares me. I think one thing WP could do to bring in more women editors is enforce the civility policies a little better. When I'm here - especially on gun related pages - I feel like I've walked into a dark bar full of men - many of them cranky bastards. It should be more like a best-places-to-work conference room of civil men and women. Lightbreather (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm glad you've archived your discussions. That last comment Scal made at me [5] was not only his usual mean crap, but it was creepy scary, too. I sat with my husband drinking my coffee for 10 minutes debating whether I should reply, but your archiving saved me. I live in a world where this happens - Spitting, Stalking, Rape Threats: How Gun Extremists Target Women - so when guys who edit WP gun articles game and belittle me, it truly does scare me. (I live in Arizona, and I am an acquaintance of Jennifer Longdon. Gun bullies say her story is made-up - but they also think the guvment is comin' to take they's guns. These guys are crazy scary, and nobody can convince me that there aren't some assigned - perhaps even paid - to edit Wikipedia. I'm not saying Scal is one of those guys, but dollars to donuts some of the guys I've worked with are. And Scal's behavior does not reflect well on Wikipedia or his own character or intentions.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't rightly know what to say here, but I will assume that Scalhotrod is on the level and isn't trying to scare. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drmies, I'm thankful for your archive as well. Lets hope that LB doesn't try to convince others that her personal fears are anything other than her creation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's enough, Scalhotrod. We live in a violent world, and in general I may well share some of her fears. Let's bring the temperature down, not up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit tags[edit]

The tag compared to the edit is priceless...--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • And now you're a dumbass? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been a dumbass for years, juts ask Mrs. Kelapstick. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh really?--kelapstick(bainuu) 15:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep! Pff, what's this me throwing the f-bomb around? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Might I present exhibit A (although I was quite fond of my response)? Did you miss all the excitement here yesterday? My comment over there was regarding this edit summary on your talk page, and then this response to it being reverted. It was a grand mix up, but I think everyone is happy and sipping their afternoon tea. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes. Well. I didn't get it--the link to that list of tags, and what that had to do with someone pretending to be you saying you're a dumbass. I guess I should look at this page's edit history more often: I didn't see that Wee Curry Monster's edit was reverted and now that I do, I have to congratulate WCM on that, since I find that tremendously humorous. And looking at the history, I see that I have a message from an old friend, so I'll go read that now. Speaking of people who aren't dumbasses, did you see what Crisco 1492 manage to do with Soerabaijasch Handelsblad overnight? Respek. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sigh... It makes it no longer funny when I have to explain it to you. The text was indeed and i may not know much but i am a dumbass..., but the edit filter taged it as (Tag: Possible self promotion in userspace). And yes, that comment WCM made was quite humourous, and apropos, but some people just don't have our high class wit, and we must look after them now. Be sure they are not offended and all. Anyhow, it is tea time. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/I Got U[edit]

Drmies, Launchballer has suggested a new hook after you told him the original one was uninteresting. Can you please take a look at it? Many thanks.

PS: Apologies for not doing anything with the Poklonskaya nom, but I think it's sufficiently controversial that it should be closed by an admin who's familiar with DYK, and I am not an admin (nor do I want to be). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure thing. Is it closed yet? My computer slows down to a crawl when I look at that 130k monster. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BlueMoonset, maybe you can ask some of the admins I pinged, or find another one, to close it. While that beast is hogging up space I really don't want to go anywhere near it, and as long as this keeps dragging on the article's proponents have no reason to believe that a qualified majority and editorial/administrative experience counts for anything at all. I mean, the folks opposing it didn't just fall of a turnip truck, and their comments need to be taken seriously, if only to put the lie to this "it meets the requirements so it should run" stuff. For the sake of DYK, and a few other sakes, please get someone to close it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember not, Lord, our offences! My fault, I supplied another hook, and instead of taking that they argue about still a better one and if it the article may have one or two images. - I won't mind a translation to nl of the useful phrase, moving to "and be not angry with us for ever" ;) - The discussion in German was amusing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that's hilarious, and I'm not even halfway through. Ha, even I have an inkling of who Henry Purcell is, so yeah, that's Axel's problem. And of course we all know who "wir" is in "Du hast Recht und wir unseren Frieden" (BTW, I know it with "Ruhe")--it's men. Yes, we're obviously dealing with someone whose penis got caught between two intelligent women who argued a point correctly, and he had to dick his way out of it. Oh boy. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Du hast recht, und ich hab meine Ruh." is the version I also know. - Below, apologizing: this article title is perfect to do so. Now I have it ready, for use on de-WP. - Axel: he takes great pics, see? He went out to take two of the Musikhochschule on my request. - There's another discussion below the hilarious one, I translated again, this time not for a banned editor but on request ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it as "Sie hat recht, und ich hab meine Ruh"--men talking about their wives. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use it also;) - How do you like the top of my talk now? (I keep my edit notice the same, for years, but change there.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it's very pretty, and I appreciate how much work you put into it, and the work you do before you can put that work into it. I'm not with you on Colonel Henry: that's too much honor, given the socking and the plugging... Drmies (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ps: you like good discussions? I think this (first meeting) was one, I asked "Are you against an infobox? Just asking, reading "sudden new inspiration" and like(d) the one-of-a-kind response, - my offence. (I don't talk about those of others.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you missed this Bier? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I redecorated, adding that one and remembering that it's Wagner's birthday - pictured: a woman who can't believe what she sees (that's me in many cases on WP, - in the operatic case that her man is dressed to get married but not to her) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original topic: there's now a new ALT for the "I Got U" DYK nom, if you're willing to dive in again. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Thanks. I have a question there for you, BlueMoonset, and if you answer that correctly you can tick it off. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do horses have hands?[edit]

Picture description. A miraculous intervention (1182) by the Virgin Mary in saving the life of the 12th century Portuguese knight Dom Fuas Roupinho, possibly a templar, while he was hunting deer one foggy early morning. Beside the chapel, on a protuberant rock 110 meters above the Atlantic, one can still see the mark made in the rock by one of the hands of Dom Fuas horse.

In memory of the miracle he had a chapel (Capela da Memória) built over the small grotto, where the miraculous statue had been left (c.715) by king Roderic after the monk's death. The first church in O Sítio, was built over the grotto Hafspajen (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK Hafspajen, we have work to do, all of us, including Always Learning, and of course Yngvadottir. AL, can you have a look at the Portuguese article pt:Pederneira (Nazaré), to see if it has any quality at all and if it's worth translating--I think, after some Googling, that it has notability. In that case, part of the history needs to split off from Nazaré, Portugal, because the church, for instance, properly belongs to Pederneira. In addition, AL, I'd like for you to look at this here to see if it appears accurate and somewhat in line with the pt-wiki Pederneira article. For instance, I need to know if the Alcoa river in that source is indeed the Alcoa River. It would be nice to get a map, too--I have a hunch that the Pederneira Bay, if indeed it is still called that way, is an important geographical feature and it might be nice to look at. (The Portuguese articles don't have anything.) And I wonder if Sítio needs an article, but maybe that's of later concern (see pt:Sítio da Nazaré). Besides there are associated articles: I know that Candleabracadabra could have a field day with something like pt:Elevador da Nazaré.

Alright. AL, we could really use your help here. Let's see if we can put this town and area on the map properly. Bishonen, do you know a mapmaker on the English wiki, or should I try the Graphics Workshop again? Drmies (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bunchofgrapes left… :-( But I'm delighted to see that Johan Elisson, official mapmaker for the Andrée expedition, is again editing a little; I thought he left too. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Naah, I've always been here! Just haven't had the time to edit very much in the past few years (I got a job much thanks to my Wikipedia involvement!). But now I'm finding a little more time to edit; my long term goal is to bring Boden Fortress to FA status. I'm not a very good mapmaker though (despite the Andrée map turning out pretty good). – Elisson • T • C • 07:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 - PT:WIKI entry of the Pederneira neigbourhood seems tidied up and written in neutral language, has no refs though; 2 - Yes it is the same river, 100% positive. I profit from the opportunity to say i'll be leaving WP for good after the 2014 FIFA World Cup, this time no turning back, i'm not having fun (no way, quite the contrary) anymore, for quite some time.

Wish i could have been of more help, happy week to Mies and everyone that participated in this exchange. --AL (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added a small bit to Pederneira (woke up after 3 hours sleep to find that I need to write something about a bay- right I see it's Pederneira Bay, I'll check it out in a few hours time). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complains, complains[edit]

List of Toy Story characters ...eh. Hafspajen (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine and Native Hawaiian cuisine[edit]

I was unable to move the draft back to the article title so a history merge or admin intervention is needed. I have taken the article to a deletion discussion so the community can weigh in on how best to handle the subject. Given your interest in the dispute over Hawaiian foods I am letting you know so that you can provide whatever assistance is needed. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, but K-stick has already taken care of it. I accept your apology, Drmies (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies. I had previously moved this cut and paste pastiche from Hawaii-related articles into draft space with this rationale. Please notice, Candleabracadabra did not reply to that discussion, but instead copypasted the draft space article into the redirect and nominated it for deletion to clean up the page history. Once again, Candleabracadabra refuses to engage in a discussion about problems with his edits. I think the article should be moved back to draft space or his personal sandbox, as it is not ready for mainspace. It is simply a duplicate fork of the cuisine of Hawaii article, most of which has nothing to do with Native Hawaiian cuisine. I have temporarily remedied that problem by removing it, but Candleabracadabra is continuing to add too many images and surround the text, even after this problem has been pointed out to him several times in multiple discussions on article talk pages and his user talk page. There appears to be a serious competency issue at work here that goes beyond any simple content dispute. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Viriditas, I am going to leave this up to K-stick, who is thoroughly read up on the matter, though I will be glad to monitor the situation. Thanks, and do keep me posted wherever it is by pinging me, if necessary. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once the battling has ended, I am prepared to improve our content on the cuisine of the Native Hawaiian people before 1778. I will even buy some scholarly books. Just ping me once the hand to hand combat is over. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For you[edit]

The Silent Award
Sadie the black Labrador Retriever... Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Hafspajen. I was just thinking today about Sadie getting old. Our neighbors had to put their dog to sleep the other day, and I can't help but wonder. I should be stocking up on bourbon already, cause I'll be a basket case. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but she is not that old... Hafspajen (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost as old as my marriage, and we're all limping along, haha. Seriously, she'll be 11 this fall, and her old football injury (meniscus? our vet in Knoxville was a former football player, and that's what he called it) is getting worse and worse. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This helps always for football injury elderly dogs.Hafspajen (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonator needing a block[edit]

Hello Dr. Since you seem to be online I thought I'd post here too, in addition to the report I filed at WP:UAA. Could you please block BilCat litter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They're impersonating/targetting user BilCat (see contributions). Thomas.W talk 20:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have time to spare Dave de Silk Air 11-85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another imeprsonation account, that is directly linked to "BilCat litter" (see contributions). Thomas.W talk 20:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both users have been whacked now, so nothing here to do... Thomas.W talk 20:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help[edit]

Can nothing be done about Scalhotrod's and his ownership issue with the Assault weapons ban page? In addition to moving it unilaterally without discussion, he is now removing as many instances of the word ban as he can get away with. Aren't these articles under discretionary sanction? Isn't what he's doing completely contrary to those. Please, please help. I'm on vacation for a week and losing weeks and weeks of work. All I have to work from is my phone. Please help. This can't possibly be acceptable behavior. He's also scrubbed all but one instance of the word ban from the Roberti-Rooms article. Please help. Lightbreather (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article falls under discretionary sanctions. I'm a bit busy right now with dinner prep (need to make rice and beans the easy way) and can only do little things, and intermittently. But we have ArbCom on call, in the shape of Beeblebrox, who owes me a beer (maybe). And isn't Writ Keeper an admin, a bureaucrat, and an ArbCom clerk? And isn't GorillaWarfare on that team as well? Y'all, we can use your help here: I'm just a lowly admin who's been involved in way too many gun-related discussions. In fact, all those articles could do with a bit more oversight. Thanks girls. (I'm appropriating "girls" to mean the old-fashioned "guys".) Sorry Lightbreather, but the three people I pinged are good people and they also know people. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom clerk? Ew, no. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mean you can't help, Writ Keeper. Don't make me go to AN. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neck deep in examining piles and piles of diffs from our current case so I am somewhat lacking in spare wiki-time at the moment. If there is anything to this I suggest taking it to WP:AE for action. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe it's because I'm totally unfamiliar with the history here, but I don't really see a problem, nor what discretionary sanctions have to do with it. Making edits that another editor disagrees with isn't a blockable offense. There hasn't been any edit-warring over the changes Lightbreather is talking about, and at least on the surface, they appear to be good-faith, so I'm not sure what you really expect me to do about it; as everyone knows, admins don't rule on content decisions. Is there any particular reason why discussion on the talk page or escalation to venues like DRN can't be tried here? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also[edit]

In addition to being on a mission to wipe out as many uses of "assault weapons ban" as possible, he also is unilaterally removing "high-capacity magazine" wherever he can. No discussion. No matter how well sourced or how long they've been part of the lexicon... these terms must not be used on WP (according to Scal's and a half-dozen other editors. They have battled editors over this (not just me) for years. Here's the latest: [6] Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lightbreather, I looked at a few edits and I can't say that they are prima facie disruptive, which means that I simply can't do much as an admin. [It is not immediately obvious that changing "ban" to "legislation" is, for instance, politically motivated--and you have to understand that I am writing this as an editor and an admin, not as someone who is offended by the letters to the editor in my local newspaper.] As usual, the case is to be made on the talk page. You are, of course, free to revert (as the second step in the BRD cycle), as long as you make sure that you yourself don't fall into Discretionary Sanction territory. I saw that Scalhotrod had been notified, and I am sure you have too. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kelapstick, remember how you told me that the only way grilling is successful is with beer and undivided attention? Please have a look at these matters, since I'm out for a while. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's your help, Drmies, when you need rice and beans FAST as we did tonight. Knorr has this item called Fiesta Sides in a pouch. We got the Spanish rice, which can be microwaved in 12 minutes. The beans were canned O Organics Fat Free Refried Black Beans, though the cheese grated on top added a bit of fat, I guess. No lard, though, which is fatal for Jews. Just 3 minutes in the microwave. It was delicious with some enchiladas, and I made the tossed salad. By the way, I don't think Oprah Winfrey has anything to do with the beans. Bon appetit! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lethal to Jews" is lethally funny. And I always thought you were Irish! Anyway, I sauteed onions and bell peppers, with tomatoes, cumin, coriander, etc., and boiled the rice and two cans of black beans. It's substantial and very tasty. But I'll keep your shortcut in mind--and please give my regards to Mrs. Cullen: I hope she is well, and you too. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did it the right way and we did it the quick way. Yes, I am both 3/8 Irish and also Jewish. It is kind of a mongrel identity that motivates me to search for kosher corned beef each Saint Patrick's Day. Both my dear wife and I are doing well for our advanced ages (at least in comparison to Randy in Boise, and the legions of editors contributing from Mom's basement). We hope you, your wife and your girls are thriving and staying cool. Things are getting warm in your neck of the piney woods, aren't they? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad to hear that you're all doing well, Cullen. You Americans can be so complicated. Wife and girls and boy are doing fine--boy has now learned to get out of the pool and pee on the lawn. Apparently he learned how to say "my turn!". And yes, it is getting warm, though it's much better upstairs after I installed an attic fan, something I'm kinda proud of. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuca[edit]

Should this page be a disambiguation? It seems to me that cassava is the main subject. The only other yuca subject is a redlink. And a hatnote link can be kept to Yuca (disambiguation) for the yucca subjects. Clearly my process and procedure knowledge is insufficient to know how to process this kind of housekeeping and I've already disappointed Kelapstick once today. If it's too much to handle or involves lots of acronyms we can just let it go. There is only so much Wiki knowledge I can acquire in one day. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Today is a new day, Candle. I'd be on it if I didn't have to bring my Ferrari to the dealer today. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First things first: that redlink can go. Nothing links there, and the deleted article is nothing, nothing at all--it does mention the term "Yuqueros" but that has no significance per Google, at least not for "disparaging term used for Venezuelan metalheads". Drmies (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, there is little Wiki knowledge necessary for this: you'll be pleased to know common sense suffices. Now, please check me: I placed a hatnote on Cassava, the best one I could come up with, and redirected Yuca there. What do you say? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question on behavioural problem[edit]

