User talk:Drmies/Archive 91

ip

You should block me if I vandalize --166.173.248.68 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. GAB^Hello! 19:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?! --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should block me if I vandalize - too. Louella Lander (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eine Geschichte so Lange es hat kein Ende. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

This newbie has important 'stuff' to drive you bonkers with. Can you really just bury your head in the sand? Of course you can - and should - when your sanity is a stake! Should you flush WikiLove messages? Of course you can/should. In fact, I'm gagging on it even as my cursor hovers above the send button.

Uh-oh... I don't think I can resist the compulsion.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Have you left Wikipedia? If so, I am extremely sorry to hear this and can only wish you the best of luck. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 01:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come back soon, mon vieux. We really can't operate without your sanity/reality-check. See you soon. Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that the lack of a retirement message means that he's in need of a detox... and that it's not a permanent decision. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Eric Corbett has been unblocked, although he now says he intends to leave. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, no, not you too! Please come back as soon as you feel ready! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Famous disappearing admin trick? Or just untying that magic wiki-knot for a while? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember

This editor has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian on 20 February 2012.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember

We're waiting for you at Wikipediocracy. The Hasten The Day types won't bite much and you'll be surprised how liberating it feels to be liberated... best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I doubt that anybody is really waiting for me. Besides, I do not enjoy the adversarial quality of the contributions there. For instance, I disagree with Jimbo quite frequently, but I'm not a Jimbo-hater. I appreciate what some members are doing, esp. Jayen, but I don't want to be on another fight site. We're already bad enough on this one, but at least we're also producing some content. I appreciate the note. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not waiting for you specifically as "waiting for you," but I think many of us would be more than interested if there were anything here which irritated you enough to reconsider editing. One recent matter which has gotten a lot of attention here comes to mind, unfortunately. It would however be a real shame to lose one of the most level-headed people we might have here. Having said that, if you just wanted to back away from the damn boards for awhile, I can't imagine that anyone would say you haven't more than earned that right. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say here that Michael van Rijn is a redlink (natch) and I have his autobiography, which I've read three times, without using a finger or moving my lips. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A something for you.

	The Interesting Award.
	The interesting Award for you. Louella Lander (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I left him chained to the railings outside the library, and when I came back he was gone." <cue song> Has anyone seen me 'arry? Me luvverly lickle 'arry? I don't care if anyone stares, I like my beefsteak rare, hasn't anyone seen me 'arry? <audience throws vegetables> Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rows and rows of chained up books and manuscripts line the tall library shelve - see Chained library for details. Louella Lander (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now books are sold for £75 a tonne (World of Books pay charity shops in the south of England for their discards) .Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By half a ton. The Real Hafsterix (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20,000 copies of "25 Shades of Grey" (the abridged edition), a complete set of the works of Enver Hoxha (in Klingon) and a copy of "Superman Number 1" with willies drawn on it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louella Lander (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does one do with a tonne (or half a ton) of books? Build revetments? Gives me the willies just thinking about it. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Build a small town. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make a library.

The Real Hafsterix (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What to do before you decide to drink tea or coffe: read Gustav III of Sweden's coffee experiment. Hafspajen (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee most likely raises the bloodsugar level of Type 1 diabetics, so I cut down to one or two cups a day--from eight or more. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Gustav you did well. Hafspajen (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dangerous Servants - Evils of Coffee, Alcohol and Tobacco Hafspajen (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Weirdest painting ever" +1. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of getting into it. That "good angel" is pretty ripped, and he's wearing a snazzy outfit I've never seen any angel (or anybody, ever) wear. All in all, a net positive for me. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

The page Lazos de Amor was deleted on grounds that it was too early and the remake title has not been released. But now Televisa has released an official title for the remake as Como tres gotas de agua. For proof take a look over [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Inception is set from April 18, 2015 as you can see [5]. It will replace Pasión y poder. Therefore am requesting you to restore the deleted page. Thank you.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyanchoka (talk • contribs) 09:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nyanchoka/Lazos de amor (2016 telenovela) Drmies (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kick Six

Drmies, recently you made a comment on an AFD, in which you stated the nominator Shirt58 needed to nominate Kick Six for violating NPA. You also stated that you were going to block him "for mentioning it in the first place". I'd like to understand, what did you mean by this statement? I am aware that WP:NPA has to do with personal attacks, but I didn't understand what you meant by nominating Kick Six for violating it. Thanks! Stubbleboy 06:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dog in this fight, just so you know, but it looks to me like the comment was a jocular reference to a game in which doc's team was on the losing end. "Quoth the raven, 'Nothing more.'" Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's for that very reason, Geoff, that I'm hopping over to your talk page to block you for a week. Stubbleboy, please read The Germans, but don't watch this--it has to be one of the funniest TV scenes ever and not everyone can handle it. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, the exact same joke at about two minutes in here--"you wouldn't have had much fun in Stalingrad". Drmies (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"How did they ever win?" Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Constance Leathart

Hello! Your submission of Constance Leathart 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! SusunW (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Drmies:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 17:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 17:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, et al.

Thanks Drmies, and also thanks NE Ent and Ched, for the initiatives you took toward lifting the iBAN concerning me. (It is so much nicer to edit freely and responsibly, than "at the barrel of a gun". In addition the issue of technical violations + escalating blocks seems blatently ill-conceived [*the community* came up w/ that?! OK it is still blatantly ill-conceived]. I can't imagine how EC must feel w/ the numerous restrictions pasted on him from expressing himself. [I'd rather read anything he has to say over anything arbs might have to say anywhere anytime.] Perhaps that is the reason he recently said he didn't give a flying for said sanctions [because to contemplate them even a moment is rather disgusting/demoralizing, and contrary to principles WP supposedly is driven by: open & honest discussion, collaboration, argumentation, evaluation, etc.].) Sincere, IHTS (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I wish you the best, IHTS, and I agree with your note on Eric. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pig breeder and cultural icon of the Potteries

Arthur Berry (playwright). Trying to trim this down is like trying to dig out pine nuts from a plate-full of overcooked spaghetti. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk)`

…and now the chef has arrived at the table. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the article, but man you make a hell of a sales pitch. We should put you on salary. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor and protect

Can you look after Mar Thoma Syrian Church and protect it. There are no new facts regarding its history or its existed ideologies. I don't know much about Wikipedia editing, and I guess you are a user with Admin status. If so I kindly request you to protect the article from pranksters.

(talk page stalker) Pages tend to be protected only if there is some sort of history of vandalism or misuse. If as you say in this case the article is basically stable, the best thing to do would be to work with others and try to bring it up to FA level. All articles are at least implicitly supposed to be potentially FA candidates, and until this is one there is at least the possibility that someone would be willing to bring it up to GA or FA level. It might make more sense to contact the India and Christianity WikiProjects, and maybe others, and request a peer review which might indicate any weaknesses visible to the reviewers. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John Carter. Just for fun you should look into all those Thomas in India articles. It's not as bad as the caste articles, but that's not saying much. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Constance Leathart

