Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 20

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

Chad "Corntassel" Smith

[edit]

Sorry, I was trying to clean up the POV garbage and ended up putting it back in. That was not my intention. Thanks for fixing it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Brokencyde

[edit]

I'm glad to see you are keeping up on this article. I've done so much work on it in the past, I needed to take a break. It's a lot of work for a band I can't stand to listen to, but the article was just so bad when I found it UGH. I heartily approve of most the edits you have been doing, and have made many of the same ones in the past. I would ask if you might reconsider adding back the line with information and reference to Jeffree Star? It gives the band their gay "street cred," for whatever that's worth. Of their early performances, it was one of the more influential; at least I saw it mentioned it frequently in their early write-ups in Albuquerque. I agree with burning the rest of the name droppage. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 22:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about this. I can see that the quote is useful, but not where it was, since it's less a 'review' or evaluation of the band than a comment on its place in the modern musical canon. If the article was big enough to have a section on genre, it would fit in perfectly. How about seeing if you can stick it in either somewhere else (though I don't know where, right now) or give it more of an introduction, placing it in the context of a relation between punk and crunkcore, which is what the quote is attempting? I read somewhere, on someone's user page, that the best guarantee of neutrality is attempting to fairly edit articles on topics that bore you or that you hate. Here's your chance! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, boy, do they suck! Ass! The big one! Etc.! Drmies (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Actually, I don't think that useless quote has any place in the article. I do think the information about the band touring with Jeffree Star is notable, so I was asking if you wouldn't mind restoring that one sentence, not to re-insert the quote (which I deleted in 2009). I was also agreeing with your decision to burn the rest of "name dropping" of useless bands that they shared a stage with once. However, the Star tour made quite a bit of news, and arguably gave the band their start (and beginning fan base) outside of Myspace. If we only had a time machine... --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South America Life Quality Rankings article - citations already corrected

[edit]

All inline links were converted to footnotes. Please check the article to evaluate if the tag still be longer needed. Thanks.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southamerica2010 (talk • contribs)

Comment

[edit]

The Taxilla removal was a copy/paste of an already existing section that exists at the top of the page. No need for it to be repeated. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at you

[edit]

Not accusatory and not aimed at you. Intended for those less experienced who might later join the discussion. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my removal of duplicate section on talk page

[edit]

The Taxilla removal was a copy/paste of an already existing section that exists at the top of the page. No need for it to be repeated. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs)

You already made this comment, and Drmies has already replied. Look up a couple of sections. LadyofShalott 17:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lady! You get pool privileges in the new house. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo! Are y'all settled in it yet? LadyofShalott 20:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm getting contractors to fix up all kinds of things--as if we're not losing enough already in this sale. All the crap that wasn't pointed out when we bought it, now it needs fixing. Irritating, given how much time and money I've already put in the house. Have you ever tried digging a french drain in this godawful red clay? And what makes it worse is that our (buyer's) agent that time is now again our (seller's) agent--and it's only know that we realize how much he didn't do for us when we bought it. So, maybe $2000 from now we'll finally be done, but this afternoon we're already jumping in just to cool down (my anger). Drmies (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this totally follows our housing career: United States housing bubble. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never done that, but I know how hard digging in that red clay is! Have fun playing in the pool. LadyofShalott 21:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that with today's featured article, I would experience a 5.4 magnitude earthquake, 250km away moments later.--kelapstick(bainuu) 12:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janoi101

[edit]

... and Tenor.
You may want to look at that again. (If you have nothing else to do.) From your note in the history, you appear to have assumed this person was signing his work. That's what I would have assumed too.
No. He contributed nothing. He merely took credit for the entire article.
Varlaam (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily it only lasted for 1 minute. --Σ talkcontribs 07:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Varlaam, I saw what that person did--nothing but add some coding and sign their name. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I know you're on top of it. Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original barnstar

[edit]

I think I'm becoming a robot... Thank you!--88.18.99.57 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people

[edit]