Moving along. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I want to know if you created this article Denise Donnelly just to make more trouble.
It was a content that was put up for deletion and got merged on the wrong place. We had enough trouble with this content, [7], SandyGeorgia, see edit comment and quite a lot of other editors, including me. At the Celibacy talk page half of the talk page is about this issue. Notice that that there was a WP:AfD WP:Consensus on this topic of involuntary celibacy. That said that the topic does not deserve its own Wikipedia article and is to merge the topic to the Celibacy article either. Admin Joe Decker closed that issue. And then suddenly you pop up and start getting involved. Hafspajen (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen, why are you bringing up a subject related to involuntary celibacy on Drmies talk page? I try to assume good faith, but this seems very pointy. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen I would suggest if you have a problem with the article(s) in question, you bring it up on the talk page, or a problem with CACs creating articles in general, you bring it up on his (I am presuming his) talk page. I can look into your Yaca question of you would like Candleabracadabara. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, because I was curious. I think this is a general behavioural issue that belongs here or above, Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine topic, or maybe on the discusson on the other topics, that are much similar, on Kelapstick talk page, but Drmies is following this issue as well. By the way, two other people are already brought that up at the right talk page. Hafspajen (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, well sometimes it is best to stick to the topic at hand. In this case Yuca, which would be suitable as the primary topic, of you are interested Candleabracadabara. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested. Is there anything I need to do to make it happen? Some sort of rain dance? A copious offering of poi? The solving of multiple rubiks cubes simultaneously? Or is there an easier way. I have had quite enough of the attacks for one day so I don't want to do anything wrong and upset the WikiGods. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can either nominate the disambiguation page for deletion to make way for a page move, or you can wait and I will do it for you tomorrow. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am often told that I have the patience of a Saint. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss this it probably deserves it's own section. Please assume good faith. I am also not sure Drmies will appreciate this discussion taking place on his talk page. But be that as it may, creating an article on the associate professor whose writing's have been the subject of some controversy seemed to me a reasonable outcome given that the AfD close did not work out and the merge was reverted (per what I read on the revdel or whatever the wp:refund Wikispeak is for that subject. I guess I would simply close by saying that I have no objection to moving this discussion to the article talk page or to anyone initiating a deletion discussion for the new article or to any other action that is carried out with respect and consideration and without any attacks or assumptions of bad faith. Discussion is probably the best first step and I always think it strange that it isn't more common as a first step on Wikipedia. That said, as I've noted, this may not be the best place. We have to be respectful of the various sensitivities of our editing community and to whatever disabilities, challenges, or obstacles they may or may not face. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Let's not try to evade the basic question, with this what section we should use for discussing this off topic thing. Why are you creating an article on a topic that has consensus to be deleted and that has WP:Undue weight, see also above. Hafspajen (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Above comments are called Irony and discuraged on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:POLITE. So do you have something to SAY that is constructive or just use your sense of humor to make fun of us? Hafspajen (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also suddenly everybody knows what Drmies will say or think. You let HIM speak. Hafspajen (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what I asked, before we started talking about rain and Rubic cubes: You create an article of a content that was put up for deletion and got merged and again was voted for unimportant, badly sourced and not to include or have a separate article on. At the Celibacy talk page half of the talk page is about this issue. Notice that that there was a WP:AfD WP:Consensus on this topic of involuntary celibacy. That said that the topic does not deserve its own Wikipedia article and is not to merge the topic to the Celibacy article either. And then suddenly you pop up and start getting involved. This is what I asked. Hafspajen (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination), and here redirect [8], and article created. Hafspajen (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because I think her work is notable. The previous AfD was on involuntary celibacy, not her and her work. It closed as merge and was pretty contentious and the merge was reverted. As I mentioned, there was a request to restore the article because it was not merged. I think including the subject in appropriate context ie. as being based on her research and writings is very reasonable. There is probably a case to be made that she and her work aren't notable, so I guess we'll see what happens. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, YOU decide that. How about all the previous discussions? See also Talk:Celibacy#Incel. You ignore them, and you ignore what the community decides. Do you realize that this decision is not appropriate ? Hafspajen (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a community process, and what you do is against broader community consensus. This is disrespecting the consensus. Hafspajen (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of the discussion there. Much of it seems not to be about the article I created but about the subject more broadly and whether it should be a stand-alone article or merged or handled in some other way. A couple of comments do note the actions I took and one editor said they plan on taking the new article to AfD. I'm not seeing a consensus one way or the other as far as Denise Donnelly and her work is concerned. Am I missing something? Maybe you can summarize the key points for me? I acknowledge that I don't know a great deal about involuntary celibacy so perhaps others here with more knowledge or experience related to the subject can weigh in? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have them summarized ten times on the talk page, no need to ask for that. Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I have a very short attention span. But I am sure it will get sorted out soon and that the new article will be deleted if in fact that's the best outcome. I think it looks okay although it probably needs a little trimming and tucking and a great deal more photos. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You go and write an article that the incudes material that was decided on previously and you do this against broader community consensus. And you say you are not an expert on the field, so WHY do you do this? Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either a) I am an idiot or b) I am a genius. Maybe both. Or neither. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen are you going to apologize to me when community consensus comes out strongly in favor of the new article? I do so love a good apology!!! Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is an "associate professor"? Here (UK) a professor is a head of department, under which there are senior lecturers and lecturers; professor (US)=lecturer (UK) and therefore "associate professor" appears to be "associate lecturer", which sounds like a part-time job. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Associate professor. As far as notability, being a full professor would be a much stronger indication of notability. In other words, an associate professor would not normally be notable. But the New York Times piece discussing her research and interviewing her, the Guardian piece, the amount of citations, and other coverage I think makes it almost incontrovertible that she is notable. I wasn't sure until the NYT piece was brought up in the discussion. I think it would be almost unprecedented for someone whose work has received that kind of mainstream interest to be deleted, but we'll see what happens. The only delete argument so far is very weak and references other things that got deleted but does not address at all the coverage and citations of this individual and her research work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(od)Thanks!- seems okay to me (apart from the term "incel" (used in the Guardian piece), which sounds like it comes from the same lexicon as "susper" and "misper". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite unecessary to say I should appologize to you. Article has been nominated for deletion by an other editor. Hafspajen (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I managed to miss all this excitement. But Candle is correct on one thing--apologies are nice, after insult and innuendo. He's wrong on another: there is no conceivable reason why an associate (or assistant) professor would be inherently less notable: WP:PROF says nothing about full status, and that's a good thing. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apologies are nice. In that case I want that apology from Candle, for the tone and the disrespectful way off discussing and handling this other topics, thanks. Like this way to try to recreate the incel article content without actually discussing whether it merits an individual entry or discussing the inclusion of incel in the celibacy article. Hafspajen (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All things being equal, an academic who has done things that push them past our notability barriers, has also done things that have made them a full prof. Although certainly that doesn't preclude associate profs from being notable, I would guess there is a fairly solid correlation. On an individual basis, we of course must evaluate each on their own merits. On the cross section? meh, its a decent observation.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gaijin, one may expect that, but it's not always true. Publishing a book can get one full, but if that book is not notable, published by a vanity press, mediocre, forgotten, etc. it doesn't help. Besides, sucking admin dick or cheating in all kinds of acceptable ways can help in one's career but doesn't do anything for Wikipedia's notability. Pardon my French, of course, but there's politics here as well. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is a colonel less notable than a general? Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How long is a piece of string? --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a favorite of Theodore Roosevelt:

I talk, but I do not speak my mind
I hear words, but I do not listen to thoughts. Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yabba dabba doo - Scooby Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aknowledgement[edit]

Thanks for the cuddly moment!

No, no job at the present time, neither good nor bad. Just feeling soooooooooo tired, wiki-tired and overall-tired...

Cheers mate, happy week --AL (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Denis Halili?[edit]

He's back: Denis20halili04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with the same totally unsourced fantasy edits. Thomas.W talk 16:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of his claims today is that the Albanian Air Force is buying the Saab JAS-39 Gripen, which suprised me a bit since I live in Sweden and haven't heard of any such sale; and a search on Google of course returned nothing. So he is obviously making it all up, in his own fantasy world. Thomas.W talk 16:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now also as 86.166.54.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), making a variation of the same hoax edit as Denis20halili04 just made, and I reverted. Thomas.W talk 17:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the sock template to the user page of both the named account and the IP. Thomas.W talk 17:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lost history[edit]

Dearest Drmies, per your interest in the Native Hawaiian cuisine saga, I wonder if you can help sort out what happened to the history of the Native Hawaiian cuisine article? After Kelapstick closed the previous AfD discussion as speedy keep the article was moved into my userspace (something along the lines of user:User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine) then moved again. I think those pages have now been deleted as implausible redirects. Anyway, the history has been lost. It shows the first edit as one where I added some content from the parent article (you'll notice that the new article indicator doesn't show up). This is very strange indeed and I'm not sure quite how it happened? Perhaps you can get Viriditas to help you sort out where it went? I really have no idea. I thought that redirecting an article after a deletion discussion was closed as "Speedy Keep" was considered disruptive, but Wikipedia is a wonder of neverending surprises, not all of them pleasant. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right on the last point, but I'm not sure about the next-to-last point. I'll see what I can do with my magic admin skills, given to me by a fairly large subsection of editors, who of course knew nothing about my abuse and shitholeness. It's kind of interfering with my lunch, which was to be neither Hawaiian or BBQ-ish anyway, but hey, we aim to serve to please. Your servus servorum Jimmi, Drmies (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any ideas? Is it under one of these? Have you had a chance to ask Viriditas? It's disrupting the ongoing AfD discussion that the history can't be viewed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look under the Native Hawaiian cuisine page? I recall that Kelapstick deleted that page to make way for the move of the article from my userspace. Perhaps it is under the redirect that was there? Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand how it got separated from the more recent work. Some sort of gamesmanship? I distinctly remember restoring the article from beneath the redirect. Unless it was all a dream.. Thanks for your help. They say breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly I found a discussion from 2012 where the discussion was closed as a consensus to have two distinct articles. I wasn't involved in that discussion or your admin nom, so I'm definitely not to blame for those outcomes if they were incorrect. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, before I even look at your question, let me type this up before my brain conks out. "Native Hawaiian cuisine" was accidentally moved to User:User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine, then they corrected that and moved it to "User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine", and then good old Kelapstick deleted that incorrect redirect. You moved User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine to Native cuisine of Hawaii. There are no deleted edits in Native cuisine of Hawaii, which you started with that split on 17 May. Does that answer your question? Drmies (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The oldest version I have been able to find in any page related to native cuisine of Hawaii, or variations there of is on 17 May, the edit Drmies mentions above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine is now a redirect. There are some deleted edits in the history of Native Hawaiian cuisine, which you blanked for deletion and then redirected to Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine. You had added content up to 29,364 bytes on May 18, 17:01, which I assume is the content copied from...somewhere? Kelapstick deleted that at 17:44 (G6), to make way for a move. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What were the deleted edits? They should go back a ways ie. not be recent and not be mine. Can you restore them please? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are in the history of Native cuisine of Hawaii. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And please strike the "gamesmanship" comment. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the edits prior to my work on the article. My recollection is that Native Hawaiian cuisine was a redirect to Cuisine of Hawaii. But underneath that redirect there were edits. It had, apparently been a disputed issue in the past (archive 2 on the Cuisine of Hawaii talk page). Consensus was closed to create two article. But anyway, back to the point, I was just trying to trace what the heck happened, I can't figure out what happened to the edits underneath what was a redirect? Redirecting an article after a deletion discussion closed as speedy keep and when there was already consensus on the article talk page 2-1 is gamesmanship. Where this mysterious lost history has gone I don't know, but it's a big time waster. That's what gamesmanship attempts to achieve after all, disruption. That's why intervention was needed. Sadly, there was mostly bullshit. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm completely wrong. I guess I must be confusing Hawaii regional cuisine with Native Hawaiia cuisine. This whole thing has been so freaking exhausting and neverending I don't know what's what any more. Apologies. I can only keep track of so many moves and redirect and other disruptions and speedy keeps and afds. It's a freaking exhausting game. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the histories can be merged, and restored if that would help, but here is what happened (only moves, redirects, creations, and AfD nominations are included):

I hope this helps. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Candleabracadabra, you don't have to apologize for asking us to do this kind of work. It's what we're paid to do. It's the other stuff that warrants an apology, and a striking through of some comments. You are always welcome here, but only if it's in a collegial manner conversant with our policies and guidelines for collaboratively editing. Thank you, and thanks K-stick for the extensive contribution. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well, I didn't appreciate Kelapstick's snide "you've been here for years and should know better" bullshit. As I made clear I am not an admin and can't move articles over redirects. I can't nominate an article for deletion in userspace, it tells you it has to be an article space. I can't have a redirect deleted when it's contentious. So I did my fucking best and he can take his snide comments and shove em. I had to do another AfD and it's still not right because it doesn't show the previous ones. It's a colossal waste of my fucking time and I don't appreciate it. The article has been moved all over the freaking place wily nily including into my userspace where someone who is not welcome on my talkpage shouldn't mucking about. The consensus for the article is clear as it was in 2012. So this whole escapade is an exercise in futility. And then we have your other buddy Hafspajen jumping in with his nasty innuendos and repeated accusations of bad faith. So you want to rein in the incivility? Go for it Drmies. But don't get mad at me for telling the truth. When you guys create a mess and involve yourself in it and muck it up, and you get stuck doing mopping I don't break a sweat. Cry me a river. I don't create articles in bad faith EVER and I don't edit in bad faith EVER and I try to keep a sense of humor about all the attacks I face, but I don't like it. So if I hurt your feelings, good. You deserve it. Show your fellow lowly editors a little respect in the future and don't act like such arrogant wp:dicks. Does that article still exist? I remember some fascinating debate about it. I'm sorry if you have to eat your own pudding on occasion. Next time order something else. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we are super clear, you didn't "create" anything. You copied the work that I and other editors worked long and hard over into a new title. That's called forking, and it is discouraged. The article has been moved to draft space appropriately. When you moved it back to mainsapce, it was moved to your user space appropriately. Please stop copying the work of others and creating new topics that have nothing to do with that work. That's called synthesis and it's discouraged. If you want to do the hard work, if you want to do the research, and if you want to read and write about a topic that interests you, great, do what everyone else does and do the hard work. Otherwise, you are the one disrupting Wikipedia and wasting everyone's time. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The yuca page over the previous disambig looks good to me. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. Note that I blocked you before I saw the above message. Either way I'm not crying a river. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies. I have not at all followed what this is all about. But you have blocked Candleabracadabra with a statement that it is a "temporary" block, while in fact it seems to be an indefinite block. It seems to me that your providing a duration--presumably short--for the block is necessary, else it is not temporary. I'll say also that I have found Candleabracadabra to be helpful and cooperative and a good collaborator on topics that we've both edited on, so I am a bit concerned about what's gone on (really i have no idea of fault or anything), and hope it is not really endangering of C's ability to continue contributing. --doncram 01:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just looked at the block, seems to be a rather short 12 hour block to me. [9] Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doncram, temporarily. I have no desire to prevent them from contributing for more than a little while, but clearly they were not in the best of spirits--I cannot otherwise understand a mea culpa, with some apologies here and on the current Hawaii AfD, followed by yet more abuse hurled at Kelapstick. I warned them that they would receive a short block if they continued, and that's exactly what happened. They are prolific, certainly, but if they want to claim to be communicative and conducive to a happy editing atmosphere they should act like it. The history of Viriditas's talk page is already bad enough, and I jumped in there in part to prevent worse, since they were clearly out of control (what, six times in a row?), but to no avail. Anyway, thanks for your question/comment. Perhaps you can give it a try by engaging in conversation; maybe you have better luck with him. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks Dennis Brown and Drmies, I misunderstood about the block, which was set as a 12-hour block in fact i guess, as I thought the duration would be part of what was shown in Drmies' "you are blocked" posting at Candeleabracadabra's Talk page if it was temporary.
About what's gone on, from the above summary of page moves and so on, what leaps out to me is that editor Viriditas twice "userfied" a mainspace article, and that Candleabracadabra objected (e.g., moved it back) and that Candleabracadabra at least twice tried to open a proper AFD discussion involving multiple editors, while V's actions were unilateral. I don't know about past interaction between V and C, but if there was past negative stuff, then IMHO editor V ought not to be taking strong action that way. IMHO, if there is past negative stuff, an editor/administrator should seek to avoid the appearance of bullying. In my past experience with a following/contending editor/administrator, I know that I could not get past the fact of that editor (not V) continuing to harass willfully with stunts like "userfying", with that editor fully knowing that I fully thought they were being awful, and rubbing it in with some power trip. IMHO a compromised/involved administrator oughta simply back off; anyone but that person could discuss article notability or content or whatever. It should be Wikipedia policy that we do not condone bullying, and an editor's view that another editor is bullying ought hold a lot of weight, and that following-type administrators should be required to avoid the appearance of bullying once any such issue has been discerned. I don't see the same language here, and i don't know if V's status compared at all to what I saw in my past, but I do see confusion and stress contributed by the unnecessarily strong administrator-only action taken of userfying, without a community discussion. Again I haven't followed and don't understand the whole picture here at all, but I do identify with some of C's apparent frustration. --doncram 02:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the block was for harassment of specifically Kelapstick. Whether that move/draft/article/AfD stuff was due to Viriditas's or Candle's action, I'll leave that in the middle--though I will state for the record that I can't figure out what those two AfDs were for. But even if Viriditas had been wrong in userfying, it did not warrant the abuse they received: again, look at the history of their talk page. That's old news of course, but all this "abusive admin" stuff directed at Kelapstick, with the poop-colored glasses and the disruption and the gamesmanship: there is no way anyone can argue that K-stick deserved that abuse. So no, I do not condone bullying, and I believe I acted accordingly. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for me, I am looking forward to the future date when fighting about how to structure our coverage of Hawaiian cuisine comes to an end, so that actual work on improving our encyclopedic coverage of this delectable subject can resume. I find it fascinating, and will pitch in once the corpses of the casualties have been cleared from the battlefield. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, there isn't any fight over the structure of Hawaii-related cuisine articles. Candleabracadabra‎ has been engaging in the creation of non-notable stubs and moves against consensus on multiple topics. Look at the ongoing chaos[10] he caused over at Denise Donnelly with his one page move[11] against the consensus formed in January.[12] He creates and thrives on utter chaos and disruption all over the place. The real problem has nothing to do with Hawaii-related topics at all. Look at all of the red links on his user page. Did he create all of those deleted articles? Look at all of the non-notable articles he's created in just the last several months. He refuses to use reliable sources. He refuses to follow any aspects of the MOS. He refuses to follow basic civility. Is there a single guideline or policy he does follow? All I'm saying is that the problem at hand here is bigger than any disruption he's caused on the Hawaii-related topics. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cullen328, DYK know that Candle saw fit to quote my response to your "lard is fatal to Jews" comment on their talk page, out of context, to make me look like an antisemite? (And I apologize for saying "lethal" instead of "fatal"...) Drmies (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing you said offended me, Drmies. Nothing at all. I commented at Candle's talk page as well. I need to get back to work in the real world, so please forgive the brevity of my comment. I am paying attention even though there are some things I prefer to say nothing about at this time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Cullen. Maybe I should mince my words more. Which reminds me, why lard in rice and beans anyway? I always thought it was flavorless. I didn't put any in mine, but I did stick a nice Conecuh sausage in there, Alabama's own, and probably also prohibited by some faiths. Anyway, there was a Hawaiian connection? The girls were enjoying freshly-cut pineapple, only 2.99 at Publix, but papa has a bit of a sour stomach, and one tiny little piece was already too much. While I have your ear: thank you for your email. I might respond later with more verbiage and in private, but thank you, and may you all fare well. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An aside[edit]