On 3 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constance Leathart, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that RAF pilot Constance Leathart, one of the first women to fly over the Alps, flew heavy bombers in World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constance Leathart. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't exactly have to be Nostradamus to predict this.... After I made an edit to avoid the otherwise inevitable (although I personally much prefer it your original way), my addition was removed before the hook hit the Main Page, and, lo and behold, the inevitable happened. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I find it funny, as a teacher of grammar, that this was called an error. Thanks Mandarax: you are a champion. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate seeing this repeatedly reported as an error. And whenever challenged, the "the" is always strenuously defended as an absolutely necessary correction. I've briefly discussed this on my talk page (this section and this one) when users questioned my reason for preemptively adding "the". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The inevitable happened also on Talk:Jean Sibelius, including the same user among others whose predictable arrival Martin knew about, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, elsewhere I just removed an infobox, but I think even a notorious infobox criminal would agree with the reasoning in my edit summary, and see that doing so was correct. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody but me been called infobox criminal? - About that infobox, you are right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Template:Infobox criminal}}?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's that going to be, a navbox with me as the only link? I have it in prominent red and with attribution on my user page. For Halloween, I made {{User monster}}, but will move it to a less specific {{User allegedly}},where you could word "This user is an infobox criminal, allegedly". - Look at today's opera, Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria: no umbrella was needed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone called Constant Leather deserves a DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And her brothers, Corinthian and Imperial. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And not forgetting her charming son Elfor. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And her father, with his Hunter green bandana. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have some very odd habits, Xantho. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the odd habit of creating content. Remember nl:Il Gardellino, Drmies? I can't read that, will go for {{user women}} from Asia, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We know how you love your music, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to write that I prepared the little garden, ready for planting some flowers of Flemish in il Gardellino‎, but now it turns out that it isn't a garden but a song bird ;) - flowers and popcorn to be found in my latest boxes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But...you already wrote that one. I have little to add--there's not that much coverage. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add the little ;) - if only for me proudly saying that I am a woman and worked with you (like with Giano and Eric), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pride is all mine. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please undo your close for now, until after the election? It was my exercise for the candidates: see how far they look around, - doesn't work if you do it for them;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to her, doktor! She's a notorious infoboxen criminal, just trying to trip up your chances at foundership!!111! :-) User:Gerda_Arendt, of course your arb-question still works, just update your questions to link to the revision before the close, instead of linking to the "live" article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have observed, that's what I did for those who didn't yet reply. Drmies, you failed, you didn't follow the instructions ;) - Will you please extend your apologies (in the close) to Voceditenore and the others whose arguments you found not convincing enough? I love Falstaff ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I've been pinged, let alone need to be apologized to. Is this about the infobox farrago at Talk:Joseph (opera)? I didn't opine one way or another about the infobox there—only about another editor's behaviour. So, no apology is necessary. I would have supported one, but I make it a practice to exit from any infobox discussion which immediately descends into posturing, name-calling and personal attacks. Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Du'a Arafah

Drmies, I was wondering whether the copyedit and other fixes have improved the article sufficiently for you, and whether you wanted to finish the review. If you'd rather someone else did, I can always call for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you stopped by yesterday, after the most recent ping, and removed a word from the article, but didn't continue the review. Will you be returning to do that? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Titia Brongersma

There's a bit more about Titia Brongersma in Dutch and West Frisian. Don't know if you have any proficiency in the latter, but it's fun just to mention it conversationally. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, doe nag es van dat beist in dat bienenwasserskompie? That's West-Frisian for you--my mother's native tongue, haha. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you meant Frysk. Pshaw--a language for peasants, not cultured. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelabarth22

I guess I was unclear on the admin board, sorry about that. What I meant was that the user is either COI (in case we AGF) or a troll (in case we don't). EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An orgy of redirects

Hi, Dr. I've run across this sort of thing recently, and am frankly impressed by the persistence [6], but I can't imagine that these are necessary. Anyway, I didn't know quite who to take this to, and I thought of you, what with it being about breasts and all. Hoping you're very well. Alias 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No no no this is not OK. Please escalate to ANI--I gotta run and get the kids and won't be on for a while. Talk page stalkers, please feel free to weigh in. Please. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread at ANI. I'm going out too, but I think this may not be new territory for this editor, and now others can have a look. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I saw Tubular Boobies play CBGB's circa 1985. ‑ iridescent 21:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1979, I would think. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that jerk GiantSnowman gets to rack up the admin credits. Darn it. I'm about to go look at the ANI discussion but I gotta say, I have not yet seen a regular editor do something like that. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow this link, and keep hitting "next 5000" until you get bored. By my estimate he's created at least 50,000 and probably nearer 100,000 nuisance redirects, over a period of almost a decade. (I think Anti-trousers were the support band for Tubular Boobies.) ‑ iridescent 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried an orgy of redirects once, but I ran out of pop corn. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This is actually the fourth case in a week coming to ANI about the excessive creation of needless redirects. We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of implausible redirects. Two editors ended up being blocked but I think they were socking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, you're being far too generous; click that link I posted just above. This admin (admin!) has created over 80,000 (no, that's not a typo) pages, of which I'd roughly estimate 90-95% are inappropriate redirects. ‑ iridescent 23:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted dozens, or hundreds, I don't know. When I click "mass nuke" I get only his most recently created stuff--I need to delete stuff from September but I don't know if those options exist, and there is no documentation. GiantSnowman, how did you do that? Drmies (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at ANI again. Two thoughts: First, I saw something was amiss, and a quick check of deleted threads on his talk page indicated that this wasn't the first time, but I hadn't a clue just what this would turn up--I feel like Frank Wills. Second, I never read an ANI report that made me laugh so hard, without having that be its (main) intention. Even some of the jokes above are pretty good. Wow. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

99, first of all, you did an excellent job: you have a real nose for it. I mean, it takes one to know one and my nose is just fine, if I say so myself, but yours is a Cyrano-size anomaly and we should put you on payroll. Second, I saw some jokes too, but I find it hard to laugh--I've been deleting this kid's stuff, and you know, "Shrunken tits", there's just nothing funny about that. Sorry. By the same token I find myself trying to stop other editors from blocking him, haha. The admin bit, I do think that should go.
Hey, thanks again. Time for a cocktail and some din-dins. 00:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't say all of it was funny. But the scope knocks me over, and the clean up must be enormous. Confirms my decision long ago not to accept offers to nominate me for admin. That said, I have great respect for you and your colleagues. It's the reason I trust you and bring some of these flaming bags to you to put out. Always wear heavy shoes. And thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not an admin I'm not welcome to weigh in at ANI re: actions, but I can not see not de-sopping and blocking. This is not a punitive measure, but a community acknowledgment that Wikipedia will not allow even its best editors to mess around like this. To me, there's absolutely no hesitation on the matter, and while some have speculated how this may play in the press, I think it's compounding the felony not to take a clear and swift action. I report school kids to AIV every day for committing a half dozen puerile edits. This is, by consensus, pretty spectacular. Admins ought to take care of it. Thanks, Dr. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I so regret having reported this, Drmies. This has very little to do with a desire for punitive action, and a lot to do with recognizing why this was so terribly inappropriate, especially coming from a long time administrator. I wish the editor no harm. But the leeway being discussed reads to me like dialogue from Don Draper's office, a willingness to cut slack that I'd expect from another era. I'm sorry that I introduced the use of the word 'puerile' to describe the edits, as that seems to make them sound somehow less offensive. I initially found the conversation at ANI funny for the absurdity of the words being discussed; I regret this, too, never imagining that the user wouldn't be blocked. Of all the silly interactions that have upset me over the years here, the endless disruptions, copyright violations and promotional horseshit, nothing has struck me as so anemic and out of touch with a respect for gender--and just plain human--sensibilities as the discussion I initiated. I wish you so well, but tonight's snapshot is not a pleasant one. 2601:188:0:ABE6:8C40:C684:713F:6378 (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comments here, and really appreciate them [7]. Regards, 2601:188:0:ABE6:8C40:C684:713F:6378 (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the discussion is painful reading. One admin believes that Titty-fucks is a legitimate search term and restored the redirect. It's a fine expression when one is searching for porn but for Wikipedia?
It's hard to look at their recent page creation list and not think that it is unlikely someone will come to Wikipedia and search for "Inflamming titties" or "Booby atrophies". Don't you think any person looking for health information will look for Breast inflammation and Atrophy of the breast? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, 'titty-fucks'? Not even 'titty fuck', which though inappropriate as a redirect is not an altogether unlikely search term, but titty, hyphen, fucks? God help us. Alakzi (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alakzi, I thought I saw you defend the editor somewhere on one of those boards--you know I appreciate a good defense. Yes, one problem with those many permutations were the many permutations, to the point of complete silliness. Now, Titty fuck has existed for a long time, and it's auto-filled in to Titty fucking. Certainly they're both offensive but they're also happening terms. Mind you, one dictionary of slang actually hyphenates it; I expected to see a bunch of valid occurrences in Google Books, but they're not there (here it's a brand name). "Mammary intercourse" sounds so clinical--but neither that nor "titty fuck" pop up (with valid hits) in JSTOR, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, perhaps 'titty fuck' has a lot more currency than I thought. I've seen the creation of "offensive" redirects being justified as a means for people to become aware of the proper terminology, and I can appreciate that. But - of course - there's also some very silly (and, if there's substance to the WO article, ideologically motivated) ones thrown in the mix - and all of the permutations you mention. Anyway, yeah, I did try try to defend them from the usual overreaction and subsequent stigmatisation, which I've probably failed at. Alakzi (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Alakzi, I thought it had a lot more currency than it did. Tells you how much I really know. I don't think you failed, but I know the feeling very well. Thanks, and stay out of trouble, Drmies (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I've not been very active lately. This discussion makes me shake my head, and I haven't even looked at what's on ANI. LadyofShalott 17:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the tip of a couple of icebergs. One of them is the 80,000 redirects, but another is related to this and maybe to this and to this. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Neelix thing seems unrelated. That's a political issue. The four independent redirect spams seem to be a separate problem. None of them make sense, and they're all different. The User:Jugdev/Programmatic media redirects seemed to be SEO for an article that didn't sell anything. There was the TX6785/Schutzstaffel issue, which seemed to be obsessive on one subject. User:Rubbish computer writes on his talk page of having "Wikipediholism" and trying to boost his edit count. And now this. I don't recall redirect spam being a serious problem before this week. Something to do with the 5 million article push? John Nagle (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is compounded by the fact that there is an accusation of involved adminning, which opens up more cans of worms. I am not (yet) familiar with the other things you mention. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#Redirect spam - why is this suddenly popular.3F for the other 3 incidents. They've all been dealt with. I did some work on cleaning up the mess related to Programmatic Media. That started as a COI issue and ended with everyone confused as to what, if anything, Jugdev was trying to do. The common theme of these redirect incidents is that they're all pointless. They benefit no one. Nor are they new-editor problems. All four issues involve long-time editors. This is puzzling. John Nagle (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