A query, if you could oblige. A university article has a list of "notable faculty" and another list of "notable alumni". If a person was both a student of the university and then subsequently a distinguished head of department at the same institution, would you show their name in both lists? - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here: I would say list them under "Faculty", since their notability (the reason they would be on the alumni list) is due to their academic career at the university. You could note in the listing that the person is also an alumnus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my preferred solution but I didn't want to prejudge. I have an even more awkward one involving a seemingly interminable list of "notable caste members" where, for example, one name might appear under the headings for all of "freedom fighters", "poets" and "politicians". Short of creating a new heading - "notable gophers", perhaps - I really am stumped in that situation. I suppose the single mention + annotation would work but it is often difficult to determine which of the several notabilities is, erm, most notable. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with BMK. Or, to expand, presumably they were not notable because they were a student there--they may have done what made them notable before accepting a teaching position, for instance. "Freedom fighters"? Sounds like an Indian article, Sitush. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The freedom fighters example occurs in various forms across several Indian articles. All standalone lists; all the usual caste glorification tripe; all the usual problems of verifiability. I'll run with the combined wisdom of you two + my own 2 cents on the university one (also Indian, and relating to which I am being lectured regarding my grammar). I'll have to think a bit about the caste lists unless some other stalkers can pitch in with their thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could they be listed in a table which could include all the relevant occupations? LadyofShalott 02:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. You mean list in alpha order by last name, with a column for occupation(s) ? - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. LadyofShalott 11:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with tables is additions by inexperienced editors which tend to mess up the table syntax... Drmies (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually really hate table coding on WP. If the powers that be want to make things better (for newbies or otherwise), I would not focus on div boxes on user pages, but look to things in article space that could be improved. LadyofShalott 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point made to the person who could do something about it if he wanted: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Of div boxes and tables. LadyofShalott 14:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick favour

[edit]

Doc, if you or the Lady aren't busy, would you be so kind as to delete this for me. Thanks, --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to tell mommy!

[edit]

Hi there MIES, VASCO here,

regarding this (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marcospace#Blanking), how did you find out? Now you know too much, must put a spell on you...

Attentively (but with my fangs sharpened) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puff!

[edit]

There it is! Consider yourself cursed...

Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That is the cutest bloody "curse" I've ever seen. Millahnna (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

[edit]

Why report me and not 117Avenue (talk · contribs)? Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? Because you were the one to start the edit war all over again after Fastily warned you in your spurious 3RR report. Pretty plain to see. Moreover, you can talk about talking it out all you want, but 117 presented arguments and you didn't. Really, because I thought you deserved to be blocked more than 117--until that party allowed themselves to be dragged back in again. Now you both deserve to be blocked, if not for edit-warring, then for silliness. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's still at it

[edit]

Hi Drimes, Adam is still refusing to give up on Celtic F.C. supporters. Not asking for help, but in case I have to start an ANI case, which I think may be preferable to another drawn out saga, how do I go about finding the archived previous case? Thanks Mattun0211 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Is it this one? I just went to WP:ANI and did an archive search for Celtic. Vaguely remember the thread but was not involved. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's the one. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another headache in the making. I just removed some trivial and improperly sourced stuff from the article. It's simple, really--even though it's soccer/football/voetbal/soccer ball, it still needs to be sourced. Good luck, and keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cheers - for your info - Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy

[edit]

At User_talk:Sitush#Kshatriya_page the contributor KhatriNYC3 has said that they have registered that account because they forgot their old one, which they subsequently confirmed to have been KhatriNYC after I did a bit of digging around.

The earlier account was not lacking in drama. I am aware of WP:MULTIPLE and of the various userboxes etc that exist for declarations of alternate and previous accounts. However, the past drama concerns me slightly and I am wondering whether there should be an insistence that the original account is used. This might be problematic, of course, if what had been forgotten was the password and they have, for example, subsequently changed email address or whatever the password reminder system uses.