Your comment reminds me of two things Drmies:

  • I still have a large jar of Alabama BBQ sauce to use this summer (no cookies to go with it. Sadly). I am thinking ribs. At the trailer. Which is being moved to its summer home at the ocean this weekend.
  • In my younger days (24 maybe, I was still dating Mrs. Kelapstick). I once ate 3/4 of a pineapple. It is a mistake I shan't make again.

--kelapstick(on the run) 00:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note on the SPI. I don't think I'll participate: although (as you saw) I've had run-ins with Candle, I've never paid enough attention to suspect socking by him. Based on the evidence presented, I now think he's a sock, but since I have nothing more to contribute, I don't want to make a long discussion any longer. I'll be watching the discussion carefully. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Nyttend: I do appreciate more eyes. I guess I can see how that first SPI went nowhere, though it seemed so obvious to me, so by now I'm really anxious and wanted to go through every single of their edits. And then there's the question, if the identification is granted, of what to do next. Anyway, I pinged you for I hope obvious reasons, but maybe you should shape up. Have you stopped drinking and abusing yet? Drmies (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

What barney said deserved a block. If anyone did the same thing concerning gender, sexuality, or race a block would be a knee-jerk reaction. When an editor blatantly demeans the beliefs of 2 billion people, more if you consider other Abrahamic religions, that likewise deserves a block.--v/r - TP 17:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I beg to differ on that one. If someone says somewhere that "homosexuality does not exist", would that merit a block? But you're the admin (too!), so feel free to push that button, or undo my close: I certainly don't object to the latter, TParis, as you know. Hell, I'm just an antisemite with a drinking problem, it seems. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would hope that someone who said homosexuality doesn't exist, or who went around Wikipedia linking [[Choice|Homosexuality]] would be blocked.--v/r - TP 17:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, I've found the best way to get over a drinking problem is with an IV drip, which leaves your mouth free for other things, some of which might be too off-colour to go into detail about here. The taste of the fluid becomes less of a factor, too. Yeah, Barney was incivil, and we should have many, many more blocks and sanctions for incivility, even though that would probably result in I think at least a quarter of our core editors blocked on any given day. But, speaking as a Christian, I don't think it would be unreasonable to call some of the extreme evangelicals who apparently think the King James is the original text (ancient Jews did speak the queen's English, right?) drooling idiots. And, yes, I have seen works which seem to at least imply that, and I have seen other RS's refer to such sources as "silly", "stupid", or worse.
      • Personally, I've always thought it reasonable to give everybody at least one grossly stupid comment for which they don't get sanctioned, although a warning or friendly reminder would not be inappropriate. The second time, they get a less friendly warning, and the headsman gets called in on the third strike. If this is Barney's first gaffe, I think even the spirit of Christian charity would probably indicate that we turn the other cheek regarding such comments, at least once. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you're right, John. I might just be a bit touchy from the very recent HiLo/Fram DYK religion bashing about a week ago.--v/r - TP 18:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks to both of you. I'm a bit touchy myself, and when I am I prefer to err on the side of not-blocking. For some reason, after one particularly difficult block yesterday, I kept running into vandals and socks and username violators all evening. TParis, again, please revert my close if you disagree, and/or--OK, the die has been cast, and I undid my close--I suppose there is no problem with leaving it open for broader discussion. Who knows, User:Barney the barney barney might drop by there and comment, or even apologize, offering the same hand of friendship that John Carter and the plaintiff extended. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atheism is also protected as a religious belief ... so we're kinda caught there :-) the panda ₯’ 00:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took your observation to heart[edit]

If you are curious, Celestra was the project name of a software project I really enjoyed some years ago. That user name has confused several people over the years, but I think no one will claim this new one is false advertising. Older and ... well older (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, I didn't advise nothing, did I? I thought Celestra sounded nice, though it also reminds me of the name of that fat-free fat they were going to put in potato chips, the stuff that caused anal leakage. So should I change to "Older but...not that old yet"? Drmies (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, you didn't actually advise me. Your tale of disappointment (and now sphincter control) moved me (sorry!) to decide for myself to change the name. I also thought about "I was young and stupid but I'm older now", but didn't like the inevitable talk page abbreviation. As an admin, you might not have as much trouble with that, if you're looking for a change. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an admin, I have tons of alternate accounts, solely for the purpose of fun and disruption! Anyway, thanks for the note and all the best. It was a pleasure meeting you; you seem to be doing useful things here and that's always good. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmmm... Olestra the panda ₯’ 00:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TwoHorned[edit]

You're a Dutch speaker. Can you please confirm that TwoHorned's allegation that Elst is involved in "astrological milieux and "workgroups"" is wrong. See this and this . Thanks for your help. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes I am, and that was easy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you protected Elst because of the dispute between these two, but they've now added René Guénon to their battlefield - care to take a look? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh no. Fully protected for a week, a quick and poor solution, no doubt. What are we going to do about these editors and articles? This needs a larger forum, more daylight. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a problem of WP:OWN. TwoHorned is using the article to publish his personal essay and pov on Guenon. I made a number of constructive edits, each supported by talkpage discussions, but each of my edits were reverted by TwoHorned. I have also not reverted TwoHorned in this article (almost all of my edits were new additions, except that I twice added the essay template to the article). Some disputes with TwoHorned in that article have been going on for a long time (see the talkpage). --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And just now, I'm discussing two misrepresentations of sources by TwoHorned, both in BLP articles.
In the second one, he presents a satirical article by Gautier as fact, as if Gautier would seriously believe a Nostradamus prophecy. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, or i don't know. It was published on Gautier's own site. If it's a joke, then many people seem to believe it: I mentionned it because it has spread comments. But i agree that these things speak for themselves and I won't revert Calypsomusic... - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 21:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pings[edit]

I think you will have to manually inform anyone you tried to ping at SPI, I did not get a notification when you linked my name. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notifications:

Note that the post containing a link to a userpage must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent.

Lots of people don't appear to know this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we don't have a free image for The More You Know, but this would be a prime example for its use. Much thanks Floquenbeam. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam cares. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And knowing is half the battle. G.I. Joe (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow--that's amazing. Wikipedia Notifications defeated by a template that adds the user's signature. Did you see that it was too many words for AGK? Drmies (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange article[edit]

I noticed that you were involved in an AfD discussion back in 2009 on Connie_Bea_Hope. There are some odd things about that article in addition to the apparent lack of notability. It goes into strange, unsourced details about the subject's life and that of their descendents that would be strange content for published sources. For example, at one point it mentioned that a great-grandchild was a 1L in law school. Further, most of the substantive editing in that article has been done by IPs and SPAs. The SPAs tend to have no user pages, an interest in Mobile, and Italian-sounding names with a four or five digit series of successive numbers at the end of them. One engaged you in debate over notability during the AfD. To add further interest, one of the users that argued for keeping the article was later blocked for sockpuppeting (ChildofMidnight). Should it be nominated again for deletion? Geogene (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know--I had a quick look at the article and yeah, it's a bit not so great. Can you remove the son-in-law from it? Deletion or not is your call: not everything that ChildofMidnight did turned to shit, and usually, if I'm also in the history, it's purty good. :) No, look at the text, look at the sources, do some searching around, and make the call. I'll check more carefully later, after dinner, and I'll have a look at those SPAs. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I had a look at some of CoM's material. My gut feeling is that the SPAs and IPs are one user, but probably not him. I think there's some COI activity going on, as seems to happen with marginally notable BLP articles. I removed the part about the son-in-law, the only weirdness in the current version. Having shaken the tree, I'm curious to see if anything interesting falls out of it. Geogene (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not opposed to a second nomination, and I'll search the databases again if you do that. But...what SPAs? There was only one, right? Drmies (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked through the AfD again and followed whatever links were available--and I'm not impressed. A redirect to that Woman's World program strikes me as most appropriate. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Four users with very similar usernames, two of which are SPAs, three with interests mostly confined to Alabama, particularly Mobile, Mobile politics, and especially Mobile mayors and the county commission; the other being mostly media, focused on the Gulf Coast. Similar patterns of activity of editing for a couple months and leaving (maybe they just lost their passwords). A fifth account whose only edit is on the page. They don't seem to operate concurrently so I wouldn't think it's malicious. Instead they appear for a couple of months, edit that and some other AL/Mobile political articles pretty frequently, and leave. Not a hanging offense but not something that's encouraged. Some diffs that I thought were odd, involving excessive knowledge or possible promotion:
[13],
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17].
Plus some IPs with similar activity. As far as deletion, I think the sources are lousy but that a long-term television persona should probably be notable. Thinking about it, I'm mostly interested in possible COI, and it would be punitive / not benefit the project to nominate it for that. Women's World is the program she was on, correct? Geogene (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just linked it in the opening paragraph of the article. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's all so old! Are they still active somewhere, one or more of them? Drmies (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are all fossilized. Since they're probably not linked to an active puppet ring, sorry for bringing that up. I agree that making a page redirect to the program article is probably the best course. Even if more sources were found there was an accusation of copy/paste from the obit on the talk page. Geogene (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geogene, it's done. Maybe you can have a look and see what can be merged? Drmies (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi Magna images (again)[edit]

Hi,

Over at Mitsubishi Magna we are still having revert issues as blocked user User:MundusEditus has found new IP addresses to edit from, firstly User:108.60.134.187, then User:152.91.9.115. Can you please weight in with this again? It is very frustrating. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the 108 hasn't been active in a week and geolocates to the other side of the world. But I blocked the other for a month. Thanks, and let me or Callanecc know if it flares up again. Next step is semi-protecting the article. Now, make sure that a clear, iron-clad agreement is reached on the talk page; this makes everything easier, for editors and administrators. Address the IP's concerns explicitly if you haven't already; just cause they're blocked doesn't mean their opinion doesn't count, which they would have been able to give more than once if they'd stopped warring. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for that. We have four other editors involved now, so we will see how that pans out. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect User:MundusEditus via User:152.91.9.115 has evaded the block again through the use of the account User:Wifotoki. MundusEditus and Wifotoki are both single-purpose accounts created one day apart to edit only Mitsubishi Magna and miraculously ended their 3.5-year hiatus this month. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked and article semi protected for a month. Wouldn't have stopped this sock, but maybe the next. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will lodge a report in the next couple of days. Many thanks guys. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah thanks, Dennis--it's good to have you back. OSX, there's something to be said for going through the motions. It takes more time, but it always helps if disruption returns, and in my experience disruptors often do return, like dogs to their own vomit. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MundusEditus as promised! The block I received was warranted. Originally I though could keep the various sock puppets at bay by reverting a few times, but after five or so goes, I realised I had no recourse except to keep reverting as I had violated 3RR so I kept at it. No point going to an administrator at that point as I knew I would be blocked (and later was). Not the best idea to re-employ that strategy going forward. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI and instincts[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wenger256. I closed the ANI discussion. Couldn't resist some mild sarcasm in my close.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Here's a Barnstar, awarded to the proprietor of the 'pedias's most popular late night comedy club. Thanks for all you do, from selling tickets to sweeping the floor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Angel Museum[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I forgot that I actually started that. Thanks guys!

Hey, I liked that infobox! [18]. This is one of the few examples when an infobox gives the article pondus, weight. A tiny little article like this looks MUCH better with an infobox. Why remove that? [19] Hafspajen (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, it is back. It was probably just some error with the box. Hafspajen (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it had too many errors in it - I've restored a cleaner version. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saints in pink robes[edit]

looking into the matter... Mandarax, where are you?

Hey, I have this great idea that we should start a new fabulous article called Saints in pink robe . And this new interesting article later we can nominate on DYK ... Good, no? I am good, right? Hafspajen (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Saints
  • That should go straight to the front page, no questions asked. But I'd let Mandarax write the hook. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Xanty, the bishop does! See Desmond Tutu... Hafspajen (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With a matching infobox heading! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, somebody was doing his thinking, alright, on that. Hafspajen (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking all aspects of purple’s past and present into consideration, purple symbolizes magic, mystery, spirituality, the sub-conscious, creativity, dignity, royalty – and it evokes all of these meanings more so than any other color.

Uhg, there is a frog on my lap!!

Variations of purple convey different meanings: Light purples are light-hearted, floral, and romantic. The dark shades are more intellectual and dignified.

The negative meanings of purple are decadence, conceit, and pomposity Among Mediterranean people, purple was reserved for emperors and popes. The Japanese christened it “Imperial Purple”. In Italy most performing artists would not go on stage if they have to wear anything purple. AndDeep Purple is...deep purple, Xanty . Haffy (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purple People Eater, Haffy! I was looking at the Tyrian purple article because I understood that the dye is colourless until exposed to light- but it looks like I was wrong. So that's why the Romans never developed photography. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most interesting, Xanty. Another poor artist needing attention... Remember, study not pornography.. Hafspajen (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Léon Bazile Perrault.

James T. Butts, Jr. - BLP concerns[edit]

I have concerns regarding the use of op-eds and primary sources for contentious material about this BLP.

The relevant BLPN string is here.

I have put together a proposed starting point for a more proper article here

I believe there is a general consensus so far that the article needs to head more in the direction of the proposed draft.

I have a WP:COI. I've been pinging a few people because I feel the BLP issues are severe enough to warrant prompt attention. Then I thought of you, as you have always been responsive to such issues.