395 deleted. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	To Drmies. I wanted to thank you for your hard work deleting the redirects that resulted in the ANI thread. The discussion has blown up with discussions, emotions, and actions - it should be recognized that what you're doing is hard work. I appreciate it, and I thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--but all I did was some semi-mechanical grunt work. The real work was done by the invaluable IP editor known as 99. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr. You've been a great help in these sometimes odd waters, and I appreciate it. Nothing more than skimming through the recent changes page. I come across hundreds of disruptive edits, mostly garden variety which bring little notice, and happened upon this, never imagining that it was the work of an admin gone wild. So-called 99 because that used to be my IP range. I've no idea why it's flipped to this newer ungainly one...I'm no techie. And yeah, you deserve all the barnstars. Cheers. 2601:188:0:ABE6:80B1:14A7:1EB4:5451 (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review of draft requested

Drmies and talk page stalkers, could I please request a review of User:Yngvadottir/Nuffield Science Project? It's a bit of a scandal that this article doesn't yet exist, but I am about the last person who should write it and I'm not sure it's ready for main space; please check whether it makes sense and is neutral. (In terms of offline sources, I have provided links on some of the book pages, and others may be available through GoogleBooks; I also still have most of the books until Saturday.) It would also be lovely if someone can find a picture of physics apparatus from that era, or something, to illustrate the article, but I searched in vain on Commons. Maybe someone who knows more about the topic will have more luck. Many thanks. Bed now. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YOU shall became something else. Se my page. Hafspajen (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mainspaced it, since no one came by to say it is awful and biased: Nuffield Science Project. I would still welcome critiques, preferably before I return 3 of the books today. But I am prepared to defend it at AfD '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I've been old and sleepy. You wrote a great lead. When that comes up at AfD it'll be a speedy keep, "discussion closed for incompetence." Thank you for continuing to contribute, Y. Is it a relief to edit without a bit, or do you miss it? Remember, if you ever need any administrative help, please feel free to ping me day or night--I got nothing better to do. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem, my finishing it coincided with a crisis that had everybody very busy. I'm still too angry to make a good evaluation (but not about being desysopped as such); I do miss it a bit, as you can tell since I already asked you for one favor, and there's stuff I feel guilty about not being able to help with, but them's the breaks. ... Oh, and at least now I won't constantly be at risk of accidentally hitting rollback. Or blocking myself. Or deleting AN/I. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure how receptive I will be over the next couple months, I likely will not get my laptop back before I head across the pond next Sunday. But feel free to ask if needed. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're on the subject...

Since I saw you're involved in this discussion, and I trust your judgment, and I don't want to get into trouble -- can I just ask you: do you think it would be OK if I created Titty titty bang-bang as a redirect to Breast torture? EEng (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the film, though I've seen the DVD countless times for 2.99 at various gas stations. So I am not sure if the redirect is valid. Also, are you sure you don't have a metal beam in your skill in the reasoning place? I tried to check it on your brainscan, but when I clicked it there was so much coding I couldn't see the forest for the trees... Drmies (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your kind and thoughtful comments. Have you visited the Museums lately? EEng (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It taught me a new word: "hebetude". Yep, I have that too. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I've been entangled in weeds while getting my kid out of the water...that was not a fun experience. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"However, Lucas's early promise was cut short by his death from diphtheria. While he was administering chloroform during a tracheotomy operation on a child with diphtheria, the patient coughed into his face. Four days later, he too had diphtheria which killed him within 10 days." (I had to check that one up- I guess "Risked poison for himself" is preferable to "It was a cough that carried him off"). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the story, at least, is that he chose to continue the procedure rather than risk the pt's life by stopping to cleanse himself. There are two doctor-braved-diphtheria-and-paid-the-price stories on the Memorial, actually. The 13 Sep 2015 post in this series [8] an interesting analysis of the way in which the Memorial's stories "highlight both the dangers and the preoccupations of Victorian and Edwardian London." EEng (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this query makes me seem hopelessly out of touch, but I only drop in on ANI when there's nothing good on the pro-wrestling channel, and I have trouble keeping the dramatis personae straight: Is the crusader against prostitution/human trafficking also the creator of thousands of redirects along the lines of "pendulous boobies" and so on? EEng (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. One could psychologize, but that would be best done off-wiki. I suppose you're not a fan of college football, since Arkansas is playing LSU right now, and that's always interesting. Mind you, the prostitution thing really took on wings--it's a very impressive set of articles, and all very impressively detailed. One of the reasons I dislike writing biographies, esp. BLPs, is that at some point you have to stop writing or start writing up every single tidbit (even if that's explicitly verboten via WP:FART), and I just stop writing, since I get so sick of writing up and verifying and explaining and organizing all these bits of nothing. Our editor did not have that problem. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you're told and ...

Move Anne Isabella Byron, Baroness Byron -> Lady Byron. Name was decided in 2006, we use common name now. NE Ent 16:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Drmies (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Modules for administrators

...doesn't help your edit count, only your admin stats :) —SpacemanSpiff 19:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hafspajen has sentenced you to prolonged suffering

See here.[9] And I second that emotion, forthwith-indeedy. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I third it. Please. This year it matters enough that I will vote. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask if you were going to run this year. Interesting pool of candidates so far... --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, lefthand side of mouth: "Don't ask me--I don't know."[10]

Drmies, ritehand side of mouth: "I know now what an ArbCom motion is and what a request is; useless knowledge of course."[11]

You do know, you pants-on-fire. That's a personal attack on pants by the way, so don't block me. :-) Let's just mosey over and check your knowledge. How many edits do I see, to the arbcase pages? Almost triple-digits,[12] which is to say 92 94 statements by one User:Drmies already, and the year is still young. You recommended Yngvadottir, who has 4 such statements. You recommended BMK, who has 60. Both won't run. I appreciate that you don't wanna run either, but as Beeblebrox says, it is Your Turn. Sure sure, you can try and 'delegate' to some other people. Thanks for the list, it's helpful, but none of those people except Ponyo know me, so if you won't step up and run yourself, howsa bout you help find a replacement or three? You can twist arms better than me, you've got the training! 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I haven't thought about it, and once upon a time I think I wrote up a statement. I made 92 statements? I just added another one. I have no idea where most of those other statements went and if they served any purpose. I do wonder who likes me in Texas--surely it's not an A&M fan. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, think about it some more, por favor. Just think of all the new fame you will have, the first arbcom member from whatever tiny state it is you hail from! ;-) I'll ask around and see if anybody else likes you, but no, I am definitely no A&M fan myself. Perish the thought, sheesh. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A HARRIED CLERK: My sovereign lords, bestow yourself with speed: The case participants are bravely in their battles set, And will with all expedience charge on us!

ARB DRMIES: All things are ready, if our minds be so.

ARB BMK: Perish the man whose mind is backward now!

ARB DRMIES: Thou dost not wish more help from inactive members, coz?