Not having come across a situation like this before, I would appreciate some input. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sitush, I have to say, I have not dealt with such situations either. I am hoping that the Lady will know more--she usually does. I'll have a look at the edits, but I really don't know how we handle this kind of situation. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I saw this post earlier, but I don't really have much more knowledge. My intuitive answer though is that if the accounts are overtly tied together (by means of userboxes or simple statements), that should be sufficient. LadyofShalott 02:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lady, are you really apologizing for not reading my talk page carefully enough? People will start talking... Drmies (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL yeah, yeah. LadyofShalott 02:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Next time you come by bring your bathing suit. It looks like a done deal. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Utterly bizarre, this page sometimes ;) Thanks for the thoughts: there does not appear to be a decent venue for this sort of issue, unless Help Desk is the place. I am almost inclined to just forget it ever happened & AGF with the contributor, but that could be a dangerous precedent if something else has gone on (which thought is, of course, ABF!). - Sitush (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hah, I guess discussions that reference obliquely other discussions tend to sound a little odd. Anyway, if the other editor has admitted publicly to be the same as the prior user name, that information can always be referenced if it's needed in the future. (Congrats on the new place, Drm!) LadyofShalott 03:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • With that long of a gap between when he stopped editing from his last user account and when he started this one, I don't see it as being a big deal. If he wanted to have been bad faithy, he could have come back under a distinctly different username and no one would have been the wiser. Even if he had been indef blocked the first time around the standard offer would usually be applicable to him by now anyway. Kevin (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KhatriNYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • The user should be in the clear with their new account if they will put {{Template:User previous account|KhatriNYC}} on their user talk. They had three blocks under the previous account, they did some edit warring at Khatri in September 2009, and they evaded at least one block using an IP. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to all of you for your input. I will pass the message on. The recent series of contributions by KhatriNYC3 + the proposed solution to a thorny problem all look rather promising. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--Yes, thanks! Or, you're welcome! Lady, the beer will be cold, and the water only in the low nineties...too bad it's still theirs and they're still at home. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, too bad. Any time scale yet? LadyofShalott 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad, indeed. Reading between the lines, I need to bring my Speedos + book a flight. Alas, for medical reasons I am not able to fly ... and for medical reasons you do not want to see me wearing my Speedos. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, Sitush. We'll send you pictures... Drmies (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

[edit]

Just letting you know I commented at WP:RFPP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

me me me

[edit]

i was trying to make my page here, and it was deleted...wuah wuah...perhaps this can be resolved as i need the page for reasons of PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essejaalkerwa (talk • contribs) 10:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Article about UN Principles of Management Educations

[edit]

I would like to refer to reasons why the article about UN PRME should be on wiki.

- google finds 166.000 hits! - it is mentionned in all major United Nations publications - it is also mentionned in different other books and publications

I asked you to reconsider your temporary deletion. PiViPo (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions

[edit]

So I'm feeling ganged up on as 117Avenue (talk · contribs) nominated an article I created for deletion, and still won't resolve the issue at Talk:Yukon general election, 2011. I need help, please. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I'm not sure I am the one you should ask for support. As for that article--I won't weigh in, but I also don't see the notability there. I really do not want to be involved in the argument on the talk page, and I don't think you don't want me to be involved, since I disagree with you on the merit of having that party in the infobox. Sorry, but them's the shakes--you sort of poisoned your own well with that 3RR report, I'm afraid, and you should not be surprised that you can't find much traction right now from other editors. If you are interested in advice, it would be to lay low and (re)build credibility elsewhere. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don' see how I'm the bad guy when he's worse. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there's nothing keeping me here, I could always choose to leave. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes you can. But you don't have to--you can just choose not to edit-war. The Lady and I have well over a hundred thousand edits between us and have managed to stay out of such messes, mostly, so it can be done. I just don't understand why you'd come to me when I asked for someone to block you. Anyway, I have suggested to 117 to keep a little distance, which would be nice of them. It seems that conversation on that Yukon talk page is ongoing, which is good--but one of the things we all have to learn here is that we don't always get our way. In my case, for instance, I have to live with the fact that we have articles on 'professional wrestling'. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tinchy Stryder

[edit]

Does it look to you like there's more socking going on, or are they just fan edits? I can't tell. LadyofShalott 02:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally did it

[edit]

I put Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council up for GAN...gulp.--kelapstick(bainuu) 20:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What am I doing wrong?

[edit]

You have informed me that I'm doing something wrong, and I honestly don't know what it is.

71.250.144.60, the user I have reported, has made unsourced, false edits to the same information, and the edits have been reverted every time. I understand that admins may not be familiar with the information being edited, but the people posting to those pages are. This user is deliberately adding false information. Plus, the user has been warned and blocked for these same actions in the past. I don't understand why this time should be any different.