I believe everyone is acting in good faith and being very civil. Just need a couple bold editors involved that are familiar with BLP rules/pages as it is not proper for an editor with a COI to remove poorly sourced contentous material themselves. CorporateM (Talk) 15:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some confusion, because the current article keeps being referred to as "Drmies' version" whereas I presumed you had merely made a couple edits is all. CorporateM (Talk) 16:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I'm flattered. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ian Gow[edit]

I'm off to bed. Would you please take a look at this talk page, which an IP (or 2 IPs) keep refactoring - the last time removed an editor's comment, possibly by mistake but that's on reason not to refactor. Look at User talk:Dougweller#IP 92.234.25.254 for context. The IP addresses are on different continents though. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice unknown Dutch painter[edit]

Jan Mankes ‎ need help to translate captions. Please. Hafspajen (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Hafspajen (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will take a look tomorrow. The Banner talk 23:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen, please don't use oxymorons. Nice and Dutch do not go in the same sentence. Evar. p.s. Saying moron and Dutch is redundant. Bgwhite (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind to rephrase that PA, Bgwhite? Even if it is supposed to be humorous, I only take offence out of it. The Banner talk 23:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, calm down. Bg is just trying to insult me in his own way. He's not the greatest humorist, though Mrs. Bgwhite tells me he makes her laugh every night. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Touché Bgwhite (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouln't that article have...oh....I don't know...say, a reference or two. Even one would be nice.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? He's dead... Drmies (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perchance he is not dead, but merely resting. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem Dr Mies, the captions are in Dutch... Hafspajen (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...........I think he was a very promising young artist. We should try to find more of his pictures. [20] [21][22][23][24]Hafspajen (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe but the article needs references and words, not pictures. In the meantime, while Xanty was merely resting, I turned Carel Peeters into a bluelink. Captions? What captions? Drmies (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and Banner fix the text, right. And then we have place to put pictures. The text under the pictures is still in Dutch, e.g. capions Hafspajen (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • And an artist needs pictures, that is his thing, right. You can't speak about an artist's pictures. Hafspajen (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what's the big deal with Maria Gaetana Agnesi who spoke seven languages? I do too. Hafspajen (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People on rocks category
  • But we can't. Because we have to learn people about this painter. We have like seven pictures of him on commons, and not the best ones... Hafspajen (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WHOOO makes these categories on commons. What rested minds. Hafspajen (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Paintings of women sitting on rocks outdoors.

Let's make {commons|Category:Paintings of women sitting on rocks indoors}} too.Hafspajen (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing administrator[edit]

If you feel like taking a look at this and offering your views, that'd be good. Hope you're preparing a fun-filled holiday weekend.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, I'll defer to your good judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That may not be what I exercised. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for your views. You gave them. I may not agree with them, but it would be pure conceit not to defer to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Soerabaijasch Handelsblad[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of talk page privilege of a blocked user[edit]

Hi Drmies, I'd like to draw your attention to this blocked user's misuse of their talk page privilege. Since you issued the block in the first place, I thought you'd like to be aware of it. M. Caecilius (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) misuse? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Removing current block notice (the user has been blocked indefinitely) is a violation of WP:BLANKING, and turning the user talk page into a copy of a self-promotional article that has been speedily deleted twice, as both A7 and A11 (i.e. without any credible claim of notability or significance), is misuse. Even if the user hadn't been blocked the content he added to his user talk page would qualify for speedy deletion under U5 ("Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost"). Thomas.W talk 12:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, maybe the rewrote BLANKING while we were out for ice cream: "active sanctions" seems to include notifications about current blocks. I don't remember users not be allowed to remove block notices, only "active" unblock requests, or whatever the phrase was. Maybe I'm misremembering. I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bish has already dealt with it. Note that she says a user is allowed to blank the page. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLANKING includes "any other notice regarding an active sanction" among the things that a user is not allowed to remove. And since a block notice regarding an indefinite block is a notice regarding an active sanction, I interpret the text as meaning that they're not allowed to remove it. Thomas.W talk 14:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about how to read that policy, or maybe an earlier version thereof (I don't know) regularly pops up at ANI: it's not cut and dry. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Learning, thank you. - What do you think of redirecting a talk page to a user page? - Is there no better word for the German "Trotz", as in "Trotz dem alten Drachen", than a gentle-sounding "defiancy"? - What do you say for "Trotzalter"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up on arguing about that policy. To me, it seems anything that a reviewing admin would expect to want to see, the block, each review, etc. should be kept. Then everyone came in and said "Well, any admin that isn't an idiot can use the history"....true, but why the hell should he have to? What benefit does it give the blocked user to blank it? It certainly benefits the reviewing admin to have it there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up arguing about that policy too. (Yes, I know what the policy says currently about removing active block notices, even though the opposite was recently agreed on ANI.) It's a totally different situation if they ask for review, Dennis, but why the blazes should they be forced to keep some kind of scarlet letter up as long as they're not requesting review, and on a talkpage that's in their real name, yet? And forever yet also, since the block notice will remain "active"? I agree that they abused their talkpage, but the abuse was in putting up that promotional template, not in blanking the messages. I stand by my IAR message to the user. Bishonen | talk 15:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
(ec) One of the questions in the context seems to be whom a talk page should serve, other editors/bots who want to communicate, or an admin who wants to review, or - why not? - both? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they are asking for review, then all related should be there. If they are not, then it doesn't really matter to me. Occasionally, I will revert back a block template on an indef sock because it is informational for future investigations. It isn't about a scarlet letter, it is about reasonably accommodating the very people you are asking to review your block. Hiding information from them isn't exactly a sign of good faith or judgement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My question was more general: the purpose of a talk page, and under which condition it would be redirected to a user page. My POV: never, it seems to defy the purpose of talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a block notice should stay while the block is in effect. I used to think the same about warnings, since it's pretty time-consuming when reverting vandalism to check the history all the time (esp. right after school is out in the US, the UK, and Australia), but I'll gladly budge on that. Scarlet letter, maybe, but don't we act on the assumption that the block was correct until proven otherwise? Drmies (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerda, "Trotz dem alten Drachen" means "in spite of [the presence and continued activity of] the old dragon [Satan]", no? Drmies (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (talk page stalker) Wouldn't that be trotz des alten Drachens, or am I revealing the vintage of my German again? But then I don't think "defiance" is all that gentle. I think of battleship names ... Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, a dative is acceptable also. Besides, the translation in the article has it as a subjectless verb and I don't see how that, in that form, would work at all. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Trotz" is a substantive (in this case, not a preposition which would require a genitive in older times, but not any more). A phrase would be "Ich biete dir Trotz" (note: dative). There's a genitive in the second phrase, "Trotz des Todes Rachen", because it is poetically short for "Trotz dem Rachen des Todes". "Trotz" expresses the stubborn opposition of a two-year-old, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wait. You translated it as a verb in the first place. How could it be a substantive if followed by a dative? if it's a substantive, then what follows smacks of an appositive, which would be in the nominative. No, I hate to be a grammarian here, and say that I'm right, but I'm right: "trotz" here is a preposition which happens to take the dative, and the only problem (in this context) is to figure out precisely what that prepositional phrase modifies. BTW, I think I saw the word "translation" in the footnote, but I didn't see a translation in the linked PDF. Did I miss something? Drmies (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Trotz dem alten Drachen" is poetry. You can't repeat the structure i poor English. The translator said "I defy the old drago", however, that get's a subject in which is not mentioned. It's more an appeal that everybody should defy the old dragon, death and fear. If you don't believe me that it's a substantive, and the line no full sentence, just a slogan, then take it as the imperative of the verb "trotzen" ;) - Anyway: defy fear! I fear we lost Hafspajen, who seems to "trotzen". Kampf der Angst! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Georg Büchner: Friede den Hütten! Krieg den Palästen! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see: absolutely. Thanks. And I like your imperative much better than this "I defy"--it seems to me that the "implied subject" (I hate that term--if it's anything, it's an object) of those three lines is "Welt" of line four. So, defy the old dragon, defy the bite of death, and defy fear as well; rage, world, and spring into action. Thanks Gerda, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - "spring into action" is your way, and implying "Welt" as the implied subject also, - I think the poet rather thought of "Welt" as the raging opposition that has to be overcome, - listen to the run in the basses on "tobe". - I stand and sing. Top of my user, with a link to when I did it and said so. (I do it most of the time, without mentioning.) - I liked my DYK #505, expressing my standing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thin Lizzy discography[edit]

You may remember a while back there was a problem at Fleetwood Mac discography where two other editors and I were arguing about various issues. You protected the article and warned us. We discussed it all and fixed the article. No problem. I then had some issues with User:Lukejordan02 with AC/DC discography and we eventually sorted that out too. I have tried really hard to work with this guy despite being called an idiot [25]. Now he is causing further trouble at Thin Lizzy discography and I am out of patience. Here's the history [26]. He made edits which removed huge sections of the discography with no discussion and no good reason, so I reverted him. I then incorporated the good parts of his edits back into the page, and made other edits along the same lines. He said he was happy with most of that and with what I planned to do next [27]. We then disagreed over one minor point and he then reverted everything I'd done. I refuse to edit war with this guy, but he is impossible to work with. He has edit warred with other editors at John Entwistle discography, Roger Daltrey discography and makes massive deletions with no discussion [28]. What do I do? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, can't do much right now. It's a good idea to place a warning (templated or not) on the user's talk page, for future purposes. I'll have a look later, thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks anyway. I think templating him might inflame him somewhat, but I'll consider it. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that should have been done 18 days ago... Besides, I see you chatting nicely with him on your talk page. But given that you two are constantly duking it out, it seems, over content and layout, you should really find some editor(s) from the relevant WikiProject to either settle it or mediate. I know my rock and roll, but I don't know anything about formats and tables and sorting and whatnot for those articles. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yes, probably. He has gradually restored my edits and calmed down, so it's better. All of that stuff should have been in article talkspace anyway, but it got out of hand. I've moved some of the discussion to article talkspace so that others can joni in and have their say. Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lukejordan02 has done a lot of genre fiddling on Thin Lizzy articles with zero discussion. I'd revert anyone else, but I don't feel I'm in the best position to do that. What do you think? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you really need to get someone from the Albums project to look into this, or maybe some of the editors who have written and reviewed FA articles--are Cannibaloki, ChrisTheDude, Dabomb87, Truco still around? Drmies (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A request for a check[edit]

Drmies: If you have the time (and I feel guilty even requesting, because I know how much you do), could you check over my postings both at Talk:List of women art historians and the AFD for same, and let me know if there's anyplace where I did anything that you feel is egregious? Obviously, I did things that were imperfect, mainly my imperfect search for materials on the topic, but I was actually walking on eggshells from the start of my involvement, starting with discussion rather than tagging. It would be easy to slough off the criticism that I have faced, due to the rather shrill nature of some of the voices involved... but if that's blinding me to some obvious major faux pas, I'd want to know. You're someone with a clear sense of Wikipedia and its practices and not accusable of being antifeminist, so I would value you're insight. (If you would rather not involve yourself, believe me, I understand. You owe me nothing.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know I made lunch and dinner too, and did laundry and dishes? Honestly, Nat, I don't understand why you're worried. I'll look over the entire AfD and the talk page, if you like, but the cut-and-thrust of AfDs, well, that's well-known. Mind you, and I say this as someone who has been learning feminism for over four decades now, you might spend a minute or two looking up what "shrill" means, and what its connotations might be for others. (I wonder what contexts the OED provides.) As for any imperfect search, well, it was not a good article, and it took me a little while to come around to it--and if I had any success finding stuff and improving the article, it's because I have kind of a professional and inside look at a topic like this. In other words, it's not immediately self-evident that such a list might be worth something. Or, did you get criticized anywhere besides, ahem, for nominating it? (Because much of the criticism in that AfD, while well-intended maybe, was typical of editors who are simply not aware of how things go here.) Drmies (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually pretty sure that I'm in the right, to be honest (and ever so humble), but I've learned through experience that even those that are loudly wrong are pretty sure that they are in the right, so one's correctness should from time to time be subject to WP:V. The criticism is pretty much all on the AfD page (luckily this has not - yet - turned into one of those cases where someone uses my public identity against me), and you've obviously waded through that before... so if you're not left with any memories that have you thinking of me as some sort of wimmin-hatin' wikibro, I'll take that as clearance enough. Thank you for the response! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's been said that I occasionally wield a phallus, so I may not be the one to ask, but I'm not troubled by anything you said. BTW, I just posted on the article talk page, after DGG's note. But seriously, and I speak, ahem, as someone who had to learn, think about "shrill". My old hero Sir Walter Scott actually provides an instance of what I'm thinking of, according to the OED, in Kenilworth: "Men laughed loud, and maidens giggled shrill." In other words, if I may extrapolize, "shrill" is not a gender-neutral term, and (as you know) in the context of this particular AfD it bears a particular load. Something to think about.

    When I was a young penis-bearer, many decades ago, things were much simpler. In those days, apparently, it was acceptable to pat waitresses on the bottom and call them "darling" (well, not the English word, in my case). Humans were by definition "men", and singular they hadn't been invented. Simpler, but not better. These complications, where you have to think about words before you use them and you cain't even crack a goddamn joke about blondes and all that, they're good: they progress us. Like the possibility (not in my state) of gay marriage progresses my own marriage (of, as it happens, the non-gay kind). This is all good. Not simple, but we were wrong (like the generation of my parents was) to think that life was simple. So yeah, 100 years from now a current list of women art historians may not be very encyclopedic, but for now it is--that is, if I can work on that lead some more and prove it. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will keep my eye on "shrill"; I traditionally have used it with no gendered intent, but neither have many of the people who used "gypped" meant to comment on gypsies, and so forth. (The singular "they" had not so much not been invented but had fallen out of favor, unless you're a few centuries older than I suspect; it had not yet become a tool in the fight. If I wasn't in favor of it before working on a series of books where the style guide insisted on the sentence-speedbump "he or she" for all non-specific third person references, then I certainly was after!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC) (in a state where same-sex marriage was legalized, then dropped, then legalized again, none of which destroyed my mixed-sex marriage, and the end result certainly left me more comfortable in having endorsed the institution with my participation.)[reply]
  • Ha, funny that you should mention "gypped"--my wife grew up with that expression and never realized what it really meant. When she did she was very embarrassed, and when it pops up among her students, as it does on occasion, she explains it. (I'd never even heard the word until she told me about it.) But then, she comes from a state where it's OK to use the n-word in all kinds of ways (including "sand nigger", for her uncle, who was born in Iran). Anyway, maybe I'm becoming something of a crusader. Next thing you know I'll be fighting the word "hysterical"--wait, I already am. Thanks Nat, take it easy, and happy marriage, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help again[edit]

Hi Drmies, hope everything is going well. If you remember, some months back, I sought your help to tackle vandalisms by User:Ricose in the article Joya Ahsan. He's back again and this time it's Hridoy Khan where he's removing the image and deleting the references [29], [30], [31] He raised a concern that the birth year is false, but there's is a source which says the artiste was 17 in 2008, that makes his birth year 1990-91. I have started a thread in the talk page but he continues to remove the references and making other errors.--Zayeem (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of James T. Butts, Jr....[edit]

was the BEST verion, in my view, balanced, kicking out the wrong sources, taking the right tone, better than my version or anybody else's, for that matter. I respect quality Wikipedians. Right now, it's once again morphed into a puff piece, but I will continue to see your take as the benchmark version by which all subsequent versions should be judged.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tom, I appreciate the remark, but as I said on Jimbo's talk page, I did not put a stamp of approval on it. In fact, I have not looked at the sources carefully enough, certainly not the ones you linked (on the talk page, I believe?), and before I say anything about the article more in-depth than my edit summaries did, I'd need to read those carefully. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not lobbying or continuing to battle, but rather, I sincerely respected that edit when it happened. Us Wikipedians know there is no such thing as a final version, but when you made your edits, at the time, I was sincerely impressed, and still am. It struck what I thought was the proper balance and weight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you know, we do what we can. But I urge you to work with CorpM. Our goal is to make this a better place and all that, and the court case business, you may well have a good point, but let's handle it properly. If you like, and if I have some time in the next few days, I'll be glad to follow that narrative you drew up and check the sources. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • My sense, at this point, is for me to butt (pardon the pun) out, I've been at it too long, and maybe it's time to let others hash it out. Plus I've got a renovation to do plus other handyman assignments, but maybe I'll look at it in six months. Best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's probably much more rewarding. I installed an attic fan last week, successfully! and it felt great. Best, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I hope that you picked a relatively cool day to install the attic fan, and had a large quantity of beer on ice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Cool enough, Cullen. It did interfere with naps. The problem was that I had to rebuilt the frame of that section, so everything took so much longer than I had hoped. But I think we're saving money already, with the AC cutting on much less upstairs. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re adminship[edit]