ARB BMK: God's will! my liege, would you and I alone, Without more help, could fight this royal battle!

(With apologies to Henry V.) -- Euryalus (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC) {{outdent]] We few? We proud few? NE Ent 03:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Batch delete

There's an admin tool in twinkle called D-batch. Never used it myself, but it's supposed to take a page with a list of other pages and delete them all. Definitely more targeted than WP:NUKE. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see SpacemanSpiff beat me to it by several hours. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: Copy the list into an external editor and use search-n-replace to add the brackets to make them wikilinks. (2) Place the resulting material in a sandbox and save it (for example). (3) On your Twinlke pull-down menu, choose D-batch. Enter your rationale in the box provided. Press "submit query". Et voila. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you used, Diannaa? Drmies (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Be careful, it is a powerful tool. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can try it on Category:Social groups of India if you'd like. Might be a very good IAR way to deal with problems, and we could check to see if that merits L1 or L2 or L3461. —SpacemanSpiff 02:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to him, Dr. Mies! Try it on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Yeah Spiff, I'll get right on it, and I think L1 will do just fine. On another note, isn't it funny that we're going to have a lengthy discussion on Neelix but Malik and Yngvadottir were desysopped in a matter of hours, neither one of them posing any kind of immediate threat? Sure they're different cases, but the God of Irony doesn't care. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have extensive coverage on the shades of grey we should understand nuance? —SpacemanSpiff 03:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument, does Neelix pose an immediate threat right now? More specifically, does their access to sysop tools pose any credible threats? I'd rather think that the arbs went wrong with Malik and Yngvadottir but are a bit more reasonable in this situation, but that's just my 5 cents. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MLauba, I don't think anyone thinks he is an immediate threat. I don't want him desysopped for being an immediate threat--I want him desysopped relatively speedily. (By now, I've posted on ANI, I think on AN, then on the "Motions" page, then on the "Will the Arbs accept this page", and now I have to make the case again on the "real" ArbCom Request page?) Malik and Y were desysopped post-haste for no good reason at all using the procedure of "immediate threat": only a fool would think that either of them posed any kind of danger. I mean, for argument's sake, both have a long list of edits that served the encyclopedia; by contrast, it became clear that Neelix had a long list of edits that served his own POV, his church, and likely his ... personal interests. (Sorry I didn't see this earlier. Been kind of choppy lately.) Drmies (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you noted yourself, when I posted the previous, the concern, at least to my awareness, was still mostly limited to the gazillion redirects. Obviously, the situation has evolved since. That being said, as far as I'm concerned, I believe the desysopping of Malik and Yngva was the wrong way, and the approach taken here a more sound way. Neelix may need his bit removed, but I don't think a summary motion in the middle of an angry crowd yelling for his mop is the right answer. Regardless of my feelings about Neelix here, I believe "conduct grossly unbecoming" may be dealt by summary motion, but "loss of trust by a portion of the community" (or even non-extreme cases of conduct unbecoming) requires more than just an "off with their head". Or a reconfirmation RFA within a reasonable timeframe that allows for cooling down. Of course, if this proves to be an exception that just so happens to provide fairer proceedings to an admin demonstrating (among others) a trend to sexist editing, it may be time to rethink methods for recalling sitting arbs. The next desysops will be interesting. MLauba ^(Talk) 03:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I wouldn't have had a problem with that motion being put on the slow burner. I do believe that "grossly unbecoming" is the better term. I do not believe a reconfirmation RfA would have been a better way to settle it. The next desysop...do you have anyone in mind? Should I block those I want to block before I lose the tool? Drmies (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point about the next desysop wasn't specific - other admins will eventually come before arbcom for various reasons, and I was speculating whether Neelix was an example of a new trend of more cautious consideration, or an example of a completely different trend with much darker implications (that the "boys will be boys" admins get treated with kiddie gloves). A single outlier out of three data points don't make a trend, though. Sorry if it wasn't phrased very clearly. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was just funning. Your point is well taken, of course. One can't help but wonder if the "more cautious consideration" doesn't follow from the previous two not so careful considerations. The striking thing is that there was broad disagreement not just with the speed with which Malik and Y were desysopped but also with the basic fact that they were desysopped. (I'm not saying there was a consensus for this or that: you know what I mean--many editors disagreed.) In the case of Neelix there were a lot of editors in favor of a desysop, and that process was put on the slow track. I lost my username and password for the secret ArbCom file server so I don't know what all of them were thinking, and when, but it's striking. I do believe that in general the slow track is the more appropriate track, but there's slow and r e a l l y slow. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection

Drmies; I hadn't a clue what I stumbled across the other evening. I thought this was an experienced editor who went on bizarre, offensive jags, perhaps daring to get caught and be blocked--given that similar spates had happened recently, I figured there were probably socks involved, too. That said, I'm astounded by the sheer volume of input on several pages re: how best to proceed. Understand that for all my longevity here as a contributor and later as an anti-vandal IP account, I've never had an interest in (to me) the arcana of committee procedures (I was never much for it in academia, either). I wish there were a quiet and rapid de-sysopping process, as the aspect of a lengthy public shaming is unfortunate. Upon reflection I'm more ambivalent about the block, perhaps following your cue, but then I think about how offensive a lot of this is, especially to women, and can't muster much enthusiasm not to support a block. Not that my two cents matter. My part was stumbling upon the last redirects, by no means my best contribution here, and not something to include on my resume. The individual acted immaturely and insensitively for a long time. This calls not for some kind of approbation, but a simple removal from any position of responsibility on the website. Just musing. Very best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I feel the same way. After looking at the shit he created on Commons I was again tempted to block him (third or fourth time I felt that way), if only out of spit. I think what he did on Commons is actually worse (and imagine this--he looked at all the pictures he categorized, and looked at a lot of pictures to come up with the categories in the first place) and it's a lot harder to fix. On the bright side, no one on Commons and elsewhere cares about Commons, I suppose. Your two cents matter to me, and to a couple of other people as well.
No, I'm very grateful you brought it up. Arcane procedures: yes, I don't get it either. I think I know now what an ArbCom motion is and what a request is; useless knowledge of course. Anyway, I am quite set on making sure he doesn't keep the responsibility he has, and I have no doubt that a second ArbCom filing will achieve that result. It's just, well, more paperwork. I'm sure someone will file that shortly, and I hope someone will just copy some of the comments. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the business on the Commons. The thought is too depressing, and I might end up spending the whole day there. For research purposes. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a notorious definition of scope. Check Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:A beautiful Bridesmaid at a wedding eve.jpg. It's from a private photo album on Flickr and happened to carry the default license. While I can understand (not relate to) their fondness for anything genitalia, those pictures are from people who don't care about their privacy while examples like the one in this deletion request are of private people who uploaded stuff on Flickr but did not bother to change Flickr's default license. This is one of the tamer examples that I can think of. Then there's Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Redneck Girls Hanging out at The Beach.jpg. Though I did get another boat load of such images deleted, but it's disappointing to see stuff like this. —SpacemanSpiff 04:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. BTW, I just requested a name change for that second file. My first big fistfight at Commons was over the sanctorum images--since then I really haven't visited the place. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, they were not holy "sanctorum" images, but rather unholy santorum images. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, I was looking at my report to you from two years ago about a vandal who had created a very subtly altered image of a painting and then replaced all instances of the original painting with the altered version. Well, that led me to this. Such rich potential for colorful redirects! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, wait, what? Did I not follow up on something you brought up? Am I in trouble? Drmies (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Basalisk mentioned Greg House. Tonight my life partner and I watched that episode of House where he cut his leg open in his own bathtub. We watch that together in an effort to be a couple when we're so busy with kids and jobs and whatnot, but this episode was so dark that it just made us gloomy. (Basalisk must have gotten a real job, considering their lack of edits the last couple of months. Maybe Arb Com can can send them a Please Come Back card?) (And note how the edit before that silly one was made by...Euryalus. Coincidence?) Drmies (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's nothing you failed to follow up on; I just included that old report to show how I arrived at a list of items which I thought might've been made into more redirects if a certain person had been so inclined, although they're about different parts of the female anatomy than his apparent speciality. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Please remember I am a tedious functionary. Your subtle analogies are lost on me. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom assure me my card is in the post. Though I don't think DGG signed it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... wow... those are two excellent examples of "What is Wrong with Commons™". I enjoy their absurd over-categorization of images, which makes WP's over-categorization look relatively sane by comparison. I note the second image is in both the "standing women wearing bikinis" and "women wearing bikinis wearing sunglasses" categories, because you know, just "women wearing bikinis" is far too vague for the vast storehouse of boobie photos on commons. On the other hand, I do think deletions have gotten slightly less insane over the last year or two, you might be able to take another swing at that second one, which is unused on any WMF project. Looks like the first one is in use on the Italian Wiktionary. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. Bikinis can't wear sunglasses. EEng (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even better is theother photo in the "cofederate flag bikinis" category: File:Rebel Chick Confederate Bikini.jpg. It's a picture of a girl's ass, almost certainly taken without her knowledge or permission, unused on any WMF roject, but in 21 different categories. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take this. It's not like the above, but it's a private setting photo that a family contracted a professional photographer to take pictures of. It so happened that the photographer decided to share the photos with her clients via flickr instead of email, and used the default license on Flickr. The family doesn't want their picture plastered all over Wikipedia and elsewhere and have asked for deletion, twice. The professional photographer cancelled her Flickr account because of mass copying to Wikipedia (many of those images I had deleted; just see the damn titles! And categories, images that pictured two women were added to lesbianism, images that had featured bikinis were added to cleavage and so on!) This business of taking WP:Not censored and all that to absurd extremes is all too common there. —SpacemanSpiff 04:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I removed it from all the wikis I saw listed, including the Tamil one--my first edit there! That's SO exciting! Yeah, that's not right, and Taivo and Yann need to...well, they need to seriously reconsider what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But one can't fault the closing admin in these discussions. It's the policy that needs changing, they are following the policy and convention. I had some discussions on this with Jameslwoodward, one such is here (you have a category link there to find out how college girls look when they wash cars!). They need some stricter standards on this, just like WP:BLP. —SpacemanSpiff 05:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Instead of bashing Commons people because you don't agree with some deletion requests, it would be more productive to add useful arguments. The general policy is if it is in use and under a free license license, we keep it. Now there are obviously good reasons to delete images when there is some breach of privacy. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mothers and children eating ice cream at Kew Gardens.jpg‎ as an example of an long discussion about this issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, thank you for responding, but I agreed with the request, not with the close. It is obvious that someone made a mistake licensing those wedding photos, for instance, and while one can simply say "the rules are the rules", it would be more appropriate to make a real decision, the right one. Precisely that is what I don't see enough of in my admittedly limited experience on Commons. And now I will have a look at that discussion you linked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

administrative action needed Rupert Sheldrake article

Hello Drmies. There seems to be a gang of negative pov pushers in Rupert Sheldrake article. It is not a question of legitimate argument about info. A very simple fact that is verified across the board in mainstream references both pro , neutral and negative, define the person above as a Biologist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Biritish_Biologist_in_Lead_.2BMorphic_resonance_theory

The only reason they try to erase this simple fact is to discredit the man. I belive some administrative action is needed to protect from this vandalism. thank you.Bigbaby23 (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like admin action has indeed been taken, in the form of blocking the above user for edit warring.... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, are they putting sarcasm in the drinking water up there these days? I always knew you as someone who was as straight as an arrow. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For you

This is. It still doesn't tell me what it really is. LadyofShalott 22:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Here is a recipe but it's from the LA Times--Cullen328 knows they are not a reliable source for anything but Hollywood stars. Seriously, it's basically straight from the Joy. Mrs. Drmies takes exception to this recipe, claiming there's no raisins in a Jeff Davis pie--what does she know; she's from Northern Mississippi. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess Northern and Southern Mississippians bicker (I did not know that) but it can't be nearly as childish as the constant squabbling between Northern and Southern California. As a northerner, I am convinced that LA is the abode of crass opportunists, vapid starlets and Ferrari salespeople. They consider us way too laid back slackers short on ambition, except when it comes to silicon based technology. But whenever we visit Los Angeles, as Mrs. Cullen and I did a few months ago, we have a wonderful time. Despite your biting critique, Drmies, I cite the LAT quite often.

A branch of the Rombauer family settled in the Napa Valley where I live, and have been busily making wine here for 35 years. Chess pie mentions James Beard about the similar pies, but does not properly cite him. I was a member of his fan club as a young man, reading every one of his columns in the San Francisco Chronicle, and I learned a lot about cooking and fine dining from him. Hard to believe that he has been gone for 30 years. What an elegant writer he was!

An article that properly cites Rombauer and Beard on such a pie would be a pretty darned good article. I am heading out in minutes for a family gathering including both of my sons, so I will have to put the matter on the back burner. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This website says Beard had a recipe in the December, 1963 House and Garden. My wife is driving and I am smart phone Googling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book called Cooking and Baking During the War of Northern Aggression: A Unique Collection of Recipes Covering Everything from Bread and Crackers and Biscuits to Cookies and Layer Cakes and Pies as They Were Enjoyed by Heroes on the Southern Side of the War of Northern Aggression may shed light on the matter, though the title pushes a certain unique point of view. Google says it is "humor". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Mrs. Cullen to drive slower--you might finish before you get there. Have a wonderful evening with all the Cullens! Drmies (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link! The LoS has ordered a copy already, I'm sure. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so a Jefferson Davis pie is a Chess pie with added dates, raisins and pecans? I've had pecan pie and when visiting Nashville on business a few years ago, a Chess pie. (Bought a whole one at a famous Nashville roadhouse: "Yew wanna WHOLE pah?" "Yes'm. Just box it up for me, thanks.") Worlds apart, those two pies. That Beard link of Cullen's is for the classic Chess pie. And who knows how a true Southern grandma got herself all the way to Los Angeles so the Times could cajole the recipe from her for that other pie. Now there's a pie. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well, nuts--not necessarily pecans. And some spices. That pie looks gorgeous--much better than the one I made, which suffers also from bubblage on the top, foam from the eggs and buttermilk I suppose. And I can't make a goodlooking crust if my life depended on it. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could give up pie baking and run for ArbCom instead. There are openings, I hear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite. It is actually already a platform-plank of at least one arbcom-candidate that pecan is the official pie of the 'pedia. Another candidate is dithering betwixt pumpkin and pecan. Woe unto the pumpkin-faction, where shalt our champion emerge-eth from! 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, baking and ACE are not mutually exclusive activities, just yesterday a baked a bunch of chocolate chip cookies. -kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, as a South Carolinian born and bred and raised, this made me also think of Brown sugar pie (What? No article!), which in my neck of the woods was even more common than the ubiquitous pee-can pie. Are y'all familiar with that? Perhaps y'all need a copy of Charleston Receipts (by the Junior League of Charleston), wherein y'all'll also find an excellent recipe for She-crab soup. Mmm, mm, mm. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, the pee can is under the bed. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like inclusionism run wild! We have an article on brown sugar. We have an article on pie. Wikipedia is not a recipe book, so there is no point in having an article on brown sugar pie. Besides, there are no sources,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] let alone anything with 8 cites in scholar.google.com for instance.[20][21] Suggest a subsection of the extant article sugar_pie, to start with. Ping sugar-pie / merikan / not-suitable-dinnertime-conversation, to see if the regulars in the food-cabal agree with me on this one. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in the wrong part of the world for the cultural context here, but the sugar pie article says they're made from brown sugar, so I wonder if a "brown sugar pie" is just another name for that. If so, we can redirect it. But the article makes no mention of the South, so that doesn't sound right. And what do I know, really? The only pie I've ever baked was peach. Cheers. — Earwig ^talk 02:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different animal, as noted by the locales in the lede of that article. Brown sugar pie is a Southern animal [22]. I'm not sure I personally have all that much interest in creating the article, as I haven't eaten cane sugar in eons, and I've only ever worked on a handful of food articles. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Railway companies in the Dutch East Indies

Ahoy anoraks! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just almost started to translated nl:Atjeh_Tram--but have you looked at that article? Drmies (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Xanty, I did it anyway. A little bit. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I'll have a go sometime over the weekend (somehow got involved in helping with an article on business rates). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I've been largely absent over the past week, missing the drama (yay!) but I had a quick look at Neelix's deleted contributions .... good grief. Thank you (and Iridescent) for doing the cleanup. I had a look through the remaining redirects but lost the will to live. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RAN

You said " I understand that Tim (Carrite) has been ferrying content in a way allowed by ArbCom (thanks for doing that, Tim) and don't know why RAN didn't go that route here;"

The reason is simple: the committee inexplicably prohibited him from starting new articles in his talk space.