If you're really disposed to nominate me for adminship, as intimated in this edit, I'm willing (though I'm certainly not Barkis) to accept, but I think you'll need to create a page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deor, including the text of your nomination, where I'll answer the standard questions, so that then it can be transcluded to the WP:AFD page. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. Deor (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep. Are you in a rush? I'm trying to figure out where I wrote those paragraphs (it was great prose); it may have been my PC at work. (Boss, I wrote it during my coffee break, for realsies.) So if that's the case it'll have to wait til Tuesday: is that, or maybe a few days later, soon enough for you? My summer semester starts on Tuesday so I'll be somewhat busy. I haven't read Dickens in years: if you want to get in good with me, I'm a Sir Walter Scott man myself. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no rush. I may be willin', but I'm not by any means eager. Just let me know if you nominate me, since I'm not necessarily watching all the relevant pages. Deor (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, I find you naïve belief that all you have to do to create an RFA page is create an RFA page adorable. However, this is Wikipedia; it's more complicated than that, or else pages don't get transcluded right and bots get confused and people write  • Oppose, nominator doesn't know how to set up an RFA page and Jesus cries. Would you like me to tell you all about it, or would you like me to just do it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Floquenbeam, I didn't transclude on purpose since I wanted to give Bish and you and Brad and Beeblebrox and Dennis Brown and K-stick and a host of others the opportunity to co-nominate. So, I don't have the naive belief you ascribe to me. Ha! I did it on porpoise! On the other hand (a broken clock is right twice a day, and you're not batting zero), you are correct in that I don't have a clue what to do next (except block anyone who opposes before they oppose)--so please, take it over at any time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You aren't naïve because you didn't transclude it yet; you're naïve because you just went and created a page that won't be formatted correctly when the time comes to transclude. There are templates that must be kept happy, subst's that must be subst'ed, i's to cross and t's to dot. I'll fix the formatting and then turn it back over to you; if you want help when the time comes to transclude, holler. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that is one charming RfA! Thanks again Floqenbeam. Now, Bishonen, did you want to add yourself and your thoughts before we send this on via Floqmail? Drmies (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion process[edit]

See here. The sequence of events is (1) delete unsourced material that might otherwise be significant enough to withstand an A7; (2) immediately tag the article as an A7. God knows I'm one of the more virulent proponents of sourcing, but this distorts the deletion process. Epeefleche fails to understand this. Perhaps you can help, unless, of course, you think I'm offbase.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you interested in content resolution or the possibility of sanctions? If it's the latter, I can't intervene in the content. If it's the former, it seems like a silly dispute to me. Personally, I favor having all citations in the body so they aren't necessary in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the body. Some articles structurally aren't conducive to that without a rewrite. At the same time, I don't understand why the other editor is in such a snit and is making such a big deal out of the addition of a reliable and helpful source. I've put the article on my watchlist but won't do anything until I hear from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Beckett[edit]

Just downloaded the article "A New Jewish Elite: Curators, Directors, and Benefactors of American Art Museums" out of interest. It mentions Beckett only once in passing, saying "Most recently, the English Benedictine, Sister Wendy Beckett, has captivated television audiences with her passionate exegeses on European painting." Not sure why we need this journal cite in the lead in the circumstances, since it really says nothing very important about her. It lends a spurious authority to the opening sentence and appears to only have been included because you noticed the name of Wendy Beckett in an academic journal, a rare occurrence I agree, but not one that we have to note in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • But we do. I disagree strongly: to establish that she has credentials and can reasonably be called an art historian, rather than just nun, TV presenter, writer of popular books, we need such references. Like I said, I don't care if you move the citation around, but you can't just go around removing it. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your viewpoint, advice, and/or opinion[edit]

Hi Drmies, I'm coming to you with this because you are somewhat familiar with the situation. If there is a more appropriate Admin to address, please let me know and accept my apologies for dragging you into this any further. Lightbreather came back from her stated vacation over the weekend and one of the things I noticed was posting the {{Discretionary sanctions}} tag on many of the gun related article she has edited. This, in and of itself, is not a problem, but she has restarted her onslaught (and I feel that is an appropriate use of the word) of edits so the posting of the tag seems IMO more like an intentional gesture of some kind.

The crux of my issue is her absolute insistence on certain or specific detail (and its wording) in articles. She's at 4RR for this particular edit [33]. I have the same contention with this edit [34] that she and I have gone back and forth regarding. You have made edits/comments regarding her use of excessive, unnecessary, or questionable (at least) detail [35].

Like you, I am not a fan of ANI or many other formal procedures, but it seems like LB is on a mission. What it is, I'm not exactly sure, but she's openly stated some indication of it here and here (that I know of) where she makes statements like, "...my observation is that I am the only "pro-control" editor here...".

Speaking of formal procedures, I'd been forced to learn more about them and be involved via Lightbreather more in the last 6 months than my entire time on Wikipedia. And its gotten worse since the topic ban on gun articles was imposed on several core editors recently. It's like she learns of a new process and can't wait to try it out on an article or the next person that disagrees with her. You had recent exposure to this here.

I'm very much in favor of providing balance to an article, but LBs interpretation of "balance" seems to be very different the rest of the WP community. Your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Holy moly, Cowboy, that's a lot of edits. I can't go through all of them right now, I'm afraid. Posting those notices on article talk pages is fair, sure, as long is it's justified. If you see any where, in your judgment, it is not justified, then I think you can remove it, leaving it to LB to discuss it on the talk page (the usual BRD cycle). No one should be at 4RR; no one should even be at 3RR, since, ahem, they're under discretionary sanctions. Now, it's true I don't really care for too much formality, but I urge you to consider filing at WP:ANEW if you think you are correct. In other words, I think it's preferable to try the "non-Arb approved" methods first, before we consider actual sanctions. Maybe Bbb23 can have a quick look: they are a regular at ANEW and are, in my opinion, very capable of judging this. The additional benefit is that Bbb, as far as I know, has no dog in the gun fight; that, combined with their edit warring expertise (haha), makes them eminently qualified to assess that individual matter.

    I'm sorry, this is probably less than you came here for, but I don't feel so great today and I'd rather not get in too deep in a matter where any judgment might have severe consequences. After all, a topic ban for seriously disruptive behavior is a possibility; I'm not ready for that yet (not 'cause it's LB--for anyone). With apologies, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is quite helpful and much appreciated... :) With regard to BRD, LB keeps putting the onus on me and others to discuss. She just reverts it back and says its someone else's responsibility to discuss it. This is a perfect example. Again, thank you for your thoughts and the encouragement to Bbb23 to render their opinion. I hope you are feeling better soon. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you created Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? Do you feel strongly that the page should exist, and not as a redirect to Linda_Nochlin#Women_in_art? I appreciate your input. Zeusu|c 18:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, absolutely. A JSTOR search has screens and screens full, and check Google Books. I've added some more refs. If you can, maybe you can help wikilinking to it and categorizing--I'm about done here at the office. Also, there's a couple of redlinks in there for people and for that exhibition: look for that exhibition in Google Books--apparently it was earthshattering, exaggerating only a bit. Thanks, and I appreciate your courtesy, Drmies (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Template:main to the main article, and I'll take a look at the new one. You're welcome. Zeusu|c 18:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This all came out of the AfD for List of women art historians (article since moved, fortunately). It's kind of a discovery for me, even as an academic, of how bad it was for women. And then I discover that a secretary in my university has a degree in art history, and was discouraged from pursuing a masters, even though she was accepted at a great school, because her parents said "there's nothing in it for her". Ah well. Thanks, and please leave Leda alone (!), Drmies (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CoM[edit]

The situation is disappointing. I hope, should he (?) choose to return again, it is done without a return to the disruptive elements you outlined. All the best, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree--but I think he's already still here. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite likely. Nice edit notice, BTW. LadyofShalott 01:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?[edit]

Leave it or pursue a proper close? I had a case opened on AN/I and that is now moved to the archives ([36]). I have the idea that Dmatteng got the message through that he is horrible annoying and that he better could take a walk in the park. But still it leaves me a bit confused what to do now.The Banner talk 09:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. You seem to have at least some support there. I can't read up on it right now; perhaps it's best to drop a line to the admins who have weighed in there, maybe starting with HJ Mitchell, who's a nice guy. Keep me posted, if you like. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totoytr[edit]

Totoytr's now blocked on Commons. Are there any others that need fighting? See Commons:COM:AN/U. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a test[edit]

Of your NPOV nature, Drmies - take a look at The Feminine Mystique, which is sort of the feminist version of Farrel's book that you recently tried to trim. Now, will you do the same trimming of Betty that you attempted at the other place? It wouldn't be out of place to trim it somewhat. The ball is in your court.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why don't you do it yourself? Why do I need to be tested by you? What's in it for me? Why don't you find a reliable citation that's not from Amazon for that Paglia quote? Drmies (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've handed you a perfect example to prove that you edit from NPOV. I found the source. Ball is in your court... :) come on just humor me...Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a terrible article, and one at a time. If you don't wish to believe that I aim to edit neutrally, you're in good company at Wikipediocracy (I think that's the one, not the Review). Drmies (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I just saw that we do have the WaPo, so hold on. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quote confirmed; thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WPO trolls don't like me much either... Anyway I'm sure you try to be NPOV but like all of us you sometimes fail. Once you're done with Farrel take a look at Betty, pretty please, it will warm the cockles of my heart and restore my faith in humanity. Give me a test as well if you like, perhaps one related to categories - my area of obsession specialty.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buy my comment.[edit]

Blurbs chosen by the publisher...are...considered true...and...selective quotation...are sourced...and reflect a neutral point-of-view. -Me, as quoted back in February.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I love it. Well done! I ... agree ... absolutely! Drmies (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

I don't put people in their place, I contribute to the meshing of ideas :) v/r - TP 02:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands[edit]

Why is it "The Netherlands"? I don't see "The" in any reference about the name. I found someone insisting that the sentence, "He later traveled to the The Netherlands" was correct because the second "The" was part of the name. Is this like NFL players saying in the introduction that they are from "THE Ohio State University" or are from "Duh Universidy of Awabama, derp"? Bgwhite (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Netherlands" is plural; it refers to the former counties and duchies which make up the present Netherlands; in the 15th century Flanders also belonged to this area. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about the word "The". Why do some people insist on "The" as part of name of the country? Also, in Dutch, the name is singular, not plural. Bgwhite (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's because the English speaking world traditionally refers to The Nether Lands (aka The Low Countries), namely the multitude of tiny former entities that Joshua Jonathan mentioned. The same goes for German Die Niederlande (plural). Apparently the Dutch are more practical and just sum it up in Nederland. De728631 (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
De728631, I appreciate your compliment. Keep up with the Deutsch-Hollandische Freundschaft and you'll go far. (I suppose like all good Germans you bought a little vacation home in Friesland? And you have a boat in the Hoorn harbor?) Drmies (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And no, Bg, it's not like that. I still don't know if we should capitalize that "The" in English; I think I typically don't. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite part of the "the The Netherlands" controversy is that it provides me the opportunity to construct a sentence with three consecutive "the"s. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this thread as I perused the DYK queue, where I found:

... that James Earl Jones and Carrie Fisher appeared in The Big Bang Theory episode "The Convention Conundrum"?

While "He later traveled to the The Netherlands" is unequivocally wrong (one would never say "he traveled to the France"), I think that here, "appeared in the The Big Bang Theory episode" would be okay. Of course, I think the best way would be "appeared in the Big Bang Theory episode", but I'm just going to leave it as is. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack[edit]

Well, if turkey bacon is a personal attack (as you said a few years back), how about vegetarian bacon? Which has an article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, what is vegetarian "bacon" made out of? Second, I speak for all bacon-lovin' 'muricans when I say, "Yes, that is a personal attack! An attack on all that is good and decent in this great country of ours." *puts away bald eagle carrying an American flag and some fireworks* - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by those words. (Where are the scare quotes? Oh, in the captions.) That vacon article should be tagged for speedy deletion: Template:Not funny. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it is infinitely more difficult, I'd much rather have actual pork bacon. Did I tell you how happy I was to get pork bacon in Hong Kong last year? I may have gone hog wild. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were the bacon concerned, I think you'd have every right to be scared. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
A while back there was a very long discussion regarding whether pizza cheese should have its own article, or if it did not exist as an independent concept, being that it is merely cheese that is placed on pizza. I never thought I would have such an interesting discussion about pizza cheese. It turns out there are specific manufacturing principles used to create "pizza cheese" that make it distinct from other forms of cheese of the same type. Specifically, they pack as much fat as possible into it in order to make it stringy and get nice burn marks in the oven. (*speaking of food, anyway) CorporateM (Talk) 01:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds valid: write it up, Corp--unless you don't have a COI, of course. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better than that soap they call Kraft cheese... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"pizza cheese"?! ... expect a quiet visit from Don Mozzarella! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

But I did write it up, right here in 2012 as it were. Despite popular belief among POV pushers, I don't have a COI with every article I contribute to you know ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 01:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you a favour[edit]

Hi, Drmies. Seeing as I got involved at Talk:Ian Gow in response to a request by you at WikiProject Ireland, I wonder if I could ask you to intervene as an admin in an issue with another of the contributors, Isabela84. She simply refuses to indent her posts, and to my mind that is messing up the whole procedure. I did it for her here, here, here and here, and when she didn't take the hint, I asked her on her talk page here and here. Her responses (unindented) are here and here, and she's still doing the same thing at Talk:Ian Gow here. Could you possibly just have a quiet word with her, and let her know that it is not kosher? Thanks, Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, no pig jokes allowed here. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I didn't even think about my choice of words. Maybe it was Freudian? Thanks for leaving her that note. Scolaire (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Account deletion threat[edit]

... someone has left me this message. Could you please check this and Heropanti article? There is an RPP request pending for almost 36 hours here Tito☸Dutta 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Taken care by Yngvadottir. Tito☸Dutta 18:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of State-dependent memory[edit]

Hello! Your submission of State-dependent memory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Jackmcbarn's talk page.
Message added 20:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rollback[edit]

Drmies, would you check to make sure I didn't screw anything up in my first official admin action, granting rollback to Moony22. (WP:PERM/R) Thanks. Go Phightins! 01:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I just saw you do that (Recent changes) and it looks like the right decision to me. In fact, that edit made me want to drop by and congratulate you--but I might as well do that here. Welcome aboard, Go Phightins! Drmies (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terrific, one admin action down and I didn't break the wiki :-) ... and thanks. Go Phightins! 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. You sailed through, good. Now start blocking, or you will never get that check. Better yet, go do barrel duty! Drmies (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The servers went down earlier....did you do that GP? (I kid) Don't block me.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright Go Phightins, quiz question. What about this? Remember, RfA is over. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm, well the edits are obviously disruptive, and an ultimatum might be in order, but I am not sure blocking is appropriate at this time. What do you think; you've been at this longer than I =p Go Phightins! 01:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Drmies, how did I do with my first protection? Ansel Elgort. Go Phightins! 02:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Of course there is not one right answer to the vandalism question, but I would go with what you said. Naturally Drmies is in the block early, block often camp. --kelapstick(on the run) 09:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • K-stick is right, unfortunately. Yes, I'd block that account as VOA: nothing good comes out of it, there is not even a whiff of positive intent. Go Phightins, as for the protection, I think that's too soon. You don't really have an edit war in there (I typically don't protect unless I see more than one or two reverts); what you have is just vandalism. That's two high school girls (school's out in the US, mostly) who are messing with their hottie. I just deleted Category:The 1975 members. Newwikiprofile reverted one example of these girls' vandalism but simultaneously asked for a source. Both of them are VOAs, and blocking is, in my opinion, unnecessary: it's a bit too early, and these two aren't worth it.