Possibly one of the worst ArbCOm decisions for some time.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, what then (or where) was the content that Tim moved to article space? I think I'm missing something. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is referring to this statement you made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know Liz, thank you. My question is why RAN couldn't have done with this content what he did with earlier content: ask Tim to "own" it and move it to article space. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in because why not. My understanding is that Carrite (and maybe a few others) are moving RAN's drafts into mainspace and "owning them". The reason they (RAN and Carrite) cannot do it in this case is because it only works for drafts that were created before the recent ArbCom clarification (a month or so ago?). Since then, RAN is prohibited from starting drafts in any namespace, including his own user space – therefore he cannot ask Carrite to ferry anything because he is now prohibited from creating anything to ferry-able. Jenks24 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--that's helpful. I didn't see a timescale anywhere there. I guess I should pay more attention to ArbCom and their updates. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, instead make there be fewer of them. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Yes, I know I'm pathetically late, but I'm glad that you're back. GAB^Hello! 23:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But note how much article work I've done since I got back... I am more useful slumming than administrating, I think. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

My name is Drmies and I approve this message

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kelapstick/Statement Drmies (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. LadyofShalott 17:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some more candidates here, preferably nine so I can quit answering questions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelapstick, don't you understand Drmies is otherwise occupied? In very important slumming-with-us-denizens? That is the only reason. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of the William Shatner cover version of Common People. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me of Shatner's remarkable singing career. It's been years since I've heard his incredible version of "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer "Mr. Tambourine Man"...I can't listen to it without laughing even after all of these years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me Kirk didn't release track two. I'm tempted to lax wyrical. "...the most exciting in the series up to that time." Compare: scratch sting bite right / smile & style / teach send pluck grit / stride & pride. Drmies, you remember them thar times, I suspect. Back when you and the Great Jimbo used to edit via two-way consensus, old-school? Mason jar earth batts.... 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you're not running? you'd make a great arb! -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies has been stub-ornerily refusing to run for arb-ship. At first I was puzzled. But now I know why. Those unaware of wiki-history, are doomed to be surprised when it repeats itself!

User:Barneca/Requests_for_Jimboship/Barneca
WP:April_Fools/April_Fools'_Day_2013/Requests_for_Jimboship/FrigidNinja
WP:ACE2015/Requests_for_Jimboship/Statement/Drmies (why is this still a redlink?)

Drmies in a corner office, for the win.[23] 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case accepted

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we ask that the section labelled Preliminary statement is moved to the first your assertion section so we can remove the final preliminary statement header that should have been cleared earlier due to an oversight on my part. Amortias (T)(C) 00:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amortias, can I not have a preliminary statement? I like the idea, and then I can lay out the evidence assertion by assertion... Drmies (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bureaucratic handling of this case has me rolling my eyes. The Evidence page should consist of one link - this. There you go Arbcom - now do your job. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies,

The preliminary statements heading is used to hold statements drawn down from the case request page, in this instance these have been moved to the main case talk page rather than to the evidence page at the requests of the drafting arbitrators. The reqeust to change (which you have made - thank you for that) was to minimise any chance of confusion or queries around preliminary statements being in different places. Amortias (T)(C) 12:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. No problem. I latched on to it because "preliminary statement" offered me a way to start it and then finish it later. Thanks for the explanation, Drmies (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow closings for articles created by Neelix

Several Neelix-created articles have been deleted per WP:SNOW with only four or five editors voting, and only 24 to 48 hours after being listed. In several instances, all but one of the !voting editors are users who are raising the hue-and-cry for Neelix's bit and/or head at ANI and ArbCom, and there seems to be a considerable bias in the process of reviewing these articles. In the last 24 hours, I have participated in AfDs for a half-dozen or more of Neelix's articles, and none of them have been straightforward or obvious "deletes". I see that you have closed a couple of these WP:SNOWs. I did not have an opportunity to participate in or review them before closing, but a lot of these AfD nominations and a great deal of the ANI rhetoric are an obvious overreaction to the mass-creation of goofy redirects. I expect The Doctor to be the Voice of Reason in these matters, and I ask that you exercise caution in closing any further WP:SNOWS, especially when all or most of the !voters are among the article creator's detractors. There is no harm in taking our time and getting more eyes on these articles before consigning them to wiki-oblivion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Nice photo of War Eagle. Beware: it does periodically bite when you least expect it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, I closed the few that seemed to me to be exceptionally clear. You'll have noticed I contributed to a few others--I think I even voted keep in one, maybe. I don't think that the multiple nominations are an overreaction; I think it's more a snowball effect here, since it's hard to deny the walled-garden nature of several groups of articles. But rest assured, I take AfD very seriously and if you want to make a case that one of the two (two? three?) I closed were actually on notable topics, let me know. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better?

Is this a little better? Quis separabit? 21:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I perused the list of characters at Uncle Tom's Cabin as per your suggestion and I must point out that, unlike, And Then There Were None, some are based on real-life people, which provides a lot more potential sourcing and linkage. Some supporting characters also, btw, have surprisingly long and unsourced descriptions (see [24]). You may want to have a relook. But I am going to try to find something that'll satisfy you regarding the Christie characters. Although ATTWN is rather more complex. Quis separabit? 23:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I just came from there and removed a word that I think was inappropriate. Shows you that FAs aren't perfect either. I'll have a look at your latest version, thanks--what I think is most important, for the article, is that the plot section be improved. But that whole article really deserves to be better. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How coincidental, I read this book for the first time last week although I had seen the movie when I was quite young. It gave me nightmares.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Your annual ritual humiliation is due

At Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates! Seriously, only 5 days to go and so far only at most 4 plausible candidates for 9 places. I hope you will consider it (and others reading this). Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative to humiliation is revolution: enough opposes to not have a single new one elected (they need 50% support, right?), same next year, imagine! 9 of 10 tried to answer my simple 2 questions so far. Only two of them got the second one, one of them after asking back. Where do they look? How can I trust them for complicated matters if they miss a question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a lot of questions in general... I did look at your first one: I might just close the discussion, if the spirit moves me. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but why have a revolution, when you can have nice bunch of reform-minded candidates? Nine seats is enough to actually reform arbcom, methinks, if the nine new arbs are tough-minded folks. Certainly there are people who waggle tongues on jimbotalk about how they've never been arbs... yet. And some of us might respondeth there unto such wags, were not the thing pageprot yet again. But if you did run, Drmies, you know hypothetically nudge nudge NUDGE, would you strive to be the most transparent arb in history? :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The B-word

Saw your edit about "bitching" at ANI. I think "bitching" is to "bitch" as "Jewing" is to "Jew". The verb form uses a perceived fault of a class of people to describe an action in a derogatory manner, managing to insult both the target and the entire class at the same time. Worse, because both the noun and verb forms are derogatory in this case. But, I know not everyone agrees. Of course, there exist many that will insist the n-word is not derogatory. Some reading you might take a peek at: [25] [26]. In any case, I'm surprised the discussion continues. I've moved on. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, and I've been asking around today, but I have not yet found something like a broad consensus that it is, currently, sexist. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to throw in a Jesse Pinkman montage. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All this time I thought I had been missing something by never having watched that series. I feel much more complete now.:) Objective3000 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer whinging , spelt old-school. For the new-school types, though, User:NE_Ent has suggested gender-neutral widging; e.g., "you widg", "the widg I will", "how the widg do I know", "you gotta be widging kidding me", and other such formulations. Compare with xe as a new-school gender-neutral pronoun. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never know how to pronounce that Britishism. Is it "win-jing" or like "wine-ning" (whining)? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pronounced win-jing, which is also a village in Southern China ^{[citation needed]}. Wh'Yning is the same as Win-jing, in terms of meaning. It is also Cockney Rhyming slang for the irresponsible disposal of a Nuclear fuel rod.^{[dubious – discuss]} Simon Irondome (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, we should also be talking about "berk"? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing what you find on Wikipedia ;) Irondome (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you used the word "broad" Drmies. Sorry, I haven't been here in a while, and most of the time when I do, it seems to start a huge debate, so good luck with that. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nit police