    Maybe Kelapstick disagrees but, yes, these are the kinds of accounts that I'd block too, certainly that Clevergirl. And/or I'm old and grumpy. Drmies (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, on Ansel Elgort, I don't agree with this edit either. Apparently it's some kind of special middle school that person went to (but it needs verification, of course). But everything after that is nonsense, and note the two throwaway accounts with double s in the user name. Maybe this is one for that, what is it called, Pending changes kind of protection. I went through and removed some of the more blatant unverified chit-chat: this looks too much like a fan page. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Things like that make me wish we could watchlist contributions. Also, I sometimes find people who make trolling edits at a low rate have been reverted, but not warned - I know not everyone likes our warning templates, but they are good for saying there's a community watching, and we don't like this stuff (whatever it is, silly jokes, namechecks ... ), and there's a chance they will discourage the person from continuing with the silliness so that they don't have to be blocked. I try to keep an eye on editors like that - sometimes I watchlist their talk page, and the other day I finally indef-blocked one after he did it five times. But I wouldn't personally do it on the third time unless the edits were very nasty. On the other hand I'm apparently a hard-ass in some cases: I did go back and revoke talk-page access for the author of that nasty attack that was reported here. I gave my rationale at the discussion on the issue - thereby missing my bus to work and having to cadge a ride, ahem - and it was very much based on this particular case, but I do like to keep an eye on the the talk pages of those I've blocked, in case of a good unblock request. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't disagree with your blocking immediately Doctor, however since the only aparent warnings were from ClueBot, I would manually add one first. I'm nice that way. --kelapstick(on the run) 18:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You really think it makes a difference to someone who is obviously is not trying to improve the project? Drmies (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absolutely not. But I prefer to see a level three or four warning first. Not that I always stick to that rule. --kelapstick(on the run) 15:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spam[edit]

Emotional mojo - looks pretty spammy to me, but I'm not sure it's quite speedyable. What do you think? Should I prod? LadyofShalott 01:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I quite believing in PROD; I'd send it to AfD. Hey, Lady, how odd to see you here and not on Facebook. Thanks for dropping by! Did you see Mandarax was here as well, and some guy brought pizza (or, pizza cheese)? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, yeah. I know. Sometimes I just have to take a break for a bit... Pizza cheese and vegetarian bacon, I saw! LadyofShalott 01:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still do use prod, so I'm trying that. If it gets contested without major improvement, I'll probably go the AfD route. LadyofShalott 02:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • How could you possibly object to brilliantly written encyclopedic content like "Emotional Mojo is a motivational multi-platform concept that empowers people to move forward and follow their dreams. It's a national syndicated show and web platform which combine the best of Psychology, personal development, life coaching, and daily inspiration in a single Mojo brand. It is owned and produced by Mojo Brands Media. The company is based in Winter Park, FL in the professional studios on the campus of Full Sail University which also hosts ESPN and WWE productions. Emotional Mojo is a place where people come together to feel inspired and stop procrastinating but to be a part of an uplifting community. From personal relationships to success at work, they cover a wide range of topics, but mainly focus on feel good inspiring stories"? Isn't that the very model of NPOV editing, and the encyclopedic style? I am so disappointed at this negativity that I think I will have to stop editing Wikipedia in protest, and then create a legion of sockpuppets, and then vent my spleen at some website dedicated to exposing everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Yeah, that's the ticket. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category or no?[edit]

We have List of authors and works on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (and of course Index Librorum Prohibitorum). What would be the arguments for or against creating Category:Works listed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum? It seemed very natural when it first occurred to me; sometimes though people object to redundant categories and lists (even if they have different purposes). It is also late and I'm tired, so there may be any number of factors my brain can't think of at the moment. LadyofShalott 03:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see any good reason for not making such a category--one for works and one for authors, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) - My view is nyet. This isn't WP:DEFINING of the works in question, nor the authors - the fact that the Vatican decided to ban their works. Other such categories of censored works and censored authors were deleted I believe. Note: this has nothing to do with whether the category or list is redundant, that is not a valid reason to oppose a category. However, DEFINING is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm--I think they are valuable, and defining--certainly for Galileo and Copernicus. As for "defining", I still don't know how it's defining that someone was born in year x (rather than in century y or decade z), or in Hoorn, rather than in Berkhout. But I'm interested in a deletion discussion--can you find such a discussion for us, Obi? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are exceptions to all rules - the "born in year X" is one of them, from place X is another one (sort of, in that it's not ALL the places you've ever lived), alumni of school Y is another. Another one, which is done broadly in practice but which I haven't been able to write into policy yet, is that provided a category itself can be seen as "defining" for a significant portion of the contents, the category then becomes "all inclusive" - in that everyone who fits is added, even if it's not DEFINING for them. The most famous example is Category:American women novelists - as long as someone is "American", a woman, and being a "novelist" is DEFINING (e.g. someone who once wrote one novel doesn't necessarily make the cut), they will be added to the woman + novelist category - since most women novelists are not described as such, e.g. "X is a famous American WOMAN novelist" - sources rarely do that, they just use her name and use "she" and people get the point. The same applies for other such intersections, like LGBT or ethnicity. For religion, we have a tighter criteria, in that even if someone is verifiably Catholic, and verifiably a writer, they aren't necessarily added to Category:Roman Catholic writers unless their catholicism is considered defining of their oeuvre. I found a few discussions where such censorship categories were deleted, like Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_15#Category:People_who_had_their_work_censored, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_22#Category:Censorship_of_science, Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_24#Category:Censored_Singles (i didn't realize I had nominated one of them). in the case of the Vatican, the number of works banned and the number of authors is so great as to make this clearly not defining for the majority of the contents, even if it might be considered so for a few. But, such a category that wasn't all inclusive wouldn't be that useful. Thus, better to focus on building out a list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't think anyone notable has ever been born in Berkhout, if there are counter examples let me know and I shall send them to AFD forthwith.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to tell you you're wrong, but you're wrong: good luck deleting Henk Jonker, and thanks for the challenge (some I like better than others). I wish I could find one of those pictures of his. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curses Mies. Foiled again. Grrr.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna say I had to dig deep for that, considering the size of Berkhout (on a bicycle you ride through it in less than a minute), but the Dutch article had a few names, and this one was easy. Well, it took me a while to write him up properly, but relatively easy, no borderline case. Best thing about Berkhout is that, when you are done riding through it and you ride up the dike, you have a lovely view of the IJsselmeer, and before you know it you're in Hoorn. It's lovely. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you CREATED this article? What is the matter with you man? Have you no life? I have to be careful about challenging you in the future...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the history. And didn't you recognize the crisp prose, with only a hint of translationese in there? I just noticed that I'm no. 505 on the list of Wikipedians by articles created. That's not very high (look at what that Blofeld has done, for instance), but I'm pretty proud of it. Plus, it helps to be able to translate. So yeah, I wrote it; such articles would be a lot easier if the Dutch archives were easier to peruse. Next thing I have to do is nominate it for DYK and turn those redlinks blue. Margriet is a ladies' magazine, by the way, so that should be fun. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's like a hydra. I threatened to kill it, and now it has sprouted heads, and you will probably start writing articles about other people from insignificant Dutch towns. Where does it end? When does it stop? :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

…or obscure Belgian towns- Uccle, birthplace of Paul Craps (artist) and Jacques Tits; unfortunately Bum Media Groep BVBA is based in Schilde. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for Henk Jonker, since he had a photo in the 1955 exhibition The Family of Man, one of the greatest photography shows ever, I will iVote "Keep" in any future AfD. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "defining" thing gets tossed about as if it were clear and obvious. I've always found it to be vague and muddy. LadyofShalott 19:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the definition of defining is pretty clear, but the problem is current practiced consensus is more complex than 'defining'. For example an African American who is known as a poet will be in 'African American poets' even if 99% of sources don't mention her African-American-ness. The same for gender and sexuality categories. For membership in topic - vs set - categories it's also a bit more flexible than defining. Finally there are cats which are all inclusive, in that people are placed in it even if the characteristic isn't defining - like certain awards categories. So our guidance hasn't caught up with practice just yet. Finally since anyone can create categories sometimes categories which fail our policies live for years before they are brought before the jury at CFD at which point the defining test is hauled out to do its duty.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Carney and Josh Earnest[edit]

A real live situation going on there! No blocks or protection yet, but if 98.174.21.143 adds that crap again, I may have to award my first block as an admin ... hopefully not though. Go Phightins! 18:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, a final warning is fully justified there. Keep an eye on Carney; semi-protection for a day or two may be warranted soon. Again, glad to have you aboard. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did go ahead and semi-protect for 36 hours after another misguided edit. That takes us until Sunday morning ET, which should be sufficient. Go Phightins! 18:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor you once had an interest in[edit]

See User talk:Dougweller#User:Akocsg is falsifying information from a reference. I've just taken one of his articles to AfD but haven't yet looked at the issues raised on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dougweller, I saw those--did you need my input? I'm not a sciency person, as you know. I just do interpretations and opinions, man. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's ok. If you want to see an incredibly bad biography, a much worse article than those 2, see Ora Railsback (elsewhere its creator is lecturing me and another editor on Wikipedia policies and guidelines). Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice tag bombing too. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And have you seen the latest edits at Talk:Jesus the Man (book)? I know you've edited the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have? Yes, I just came from there. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't keep up with you. Have you seen his user page? I wonder if he's heard of hubris. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adrian Mole- the Wikipedia years. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back to bother you again...[edit]

Hey, I returned from not-being-able-to-retire to a 20-some link long User:Cyberbot I/AfD report, and found User talk:AjitMD, which currently consists of a lot of random WP:AfD templates. I have no idea what's going on there, and I don't want to do anything to it without some sort of oversight (though not WP:OVERSIGHT, you know what I mean). If it's not too much trouble, could you or any of those TP stalkers out there take a look and advise? Thanks, Ansh666 03:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think they were contesting deletion in the wrong place, but there was nothing substantive there. I reverted. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I was going to lament the removal of Moosezilla, but what you've got is much better. Ansh666 05:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha thanks. Actually I need to change it; it's too tall for my netbook. Moosezilla...wonder what happened to her... Drmies (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh jeez Moosezilla is back! Run and hide! (or, leave a message on your talk page?) Ansh666 15:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You woke the beast. Hide your lichen. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're worth it too[edit]

The Detective Barnstar
This is for your incredible research at the sockpuppet investigation of a certain long-term troublemaker. It must have taken quite a bit of time and was a real subtle case of sockpuppetry, but you nailed it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second MezzoMezzo's words. I know that this was an unpleasant task for you, but you took on the job and did what is best for the encyclopedia. Well done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna say....just looking at it made me tired.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Yes, unpleasant it was, and I'll be archiving this page (with his comments also) soon. But I appreciate y'all's kind words. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using my name in vain?[edit]

I come by to see a barrage of notifications that you and Sitush have been mentioning me here, there, and everywhere. How goes? —SpacemanSpiff 07:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spiffy! How are you doing? Where you at? Got a job yet? Dating anyone? Got a new motor? How's the guitar playing--how's your signature PRS coming? Drmies (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Henk Jonker[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good resistance! (Trotz) (A late friend of mine was imprisoned for being part of the resistance in the Netherlands, - she moved to the US later.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerda. Yes, the past still isn't over. (I just saw Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler.) I suppose I should write up Hembrug, and would appreciate your help, or anyone else's. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looked, good start. What would you like me to do? Mention in lead what kind of "entities" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance please[edit]

You will probably recall that there is an interaction ban in place between myself and Pete/Skyring. Just today he has begun posting in a thread in which I have previously posted. The thread is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Should we have election links in leader infoboxes?. The most significant post is here, where he took a position opposed to one I had expressed just 90 minutes earlier.

Now, it's quite possible that he didn't notice my post, and was not attempting to directly contradict me (he didn't address me), so I don't really want to pursue that aspect, but I'm wondering what I can do now. I obviously have noticed his posts in that thread, and I disagree with his view. (This is an unfortunately common occurrence.)

Can I continue to post in that thread? HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes you can. I removed his comment and left a note. I am not really in a blocking mood right now. Thanks for the note, and all the best, Drmies (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

Looking at the discussion in question, which is about whether election links should be presented in infoboxes for party leaders, I stated my opinion on that precise matter. Looking at the sole contribution by the other party, he didn't even address the question, let alone hold a contrary opinion. I've noticed several instances over the past few weeks where he has contributed to an article or discussion after I have, but I no complain. --Pete (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thank you for not complaining, like I'm sure you thank me for not blocking you. No foul language here, please: Gerda Arendt is the editor I closely associate with the word "precious", and that's always good news; I don't want to have to think about her in a thread that starts with an acronymic vulgarity. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own the word "Precious" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not, but when I saw that heading I thought of you. As the Dutch say, I was made happy with a dead starling. Drmies (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own the Bach cantatas, but was surprised how my intention to improve them was (temporarily) stopped, - our time should be too precious for such things, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folk songs[edit]

How are you with articles about folk songs? I was looking back through my old DYKs, and am thinking that "Run, N*****, Run" could probably pass GA with a bit more about how it was treated after the 1930s and an expanded lead. Owing to the, er, sensitive nature of the topic, I don't want to nominate this if it isn't really, really ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Times[edit]

Is Austrian Times a reliable source, I am on the fence. It came up at DYK, but I am unsure about the whole editorial oversight problem. Thoughts? --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have to change the X. I recommend adding User:Steel359/protection.js to your common.js, it makes replying to RFPP so much easier. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like X. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I checked it out, and while you may get a more informed opinion on RSN, I don't see a reason (unfortunately) to accept this as a reliable source for anything of any importance. Yes, lack of editorial oversight: the very concept of "editor", let alone an editorial board, doesn't seem to be tackled anywhere there. Thanks K, Drmies (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer sometime in June, it gets pretty redundant adding the same thing all the time, you have to mix it up a bit. I also had to close your ping template. You're slipping. Yes, I wouldn't consider the Times reliable for a BLP, but for a chocolate require manufacturer, I figured it was enough. That and some journals. At least some people care about the drink. The last time I asked something on RSN, it got archived before someone responded, so I have little faith.--kelapstick(bainuu) 23:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Thanks for protecting Borussia Dortmund and other, related articles! Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise is required[edit]

Hiya Drmies,

Bit of a strange request coming from me, but I recall from previous chats we've had that you're a bit of an expert when it comes to flagicons and their usage within articles - including when they are to be avoided. I reopened a debate regarding colour coding and the use of flagicons on articles such as United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest, over at the project talk page. There seems to be a lot of people insisting on the use of flagicons for the fact they find them "decorative and colourful". Would you mind having a look at the discussion, and seeing if their opinions are validated. Because I'm almost certain that flagicon-overkill is frowned upon within Wikipedia. Thanks. P.S. Hope you and Mrs Drmeis are doing well. Wes Mᴥuse 23:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into the talk page, the rule of thumb is flags can be used when they are representing a country (like the Olympics and international sporting events) but not just to show their nationality (like auto racing or UFC fighting). --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought about the rule. I know they are used on pages such as ESC 2014 to depict a representing country. But on the country pages themselves, a user added them into a history record of 12 points, along with a colour system that looks so complexed that even Einstein himself would get confused. I provided a more simplified way of handling records like that, but I got told it looked more like "an accounting manual". Wes Mᴥuse 00:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I just removed the flags from a biography of a boxes, and a whole set from your UK Eurovision article. In that article, I really can't see any useful flags--never mind that the entire 12 point section strikes me as...I don't know, utterly trivial. Not every fact is worth listing. Why not such a table for 1 point? Plus, those colors aren't just silly, they probably also don't work for colorblind readers: see WP:COLOR. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah someone who is on my wavelength, thanks Drmeis. The flags for hostings, are in my opinion, going overboard. These articles are about a particular country to begin with, so why the hell use flags next to the host cities too? So yeah, I am with you on removing them. As for these 12 point things, I felt they were breaking the spirit of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK to be honest, and have argued for their complete removal. Like you say, if we're showing 12's, then why not 10's, 8', and so on. Very trivial indeed. But the more I argue for them to disappear, the more I get argued back that they should stay as they as "providing encyclopaedic value of voting history". Pardon my French, but when I see reasons like that being given I just think "what a load of bollocks!". Wes Mᴥuse 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Is it just because I patrol AN3 so much that it seems to me that everyone's favorite sport at Wikipedia is to argue about the edit warring policy and to change it, sometimes persistently? Apparently, if an editor gets agreement from even one other editor on the change, that's enough to reword a core policy. At present, we have the blind leading the blind.

Perhaps if I slept more, this wouldn't bother me. Maybe if someone sang me lullabyes, I'd close my eyes and drift off, just like children who do it so well. PD is blocked, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I thought "PD" was a reference to Parrot of Doom. I've never changed the policy, I don't think, though I'm tempted sometimes. Is it really so common that it gets changed? If so, that's worthy of a mention at AN, since it is such an important policy that it needs wide approval--or, as wide as possible. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, looks like I was wrong about PD, and the alleged master is correct. I still cling to the notion that not enough evidence connecting the master and the puppet was presented, but that is far outweighed by knowing who the master is and the satisfaction of labeling PD as a puppet. Good old Marek - more power to him.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey cabbage[edit]

DYK… that five of these cabbages can support 100 sheep and 5 humans? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plenty of "reliable" sources, such as this one. Also, Martinevans123 is paging (or channeling) you, below. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, well, well .. . OCLC 135497 Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Sadly it may be a lot of rhubarb. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Ee, lad, 'appen Channel Isles ah now part 'o Yorkshire, by 'eck! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
t' Channel Islands. And I believe that should be bai 'eck. However, the thing is now blue and I have added an unimpeachable source. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original "Noo Joizey Cabbage"? Was gonna nominate this guy, but it turns out he's from Queens! fnaar, fnaar. Hey, who mentioned peaches?! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Could one of you wags please upload the 1836 picture found here and with provenance on the 2nd page here while I run to t'chemist's and back? Thankee. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ...um, is that a "free public domain" image or a "copyright expired because so old" image? 19:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking the latter - am I wrong? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Have now uploaded, as per your advice. Maybe something vital missing wrt Permission. Not sure what else to add. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And I can now see image file pages again, having been instructed how to expunge the Media Viewer from my preferences. By the way, DYK is safe for now - I've hit a wall at 1415. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'sno biggie, dude. .. but quarter past two seems a very arbitrary time for such a critical creative juncture!? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin time?[edit]

Were you aware? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note. But I would need to get a lot of Wikipedians eliminated before I get to number 1. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q[edit]

Crisco 1492, Yngvadottir, Dougweller--did I order Rever de l'Asie: Exotisme et litterature coloniale aux Indes, en Indochine et en Insulinde for you? Drmies (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't recall you ever mentioning it. Could you have ordered it for Oeroeg or another article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please[edit]

Here we have an editor who has been less than 100% helpful and civil in the past post a rather spiteful/hateful comment at A guy saved by Jesus's user page (which I rev-deleted per RD2). What do you think? Go Phightins! 21:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, your RevDel is perfectly justified, for starters. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I figured as much. As far as my comment regarding a possible block for future comments of that nature, that seems reasonable per what was a rather clear-cut personal attack of another user's religion, but if you scroll up the page a little bit, I have had one minor encounter with that editor before. Normally, I would not be concerned, but it was somewhat recent, so would you say I am too involved to issue such a block should it prove necessary? Go Phightins! 21:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They've done positive things as well and that's a redeeming factor. I don't know why someone would go fuck up someone's user page like that--maybe if they're drunk. But your "only warning" seems perfectly appropriate to me and no, I don't think you are too invooooolved with them at all. If they make another edit like that (by which I mean both insult and place), any admin should block them. Onward Christian soldier, Drmies (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I am going to say it is. I'm surprised you've never heard it. Here. Go Phightins! 22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Beatrijs (Dutch magazine) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuneiform Records[edit]

Drmies, you say "there is no point in listing the catalog" but at the label's website there is no facility for searching, no alphabetical listing, no reference to release number and no links to the NUMEROUS wiki links. I strongly disagree with you. I have started creating the table because there is no equivalent anywhere online (I looked -- did you?) I realize it may sound like promotion for the label, but I have no connection to the label. The label, on the other hand, has HUNDREDS of links into the main body of Wikipedia. -rcarlberg

  • Rcarlberg, the article has the link to the website, which has a link to the catalog and to the roster. Commonly, if some list is found on a website also, we don't list--think Lego toys and stuff like that. Moreover, nothing in the article was reliably referenced in the first place, and I strongly disagree with the bandcamp links (never mind that they were inline URLs, which are discouraged) for the downloads. You will find other editors, no doubt, who think differently, but this is what I think. A list of notable artists, that's a much better option--but instead of using our time and electrons drawing up catalogs, isn't that energy better spent writing verified text on the record label? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Wikipedia articles should be written by people who care about the subject matter. You obviously are not aware of the "label identity" of Cuneiform and their central position in the music I love, Rock in Opposition. Many times I have attempted to find particular releases, or research connections between releases, and no centralized resource exists anywhere online. I pulled together a dozen sources to create my table and thought it provided a unique and valuable tool for lovers of this genre. Wiki articles should bind together other Wiki articles, providing coherence to diverse topics. You apparently have no cognizance of, nor sympathy for, what you destroyed. Rcarlberg (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would also nice if wiki editors could be consistant: List_of_ECM_Records_albums Rcarlberg (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that would be nice. It's important that Wikipedia users care for the content that they write: too much care for the topic (in this case, a company), that's a different thing. It would also be nice if I got a dollar, or maybe ten, every time someone comes by and accuses me of "destroying" shit. You created some articles--great. I wrote almost a thousand of them. Looking at Mandrake Memorial and Progman Cometh, I see you are more familiar with listing things and linking to blogs than with serious article writing. Your "unique sources" for the article we're talking about are Bandcamp links--great, just great. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I took out the download links, to make it match the ECM Records catalog, would that be acceptable? Rcarlberg (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll make you a proposition. You say this label is "central" in some way--improve the article by adding references to reliable sources--real reliable ones, not blogs and zines. Yes, those links really have to go: it makes the article look like, well, the company website. Finally, don't take my word for anything: I'm just one person with an opinion, and I know we have similar articles with lists (and for the most part I completely disagree, nor do I see why we need to list the ECM catalog)--post a note on the relevant project talk page. There's some activity sometimes on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels: drop a note there and say "hey, is this acceptable, and under what conditions". I think that's the best way forward. Good luck--and don't worry, I have no intention of messing with the article. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Listen, I'm not questioning your "senior editor" status. Half the stuff on your talk page is gibberish to me (WAY over my head). I'm just a part-timer who dabbles in subjects that interest me, and add relevant information when I have some expertise. But I'm baffled by your comment "add some references to reliable sources" -- dude, I had over 400 links to other Wikipedia articles! That table was the central hub of a massive collection of already-vetted wikis. And how can one "add references" if "inline URLs" (i.e. outside sources) "are discouraged"? Help me understand -- I'm not trying to be obtuse, I really don't understand. By the way, you won't find any links to "blogs or zines" anywhere in that material. Rcarlberg (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I've posted the question in the relevant discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels. It doesn't appear to be a very active discussion however -- last post before mine was in April. How soon should I expect somebody to notice? Rcarlberg (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • What Cuneiform and ECM Records share, which to the outsider may not be obvious, and is almost UNIQUE to these two labels, is a "label identity." Anyone liking one release on the label is pretty assured of liking other releases on the label. It's common therefore for buyers to want to be able to see what else they've released -- by date, by artist, by catalog number. I don't know about ECM's website -- because frankly I've never cared enough to look -- but I know with Cuneiform's website this research is severely hampered because the information isn't presented in a user-friendly format (hell, catalog numbers aren't even LISTED). My table not only provided this service to Wikipedia readers, but it tied together the nearly 400 albums released by the label and the over 400 citations listed in Wikipedia. By following links from an individual band's wiki page, an interested person could explore the rest of Cuneiform's offerings and follow the links out to the rest of the artists. It was like a spider web or a central hub, tying together HUNDREDS of otherwise unrelated wiki pages. 50.135.2.92 (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wish ECM Records weren't such a poorly written article: it's easy to establish the "unique" position of the label with reliable sources (repeating "unique" all over the place does't help). That this is the case for your label remains to be seen, and you can undercut that part by, as I've suggested before, improving the article. As for the catalog, this could be done by creating and adding "Category: Cuneiform Records release" or something like that on the individual articles, which is much less burdensome than the long list. What you don't seem to want to get is that these are also editorial decisions, and an article consisting for 90% of a catalog simply looks like shit. More content, less list. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack in username and edit summary[edit]

Here. That edit has a vague source too. My Wiki energy is getting lower for continuous personal attacks. Tito☸Dutta 06:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titodutta, taken care of. First time I've seen a username insulting a particular user. Hmmmm, DrmiesHatesBacon sounds like a good username. Bgwhite (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly doctors make bad treatments ("zachte heelmeesters..."). It was insulting indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha yes. How is life on the run, K-stick? How's your tan? Drmies (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and only on the arm that hangs out of the tractor window ;-) the panda ₯’ 11:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP/Crime question[edit]

Hi there! Since you're an admin and have posted on the Crime Project page, I figured you'd be a good person to ask. What is the threshold for including allegations of a crime, specifically child molestation? The edit in question is here on an article about a person who died last year. WP:BDP mentions that BLP policies can be extended after death. Frankly, I don't think the sources are good enough to warrant inclusion and I'm not a fan of including allegations at all. But I'm trying to learn where the line is for allegations and rumors of crimes. Your input would be appreciated. Please tag me with {{U}} or {{replyto}} to ping me in reply! Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • EvergreenFir, I have no doubt that different people, admins and others, will draw different lines, but I drew one here ("no. needs much stronger, better sourcing than one single article in a local paper"). There's still family and what not to consider, and such allegations are so serious that one newspaper article doesn't cut it, in my opinion. No doubt Hzh is not going to like this, and again, others may disagree; you could, if you like, post on WP:BLPN and see what they say there, but I am pretty conservative when it comes to biographies of living and other people. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I tried to "unaccept" the change but was unable to; I hate pending changes. So I had to revert that and a subsequent edit. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with both your assessment that in this case allegations (not convictions) shouldn't be included, and that pending changes is pretty clunky. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • also, Hzh is a reviewer, so you wouldn't be able to decline the change, as it was automatically accepted. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, but my screen gave me the option of unaccepting, and their second edit was accepted by someone. And that's the stuff I don't understand: when I make a change in a PC article it shows up as pending acceptance in the history. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your input. I'm glad I'm not alone on this. I too am pretty conservative about allegations and such (e.g., see Talk:Frazier_Glenn_Miller,_Jr.#Authorities_say_Miller_was_allegedly_caught_with_black_prostitute for example). Let's see what happens with this one and I'll open a talk page discussion now. Will use BLPN if need be. Thanks again! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. Let us know if stuff gets out of hand. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this a little while ago (after I saw EvergreenFir's post). I agree with Drmies. There just isn't enough coverage even if he'd been dead longer, and certainly not at this time. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The edit was original reverted because it was based on apparently false grounds - it isn't a minor blog, and I don't see anyone trying to refute it apart from his fans. Far too often I see fans trying to whitewash their heroes on Wikipedia by removing embarrassing details about their lives, even when sourced and firmly established such as a prison record. The deciding factor was the accusers - his former manager who claimed his own daughter was abused, and his former wife. It's not some rumors as the person who removed it claimed, and the article appears to be a fair attempt to establish the truth in response to the allegations. In this case I don't feel strongly about whether it should stay or not, just that I don't like fans who try to whitewash their own heroes. Hzh (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In doubt...[edit]

I have the idea that I murder this draft when I launch it this state (except some polishing to do): User:The Banner/Workpage18. Should I put it in the fridge for a while, till I find more sources? The Banner talk 19:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I don't know. Michelin star means automatic notability, right? I made a few little tweaks (WP:OVERLINK, for instance, and not putting the award in the first line); I think it would be wise to remove the LinkedIn link and go for other sources, but hey. Oh, wait, so he doesn't work at Dromoland anymore? Drmies (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strange enough, WP:GNG overrides the Michelin star. At least, Fergus Moore was removed. That makes my dependence on Linkedin so awkward. I think I need some good old paper magazines but have no idea which one and where to find it... I try the Reference Library in Ennis next week. The Banner talk 20:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban[edit]

I thought this post of mine was pretty good quality. Could you please tell me why you disagreed? Useitorloseit (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I want to make sure it's clear to the powers that be that there was a legitimate split over consensus, and that very few people actually joined in. My last 2 edits 40 41, which were different, had a combined total of only 6 editors who commented, and they split 3-3. Aside from those 6 editors, NONE of the people in the current survey had EVER commented or even participated in the discussions, with the sole exception of Gamaliel (who started this ANI post and who once voted “Opposed – DEADHORSE” with no further comment42). Again, the idea that discussion has been clearcut is a fiction created by opposing editors. Consensus can only be worked out by good-faith discussion, not repeatedly posting on noticeboards and poisoning the well against people, as has been done here. Several of the survey votes are traceable to noticeboard watchers who’ve seen these complaints raised over and over and are voting based solely on that. I renew my request for the RfC to run its course – the article is untouched and there’s no harm being done. I also believe making false statements on ANI ought to have some consequences."

  • The grammar is impeccable, but I am merely establishing the consensus in that ANI thread, where the overwhelming majority presented arguments for the topic ban. Sorry, but that's the way this cookie crumbled. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they presented arguments, but consensus is supposed to go by quality of argument, not number. I praised you earlier for the way you evaluated each comment in another request for closure, and I had hoped you might do the same here. Like I said, a 3-3 consensus existed here, which seems to me to be a pretty strong argument. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate that, but there's too many comments to tackle individually, and the consensus is clear, at least in my opinion. You are welcome to challenge that, of course, in the appropriate forum. As for the RfC, that will run its own course; it's still open, and I won't be the one closing it. (And I know you don't like Ian.Thompson's last comment on your talk page, but he has a point.) Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood why people lectured me: a couple were opposed to the edit and trashed the debate, and the rest couldn't be bothered to read through the resulting mess. "Too many comments to tackle individually". Useitorloseit (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Useitorloseit I would have closed that thread the same way – by my count, that AN/I thread is at 11–3, and of those 11 supporting a topic ban, I am not finding any !votes worth throwing out for lack of substance. That's a pretty clear consensus, which Drmies judged appropriately. Go Phightins! 23:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had stated I'd accept the outcome of the RfC and if I didn't I'd support a ban myself. I just think that whole ANI thing was totally unnecessary. The RfC could have played out, the article wouldn't end up changing, editors could ignore the debate, and I'd be without a sanction. Sometimes things will sort themselves out on their own. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe. But those 11 editors didn't think it that unnecessary. Edit-warring with an admin on ANI has a tendency to draw some attention. That's not why you were banned, but it's probably why some editors looked where they otherwise might not have looked, and that they found what they did, well, that wasn't too difficult, I imagine. Want to move forward? Edit other articles, show that you are a user of good faith whose intent is not to champion one thing in one article, and then ask for a reevaluation--or just live with the ban. Best, Drmies (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the one who started the ANI thread admitted "there's a reasonable case for inclusion" of my edit.[[37]] So I don't see how he can say that yet still claim I should be blocked. You're allowed to have narrow interests, just not an improper purpose, and he admits my edit is reasonable. I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Context, context, context. There's a difference between article content and user behavior. The topic ban was a result of your behavior. While it is fine to have narrow interests, it is unacceptable to let those interests get in the way of basic cooperation. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a reasonable case for my edit, then I'm probably not misbehaving by seeking greater input. When there's actually a 3-3 split in consensus and I'm trying to settle it via RfC, going to ANI and saying "DEADHORSE" is not basic cooperation. In case you didn't notice, the RfC had finally settled it for me, so the process was finally about to end anyway. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request for information on alternate accounts[edit]

Thanks 50.131.215.117 (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked![edit]