I'm no longer an Arbcom clerk, But I note that your evidence includes a subsection for a third assertion.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I need to finish it up...busy day...cooking two dinners...out later... Drmies (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les Gold

Years back, there was a self-promoter that used around a dozen socks to create a page about himself. An AfD overwhelmingly !voted to remove the article and he and all of the socks were indeffed. It appears that he is trying again at [27]. Apologies, but I don't know where to bring this up or how to find the old AfD. Besides, he discovered my name and hounded me with phone calls and other nastiness for many months and I don't want to be involved. Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put a link to the previous AFD on the current-article's talkpage. Not surprising it was hard to find, the article was a slightly different page-name. DMacks (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I dug up that lengthy AfD myself and read the whole thing, wasting a chunk of my life that cannot be regained. I hope the article can go away easily this time, based on the previous consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000, the article is quite different from the version that was deleted, but one can easily argue that the "changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." In other words, it's still a puff piece for a non-notable person; the only thing that's new is a newspaper article involving a dog (attack) in which the potential subject is mentioned--and that's nothing. DMacks, I'm going to follow your G4 suggestion. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't have time to look into the old versions, but I checked one of the new one's only two refs dated after that old AfD and it did not support the strong claim for which it was cited. DMacks (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

If you want to undo any of my blocks, come to my talk page and we can discuss it. If we don't agree THEN you can go to AN/I. That cesspit is not a good place to have an intelligent conversation. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I didn't like this block you did here.[28] It contradicted my welcome, and the thoughtful message I typed out. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth I also would have blocked a user named "Wikipédia hostile to Women" on sight. It is clearly not appropriate. We can't very well have that name going around as it would be intimidating to women. Just imagine you are a female new user here and you see that? HighInBC 15:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People are intimidated by tactics intending to intimidate; they're not intimidated by somebody making a claim that such and such. Alakzi (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean to say that it's worrisome for women - and not "intimidating" - but women are quite aware that they're not safe anywhere on the internet, including Wikipedia. Alakzi (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I don't believe that ANI is a cesspit, and it seemed a good idea to discuss the blocks in a section in which they were brought up. As for that username, it is inappropriate, and if they want to change it, they can. Alakzi, sorry, but that kind of polemic simply can't be done in a username. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's confrontational; I wasn't doubting that. Alakzi (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

verb: bitch

Dr Mies, that sociological analysis paper w/ lots of references [29] can't be too impressive, when it uses what is considered WP:OR on the WP: "It’s impossible to measure how often the term is used, by women or men, to describe what men do, but we would expect it to be applied to women more of the time." (Gee, I'd be interested to hear the authors elaborate on why they hold said expectation!) In addition, do the authors expect the verb to be "applied to women more of the time" on a public website like *Wikipedia*, where editors refer to the edits of other editors in writing, permanently saved on a database? (No they didn't consider that. My point is the venue where a word is used, can be important re context too, and outside of the scope of that paper.) Also puzzled by their logic of conjecturing which gender the verb is applied to more, as a measure whether carries sexual connotation or not, when the authors already presupposed the verb is tainted by said connotation! (I don't know what their point was - that the meaning of a person's use of the word [for example my own - a stronger form of word "complaining"] is circumvented by post-academic possible linguistic interpretations?!) Methinks besides these pitfalls, no editor s/ have to resort to an academic think-tank when using common words, required reading s/ not be more than common sense plus The American Heritage Dictionary (5th ed.): "bitch [...] v. Slang To complain." p.s. I really appreciated your attention/contribution at the ANI thread (ditto NE Ent & Kudpung - the latter for his quick close), so please don't misinterpret here as bitching. Sincere, IHTS (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe we should ask Christina, or even Betty? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Meredith and The Rolling Stones don't count, they're using it as a noun. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, that also goes for Madge, Re-yanna and Keith and the boys. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will also find hundreds of songs using the n-word in various manners. I will not link to them. Objective3000 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Nigel. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Anyone in a "slash and burn" mood? Barry Dufour. I've got to go bury a recently-deceased cat. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, looks like Barry's article's going down the memory hole. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bury Dapuss? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bury Du Four Legs. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't get rid of a cat. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xanty, if condolences are in order (you sound either dismissive or flat because drained by emotion), you have them. Articles like that, I think A7 applies. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more links than we need, but I think the point is that the word is ingrained in the vernacular of pop and ordinary culture in more than just the US. Some uses are obviously offensive, but I think we have to look at the context instead of just the word when making that determination. Otherwise, it is just PC Police work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can say the same about the n-word in far more songs, from Elvis Costello to Eminem. But, I suggest we don't use any form of the n-word in reference to other editors either. Objective3000 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but they are very different words with very different baggage. As far as using bitch as a noun, I would never call a woman that, or a stranger regardless of gender. Using the verb "bitching" is exceedingly common, however. If anything, the ladies at work use that on me, telling me to quit bitching all the time. (They aren't dainty flowers, and I love them like family.) My point is that if someone is using it to denigrate someone, that is completely unacceptable and sanctionable now under WP:NPA, but it is so commonly and casually used as a verb, I think trying to sanction it would be a mistake, and I couldn't support that. There are better verbs, and in the interest of good taste, we all would benefit from using those alternatives, but if the verb becomes a huge gender debate, it will cause more drama than the rare usage of the verb ever has. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with everything you are saying. The only reason I brought it up is that I was brought to ANI for replacing the word "bitching" with "not useful" in a hat, where it is obvious, with a comment that it was sexist, and the person that added the hat had already twice, recently, told editors to "Go soak your head" and had a lengthy block list. That's the context. But, that's water over the bridge. I'm not asking for any sanctions against anyone as that editor will eventually be indeffed and I'm a patient person. Just wanted to make a point. I have an old copy of the OED on a shelf above me. It's six feet of volumes in small print. The English language is unbelievably rich having borrowed from so many other languages. One can find ways of making a point without choosing words with such baggage. Objective3000 (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think IHTS has really defied the odds--if I had an item of pastry for every time I heard someone predict his indef-blocked status, I'd be a lot more fatter than I am now. I have a two-volume OED (with the magnifying glass) that I loaned to Mrs. Drmies, for her classroom; I'm fortunate enough, as an academic, to share the online subscription. An inexhaustible source of fun and wisdom. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, how did my complaint of being on receiving end of a PA where I was accused of making "sexist insult" (tantamount to being called a "sexist"), suddenly morph into a discussion whether or not the hat title "Insults and bitching goes here" was sexist and whether or not that title was a blockable offense (or have I misread you?)?? Update: No, I see by your Arb Q&A that I really did not misread you, you really did morph it ("there are many things I don't approve of for which I won't block, as you'll see currently on my talk page (section "verb: bitch")"). (Whoever asked, Drmies, to consider blocking over that hat?? [Objective didn't. Purpleback didn't. BMK didn't.] So how does that notion get into your processing?!? And I don't understand how you seem to be crediting yourself with having restaint in blocking over a verb you "disapprove" of, when there is one & only one definition of the verb in The American Heritage Dictionary edition 5 stating simply & only: "to complain"?!) ¶ To refresh, I took offense to being accused of making "sexist insult", when I never did, never have, never would, to anyone, anytime, in any venue. An accusation of making "sexist insult" is tantamount to accusing me of being sexist, and of sexism. (Did my complaint about that PA go over your head, or did you lose focus somehow?! Your first consideration was whether Objective3000's claim the hat was sexist was valid or not, and when you decided it wasn't, then you stepped over my objection to the accusation, and I'm still on receiving end of that PA. Now I'm supposed to be thankful I didn't get blocked for use of the verb?! While Objective3000 laughs his behind off getting a free shot accusing me of being the kind of person who makes sexist insults?!? How exactly do you get from 'A' to 'B'?? Obviously, I don't get you: Is it OK if I accuse you and/or other editors of making sexist insults? Is it OK if I accuse you and/or other editors of being the type of person who does??) ¶ And how does discussion whether verb "bitching" is sexist, drag in topic of the "N-word"?! ¶ p.s. And if you want to daydream about my life on the WP, then it s/ be fair that I get to daydream about yours: if I lost a hair everytime you've backed up with flowery commments blantantly bad-acting admins (Toddst1, Panda, Gorman, Kudpung), I'd have to ask to borrow your comb. (Enough already, okay?!?} IHTS (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso, enough already indeed. Your word choice was part of the thread, obviously, since that was one of the charges made by at least one editor. if you think I'm asking you to be grateful you really can't read. When i said you were defying the odds I was paying you a compliment. Really, you should read what you respond to. IHTS, all the best to you: i don't want to hear from you on my talk page again. Don't ping me either. I am too old to be getting this tirritated over you and your childish complaints. Kindly stay away from my talk page: you have outworn your welcome. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::::@Objective3000, you keep manipulating facts intentionally -- you were not taken to ANI for the specific reason you name, two editors were taken to ANI out of whatever collection of muddy reasoning went between the ears of user Purplebackpack; the true "context" of "go soak your head" was not as you portray, it was a response to being fed up with the series of PAs you dished my way including "Get a life", "ass", "troll", and lastly an accusation that the collapsed text hat title "Insults and bitching goes here" was a "sexist insult". Not to mention your repeating (what is it five times now!?) my "long block log" -- which has each time been ad hominem to ditch attention from your ongoing PA baiting as well as tacky technique to attempt to defame/slur at article Talk, ANI, and user Talks. You initiated the hostilities every step of the way but you like to convince others you're Snowwhite. Your repeated intentional misrepresentations to defame, and your apparent feeling of unalienable right to make PAs & manipulative defamatory comments deserves a hell of a lot more than what you got back from me. IHTS (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :-D p b p 21:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some asking around among feminists and linguists (that is, half of my Facebook echo chamber), and while opinions differ, I have decided that "bitching" is a term with a long sexist history, that it is demeaning to women and trivializes women's speech as inferior. So I won't be using it anymore, and if you catch me using it in serious conversation, you may fine me $5. Obviously I am not going to go around blocking people for using it since it's also clear to me that my (new) view is not a consensus view--at least, I can't tell that it is. Sure, Dennis, context matters, and I suppose it matters who says it to whom (this was brought up by more than a few people)--but my concern is with the root of the word, not necessarily its current usage. Women have no more right to use a demeaning term then men do, unless, perhaps, in what I've seen called "hipster feminism", in reappropriations like "you say I'm a bitch like it's a bad word". Drmies (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am I supposed to thank you for not blocking me?! For hatting with "Insults and bitching goes here"?! Am I supposed to count myself lucky that you didn't decide for me what my meaning was when I used the verb?! (I don't get you!) IHTS (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both IHTS and O3000 should be thankful that a) the ANI didn't result in either of you being blocked, and b) neither of you have been blocked after you continue to yammer on about it. Each of you is portraying the other as the Devil incarnate, and yourself as a saint. You both screwed up in this, you've upset everybody else who's had to deal with you in the mess (including me), and if you don't stop this mess right now, you are probably going to get punished. IHTS, I know you dislike admins, but the reason why they've been hard on you is you've done a great many controversial things, which is the primary reason admins dislike you. Likewise, O3000, you're so obsessed with having a clean sheet, but you haven't done the #1 thing necessary to keep a clean sheet. I don't want either of you to get blocked over this, but the more you continue to bring this up, the less likely it is that either of you escape this with your heads. p b p 21:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You two can go back and forth about this if you wish. As I said here and on my Talk, I've moved on. Which is why I didn't respond to the comments made about me by IHTS here. Objective3000 (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you continue to pretend to not get, Objective, is that there wouldn't be any "comments made about [you] by IHTS here" had you not made dishonest & demeaning comments here about me first. IHTS (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's right, @Objective3000: you're trying to move on from this without having learned anything. Also, @Ihardlythinkso:, you're trying to move on from this without having learned anything. p b p
You opened an ANI against Objective3000 (and me) instantly after his dare, and it was an abortion. Maybe you learned something?! (@Objective3000: will you now replace word "abortion" w/ word "mess" and accuse again of making "sexist" remark/insult?! [And Drmies, will you now go find an academic paper, say you disapprove of the word, but claim to be a tolerant admin since you won't block for it?!]) IHTS (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, I was going to open it, dare or not. For second, an "abortion"? Surely you mean "abomination? p b p 03:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I claim to be a "tolerant" admin. I'll claim to be a goodlooking, immaculately dressed, and unbelievably fair one. And I won't block for that other word since it's so current and used so frequently and so widely regarded (incorrectly) as not sexist. Now, can y'all stop talking about old stuff please? Drmies (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given your unbelievably notorious fairness and fairness, I think you owe me five dollars,[30] after careful parsing of the grammarz. Also, if you can hat this sub-thread before the rails it goes entirely off... or perhaps, exercise some awesome arby-like-dispute-rez, and come up with a compromise disliked by all involved? ;-) I suggest applying the pay-five-dollars rule to all people on your usertalk, retroactively. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I learned from the ANI is that, while admins did not feel action was warranted, they certainly don't like what the two of you are doing. Which should largely come as a surprise, because you did similar things time and again and got blocked for them! You should know better than to use words like "bitch" that can be misconstrued. And @Objective3000:, if you call an admin an ass or a troll, that admin will probably block you, possibly for a long time. You know what else I learned? The two of you have really thick skulls, and as such, I would have zero sympathy for either of you if the AfD had resulted in a long block. p b p 03:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy

Hi, Doc. Above you said that you'd watched a dark episode of House which made you gloomy. That reminded me.... I have long maintained that the House theme is very similar to Traffic's "Dear Mr. Fantasy". When I mention this to people, they say I'm crazy.

And, speaking of crazy and Mr. Fantasy....

We've previously discussed musicals, and I mentioned that the only musical I liked was The Sound of Music. Well, 50 years after that was released, there's finally another one that I like! This one's a TV series; fortunately, I didn't know ahead of time that it was a musical, or I never would've watched.

The WB's Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is an ideal cure for dark TV-related gloominess. It's from the creative genius behind the Hugo-nominated "Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury". (A fun video despite a Vonnegut issue.)

I admit that Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is a hard sell. I've litterally had to physically restrain people to get them to watch, but everyone ends up loving it.

The most incredible thing is that I don't have to fast-forward past the songs. Quite the contrary. The songs from the show are really very good and I've actually repeatedly watched YouTube videos of many of them, such as "West Covina", "Feeling Kinda Naughty", "I'm So Good At Yoga", and "The Sexy Getting Ready Song".

Although all of the episodes are good, the first two are amazingly good and, by far, have the best songs. My TV provider's On Demand for the first episode has expired, but you can watch it on the CW app. Hurry, because at least the first episode expires in three days! It's supposedly available on the CW site; that doesn't work for me, but you may have better luck.

I strongly recommend watching at least the first two episodes. In addition to being the best musical in 50 years, it's also the most creative comedy series in years – maybe ever. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, psst, people will start thinking this is a chat room... Well, I wanted to chime in with your detractors, but I certainly hear similarities. Good call. Unfortunately, when we're watching this on Netflix, it has a different theme song (I'm a big Massive Attack fan)--I think I read somewhere that this was done for copyright/financial reasons. And now you're asking me to watch something on CW, a channel I loathe for having spawned so much evil. Hmm. Maybe I will; I can't make any promises. I also have a house full of sick people, plus I went out last night, for the first time in over a year, and I notice I'm getting older. And right now I just have MSNBC on and am watching the dead toll go up, people having been executed at a concert. I understand Trump is already spinning wool from it. But thanks for the tip, Mandarax; I appreciate it, and maybe it's time I watch something new.

Yeah, sorry about the chattiness. But it was my duty to mention some escapist entertainment to counter your gloom. If it helps, it wasn't always to be a CW show (and I'm not sure exactly what "evil" they've spawned); it was originally planned for Showtime (and there are some more explicit Showtime versions of some of the songs on YouTube). And just one more thing. I suggest not just jumping in and watching the next episode on Monday. You really have to start with the first two episodes. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize. I just did something I may regret; the good old days will seem very happy to me. That yoga song was explicit enough; of course my two girls are now singing it all over the house. I'm glad they didn't catch one of the two "explicit" lines. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, that's a hazard. The one I find myself involuntarily singing all the time is "West Covina". The yoga song is one with an explicitly explicit version, but I suspect the one you exposed your kids to is the mild one. If she said she can kiss her own "hooha", then that was the less explicit one. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]