I meant to block Drmyes (talk · contribs), who apparently wants to be you. However, his diabolical plan worked and I managed to momentarily block you. Sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have had my laugh for the day. I was looking for the thank button on the (incorrect) block, apparently it doesn't exist. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's really Drmies's doubly diabolical plan to create the "false" impersonator, then block it, and "accidentally" forget to disable autoblocking, thereby managing to enforce a 24h wikibreak:) Very clever, Drmies, but no match for Acroterion. Better luck next time, now back to work. :) DMacks (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had I known it would be so well received I'd have left it up longer. I note that my first act as an admin in 2007 was to accidentally block myself (golly, what does this button do?), so it's not a new problem. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)At least it wasn't something you'd have to really be paying attention to to notice the difference, like Drmìes. Come to think of it, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to sock and block that account just to keep that from happening. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my defense, they were screwing around in Drmies' userspace at User:Drmies/Edit.php and I didn't spot the shift in username. Diabolical! Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 3)Somebody wants to be Drmies-twin!? I'd take that as a mark of honour. Someone must really admire you that much that they went to the extreme of being Drmyes. An infatuated stalker perhaps? Lol. Only pullin' your leg, my friend. May I bite the fake Drmyes' ankles? I'm feeling rather puckish at the minute. Wes Mᴥuse 02:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about username shifts and twins, this diff provides some more examples. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies had many opportunities to stop the behavior that led to this block. He has only himselves to blame.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The many Drmies. And their bacony goodness. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support block of Drmies. Clearly not here to create an encyclopedia.Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My mobile phone autocorrect has informed me that Drmies is a sockpuppet of an master named "Demise", and tries to invoke the sockmaster whenever I try to mention him. Will someone please conduct a thorough investigation? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So...you want me to...block your phone for mis-attributional-impersonation? DMacks (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you block my phone, I am lost, and Drmyes/Demise wins. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, dude, can't you keep out of trouble? Blocked again? BMK (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • support block. This is the last straw - creating a doppleganger account that he then uses to vandalize his own page? The nefarious DrMies will stop at nothing to disrupt this pedia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I won't report anything. These events are just too much. :) BTW, we also have the two sock IPs 50.131.215.117 and 76.218.213.203 which took part in these shenanigans. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this block/Questions: The block was too fast (just to get some admin laughs?) I can see only one edit of this editor — simple and clear — no indication of any impersonation. Did you note, the username he chose "Drmyes" could mean DRM yes too. Search in Google with DRM Yes No, which is not related to Drmies. No attempt was made to talk to the user. No block notice has been posted. Tito☸Dutta 03:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Okay, it's fine. Tito☸Dutta 20:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you miss "They were screwing around in Drmies' userspace at User:Drmies/Edit.php"? --NeilN talk to me 03:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh ya, I read it after posting. It should be okay then, I can not see deleted pages. Tito☸Dutta 03:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I sure missed a party, didn't I. That'll teach me to watch Apocalypto--at least I didn't have to watch my own heart getting ripped out, haha. Dr.K., you reckon this was someone we know? Drmies (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need a userbox or a category - this has happened to me also. My clean block log was spoiled. But you Drmies, 'harsh criticism'? Never! Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still get a chuckle out of the edit summary of mine. Although a couple editors might agree with the "possible incompetence" part. --NeilN talk to me 12:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Yes, that could be expected when you refuse to hand out bitterballen and satékroketten. The Banner talk 11:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I've never had a satekroket. Bitterballen, oh I miss them. But I found a kind of substitute: bean fritters. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My unintended block had an extra helping of irony, given the CU hat and all. Welcome to the club!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but unlike you pussies (ahem) I also have a "real" block in my log... Drmies (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will the real Drmies stand up? You just ruined Drmies' chance of getting this covert paid editing job. Shame. CorporateM (Talk) 16:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. What's the job? Probably some boring management thing, or a stupid company that makes apps for apps. And what's "per edit" mean? Like, how I do them, or more like, you know, some of our highest-ranking editors by edit count? Drmies (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm indeed, Drmies. Corporate, what you do with ads like that is make NPOV additions, and each edit is a single sentence. Sentence. Save. Sentence. Save. Sentence. Save. Reference. Save. Boom, $20 for 3 minutes work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 They were stupid enough to post a link directly to the "Manage this posting" page of the Craigslist ad on Jimbo's Talk page, so I've been "edit-warring" with the poster as I delete the Craigslist ad over and over again, just for fun ;-)
No, what someone should actually do is "sign up" as a sting operation. Once you find out their agenda, it should be easy to find any editors that took them up on their offer. Seems to be the kind of thing user:smartse would enjoy. CorporateM (Talk) 14:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know that I charge more than $5 an edit CM! ;) SmartSE (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@user:Smartse my price varies widely between free and.... more than $5. Rumor has it Banc De Binary has a five figure offer out there, but my quote for deleting most of the article cited to junk sources comes in at $0 - quite the bargain. Once I get it unprotected anyway. It really doesn't take very much money to create problems here though. CorporateM (Talk) 22:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SPI: I blocked you for impersonating yourself, not for sockpuppetry, please try to keep it straight. Note to Yatzhek: that is meant to be humor, the block was accidental Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for setting the record straight, former admin! Drmies (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Just sitting on the side line, watching the fireworks. Blocked and reported to SPI, all in a day's work. Well done. I've been accidentally blocked too, by JamesBWatson for a minute because there were too many Thomases and he picked the wrong one, but I can't recall ever having been reported as a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. Thomas.W talk 17:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • All in a day's work for bicycle repairman! Drmies (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, evil twins. What's next? Evil shadows? (My lame attempt at humor, which I obviously lack.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Satekroket? Is that kroket on a stick? Kroket on a stick with peanut sauce? Or is it sateed (sp.) meat stuffed inside a shell of hardened mashed potatoes? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Breadcrumbs, Crisco--like a real kroket. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. So in the Indies, Hansel and Gretel left satekroket to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yatzhek[edit]

Now at AN3. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boom. I know both of you have IP sockpuppets or you are the sockpuppets of each other. This has been already investigated. Yatzhek (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... Why would he be talking to this account if it was his sock account? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've answered yourself. Yatzhek (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pointing out serious problems with your baseless accusations. No, they're not even baseless accusations, they're just temper tantrums. And how could Dougweller report you while Drmies was reverting you if they were the same person? One user making simultaneous edits makes sense, but not across two accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian.thomson, you'd be surprised (given what happened yesterday) at what I can do simultaneously. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez. I've asked Bbb23 to reconsider. I certainly didn't expect that. I'm guessing he didn't know about the SPI. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's funny is I just got a notification that another article of mine was linked somewhere--Rhinotomy. I'm quite the nose man, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. So, if an uninvolved Admin can unprotect, RPP? Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Templeton Thompson[edit]

Hi, your review is incomplete. Please see note on DYK template. Yoninah (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I understand that edit warring is against Wikipedia rules. Myself and another editor have had an extensive edit war, I understand the consequences of this and would like to know how i should deal with the situation from this point forward? Thank you KaneZolanski (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. Can you block yourself? Or, to put it a different way, can you just stop? If the edit war is over, then it's over: we're not likely to block retroactively; typically such blocks are made to prevent further disruption. The best way to deal with any such situation is to talk it out with the other editor and come to an agreement on the content, but that assumes that such agreement can be reached. You can always get a third opinion, at WP:3O; TransporterMan is pretty active there. TransporterMan, that's a good way to start, no? (I can really only speak generally since I don't know where the dispute was.) Drmies (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come to the Drmies talk page, confess your sins, cease all immoral behavior, receive forgiveness, and go forth to improve the encyclopedia and sin no more. But don't you ever dare to screw up again! The consequences will be dire. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well, maybe. I don't know about "dire". Drmies (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's only dire if you confess someone else's sins rather than your own. And especially dire if they aren't that person's true sins. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, you speak with some depth, as if you know things I don't. I don't like that. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A penny for the guy[edit]

I may have inadvertently breached the iban in place between me and the other guy. I have WP:Reference Desk/Miscellaneous on my watchlist - God knows why - and I spotted a question relating to coins. Being a keen member of the local coin collectors' club - their monthly meeting was last night - I jumped in on this one. Scrolling up afterwards, I discovered that this was actually a subsection to a question posed by User:HiLo48. Doubtless he will lodge a complaint with you, so I'll just dive in first and remove my contribution. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice the discussion below. Without further comment, my position and DB's coincide. --Pete (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we drop the ban?[edit]

I've been wondering since I last posted above, in the thread titled "Guidance please", if it would make sense to now drop the interaction ban between myself and Pete/Skyring. I would like to give it a go, maybe on a trial basis? There doesn't seem to be a clear explanation of how to go about it at WP:IBAN. Do you know?

I've been finally triggered into asking about this because Pete seems to again be jumping into a topic I initiated at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#The cost of low value coins and its sub-thread called "Countries that have done away with coins altogether". I'm willing to assume good faith and not see that as a breach, but it's obvious we have several areas where we both like editing.

So, what's the process, and what do you think of the idea? HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't even notice the thread immediately above. My questions still stand. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Butting in here a bit, but you would ask for an iban to be lifted at WP:AN, however I wouldn't recommend it. It usually requires both parties being ok with it, which I don't see. Also, recent concerns about civility make it very unlikely it would be granted by the community anyway. As far as his breach, it looks like he is taking care of the issue responsibly so far. Accidental breaches do happen, and as long as he reverts and backs away, I don't see anyone wanting to make a bigger deal of it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice about WP:AN. As I have already made clear, this request has nothing to do with seeing the breach mentioned above in a negative light. Being unable to communicate with the other party I cannot comment on his attitude to a lifting of the ban. I don't see how you could be so certain about it. And I'm not comfortable with your non-specific statement about civility. Generalised criticisms are rarely read by the real target as being about them. But it's obviously a criticism. Is it about me? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"recent concerns about civility" meant what it says, several have expressed their concerns at ANI recently, even if you discount anything I have said. Asking to remove (unrelated) sanctions when the prior discussions are fresh in the mind of many people may not be the best timing. It isn't about my opinion, it is who will show up, understanding human nature and common outcomes. I didn't suspect bad faith on the request, just noting that the original circumstances have changed, and you did specifically mention that as a "trigger". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop talking in such an obfuscatory way. Why on earth won't you come right out and say that YOUR concerns about civility ARE about me? And that they are wrong? Or do you believe they are right? Stop beating about the bush. You're really not being helpful here. I posted here in good faith, aiming to help the other editor, and you're effectively attacking me. I am not the one who has repeatedly breached the IBAN, and... (I have to stop now, but you know what I mean!) I really wish you hadn't butted in. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much clearer I can be HiLo. You've been taken to ANI recently, I'm betting many of those people would be against lifting an interaction ban right now. It isn't about me. If you don't see the utility in my advice, feel free to ignore it and go file a request at WP:AN, which I already linked in the first sentence of my first reply. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you fail to notice that all of those recent visits to ANI were thrown out of court? I seem to have fallen into a role at Wikipedia of successfully confronting and getting in the way of the POV pushers. They hate it. They take me to AN/I. They lose. Unfortunately, the nature of the appalling system that is AN/I means that boomerangs are all too rare, but some have occurred. My visits to AN/I prove nothing negative about me at all. In fact, they have led to the disappearance of some of the aforementioned POV pushers, and editors far more uncivil than I have been recently. (And Wikipedia is still unable to clearly define incivility anyway.) Your perspective on those visits of mine to AN/I is part of the problem. Mud gets thrown, unethically, and in the minds of some, like you, it sticks. It shouldn't. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A review of what Dennis Brown said shows that the reply above is not addressing anything written here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General principle: editors who revel in battleground behavior should not bother requesting that interaction bans be lifted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a bad thing to stop POV pushers? Right? I may have been taken to AN/I by bigots, but have not recently been found guilty of anything, even in that cesspit of injustice. I was asked to stop swearing. I did. I was asked to drop the personal attacks. I believe I have, even though the POV pushers keep claiming otherwise. (NOTE: No recent "convictions".) Yet you still condemn me. No respect from me, I'm afraid. I came here in good faith hoping to improve things, and all that's happened is that I have been attacked by people I wasn't asking, for things I didn't do. It's just like AN/I. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Concerns about civility" is hardly an attack or a condemnation. I don't know the ins and outs (or I don't remember whether I saw them), but if Dennis says it seems that there were concerns, then there were concerns, rightly or wrongly. And if there were concerns, then it's less likely that the iBan will be lifted--that seems uncontroversial to me. In Dennis's comments I see nothing accusatory. I'm not opposed to the lifting of the iBan if, but this needs to be proven, HiLo and Pete can promise to get along, and I don't mind them talking it over on this talk page. We also need to remember that, if I remember correctly, the fault for the disruption in the first place was not with HiLo; again, if I remember correctly that was the tenor of the discussion. So it would be up to Pete in the first instance to make amends. But HiLo, in general, you know that some people don't take too kindly to your tone, and if you like you can go claim that I am now accusing you of something, but you know that's not true. So I prefer to look at the initial post here (and thank you Dennis and others for commenting) as an overture in the right direction; the rest of the discussion does not implicate that the iBan MUST stay in place or anything like that--they merely point at procedure, tactics, and possible outcome. If Pete wishes to comment here they have my permission; I would only ask that Pete and HiLo observe diplomacy. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drmies for being a little more objective than your two colleagues in this thread. They seemed happy for wrong impressions to carry more weight than truth. They weren't interested in the positive things I have done here. They were happy to let the bigots and POV pushers carry the day. I am still pretty disgusted with what they posted above. Yes, some people think poorly of me. In most cases it's because they are POV pushers I get in the way of. That should be regarded as a huge positive here, not a negative. The others who think poorly of me are those influenced by impressions rather than facts. They want everything here to be sweetness and light at all times. It's not. They surely know it, but somehow don't want firm words ever to be written or spoken. And they don't care about the injustices of AN/I. They won't look beyond what the complainers say.
Anyway, back to where we should have been the whole time. What I wrote in my first post still stands. I cannot communicate directly with the other party to the IBAN. In recent discussions on the naming of matters to do with Soccer in Australia, overseen by User:John, I learnt a lot about stepping back from controversial discussions, and keeping out of trouble. It's been a good experience in what patience can achieve. It did keep me out of trouble. I cannot guarantee anything about my future behaviour. Nobody can. I can simply declare good intentions, plus a greater understanding of what works here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the mention HiLo48. I have worked with both users and know about their interaction ban. I have previously raised the possibility of removing this restriction. I would be willing to supervise any relaxation of the ban. I felt Pete's absence in the football discussion HiLo mentions above as he clearly has good ideas and is intelligent. I think HiLo hits it on the head with the comment about learning to stand back for a while and let things happen. I would add to that an emphasis on not personalising issues that may arise. I was just chatting to someone else about what does and doesn't work in discussions, and I was thinking of the Australian sport naming rules discussions. Anyway, sorry to intrude Drmies, and ping me if you think I can facilitate your process, guys. --John (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John. Yes, you're right about not personalising issues. I found the simplest approach was trying to never use the word "you" on a Talk page. Unless it was a positive comment, of course. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Drmies! I'm finding the iban awkward and confusing. When I supported it in the original ANI discussion, it was in the expectation that, as per the wording, we could continue to participate in discussion and editing, so long as there was no interaction. As HiLo48 correctly notes above, there are many areas where our interests overlap.
    • The big attraction was the lack of interaction; HiLo's discussion style centres around attacking and commenting on other editors, specifically those he disagrees with. I spotted this the other day and I wondered at the lack of insight involved in making that statement. All too often, instead of following the logos, he attacks other editors, highlighting his perceptions of their motivations, their religious faith, their political allegiance, their cultural loyalty. Sometimes these attacks are savage and personal. Other editors are described as incompetent, ignorant, dumb, stupid, and full of bullshit. I just did a search for "HiLo48" and "incompetent" and found this discussion near the top of a long hit list. HiLo48's debating partners will recognise the type of editor described. Someone who has an unshakable inner truth, who makes bold statements without any reference other than their own perceptions, who is impervious to facts and logic, who becomes emotional and irrational when pressed. All this is extremely disruptive and not conducive to the smooth functioning of a collaborative project.
    • I recognise that this could have described my own behaviour, years in the past, honed in the diplomatic niceties of Usenet. I like to think that I have learnt from experience and philosophical study. I now try to move away from discussing the editor and to find good, reliable sources for my positions. My contributions are full of links and pointers to wikipolicy.
    • I'm seeing no similar change with HiLo48. On any given day, his posts are full of words such as "silly", "stupid" "ignorance" and the like. When he disagrees with someone, they are at fault. He is never wrong. When he is shown to be wrong, he melts down.
    • We don't get along in discussion. I've had some truly appalling outbursts aimed at me. Vile language, attempted outing, edit-warring, improper allegations. Frankly, I'm enjoying the holiday from the stress.
    • I find it inconvenient to check to see if HiLo48 has participated in a discussion that interests me. All too often this is the case and I am forced to withhold whatever contribution I might have intended. I am especially irritated by being denied participation in RfCs and other polls. But I can deal with that. I can always find happiness and calm with a moment's reflection.
    • Without I see some actual evidence of change, rather than promises, I'm not going to agree to lifting the iban. It's an umbrella and a security blanket, sometimes tiresome to carry around, but invaluable when needed. --Pete (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright then, I think that's clear. John, I think we need to keep things as they are, at least for the while. Thank you HiLo, thank you Pete--let the non-communication continue. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I am now forced to agree. That's not a statement about the comments above, but it's obvious that the ban needs to remain. Oh well, I tried. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hashtag[edit]

Here is your chance to add to the glorious Category:Hashtags, #PrayforMoncton. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_68&oldid=1146617861"