This is from the WP:VANDAL page, which you instructed me to read (and which I have read many times before): "Upon their discovery, revert clearly vandalizing edits. Then warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings, and administrators should intervene to protect content and prevent further disruption by blocking such users from editing." This is what I and other users of the pages in question have done. So I honestly would like to know what I should be doing differently. Natalie47 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." That is the opening sentence, and that is what I wanted you to ponder. How anyone can judge that any of those edits is made in "a deliberate attempt to compromise etc" is a mystery to me. I saw that the user has been blocked before; it is possible that the blocking admins saw something that I didn't. You are free to contact any of those blocking admins (I believe User:Materialscientist was one of them) to see if they feel differently. However, that article is a hot mess, and until you and the other editors who think they're reverting vandal edits start cleaning up the article to where it is clear which information is proper and which isn't, and until you and those other editors clearly indicate in edit summaries what is wrong with a given edit, you should not be surprised that administrators cannot distinguish vandalism from non-vandalism in that article. To take but two examples: why is this edit vandalism? And this edit is not? That you never warned the editor again after their edits but went straight to AfD is also not helpful. In short, you need to make a better case, for me anyway, why those edits should be considered vandalism. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left them a final warning for making unverified and unexplained changes, which is what they were cited for earlier. Leaving such warnings will help you make your case--a simple report following on a two-and-a-half-week old warning won't. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thanks. I really just wanted to see some movement. I went to AfD because a final warning had already been given; I guess "final" isn't really final. Natalie47 (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You delivered a final warning on August 14, without much explanation, and the IP was blocked after that. The block ran out, and new edits were made from that IP address--that is the time to warn again. Besides, an IP, unlike a user name, is not necessarily tied to a specific editor or computer, and practically speaking final warnings on an IP have a short shelf life. Cluebot resets the level of the warning every day, I believe, and admins often 'reset' it after a couple of days. It's unfortunate, maybe, but you have to keep at it and cannot easily say that they did it a month ago so they're doing it again now--because you can't be sure you're talking about the same 'they.' If you had made that 'movement' recently and repeatedly, things probably would have gone differently. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD

[edit]

Hey Doc, what is the status of WP:BLPPROD, for something such as Asuman Dabak, I declined the speedy, but there is only the IMDB link in the article, does that qualify to not be nominated?--kelapstick(bainuu) 13:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I understand, IMDB is not enough to count as a 'real' reference in the sense of our BLP policies. That's written up somewhere, but I don't remember when. To make sure, you could drop a line on the BLP noticeboard--there's bound to be someone there, some regular, who knows. Thanks K, Drmies (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faruk Türünz

[edit]

As you previously evaluated the speedy delete nomimation for this article, you may be interested in contributing to the AfD which I have since raised. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flugelpet

[edit]

I have tried to fix the article related to Faruk Türünz. I added a book as a reference in Turkish. Please see reference no:3. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flugelpet (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raggi2010

[edit]

Hi there, thanks for your block here, as well as your note to the editor explaining exactly why he has been blocked, and what he can do to avoid further blocks. However, one small issue - it's not that he has been adding unsourced information to BLPs, it is that he has been adding false information to BLPs - a slight, but important, difference. Regards, and thanks again, GiantSnowman 22:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand--but I can't judge whether it's false or not. If that is established, however, by reference to sources for instance, it's a different matter: that's clear vandalism. I am acting out of sheer ignorance, if you will; if you can prove it's false and that he persistently inserts false information, then let me know. In the meantime, however, let's see if there is any response whatsoever--in a way we're giving him rope, as unfriendly as it sounds. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

[edit]
Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. I did see your comment on their talk page as well, and figured there was no need to pile on regarding the civility concern. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Roman" remover

[edit]

I added User:76.4.176.205 to your list, an have rolledback all their contribs. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency?

[edit]

I've been trying to reduce the back log at Category:Uncategorized pages, and I've discovered that how we name Tamil districts is very inconsistent between articles and categories. It seems the articles are typically at Name district, but the cats at Name District. Even worse, the spellings don't match. Thus we have Tiruppur district in Category:Tirupur District, and Tiruvannamalai district in Category: Thiruvannaamalai District. (It's not a fight I feel like taking on, and I'm not suggesting you do either - I just had to comment on it to someone.) LadyofShalott 02:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I hope you feel better. I was just going to tell you that the Gibson Firebird 1976 Bicentennial is a joy to play, though a bit on the heavy side. Let Spiffy clean that mess up--or, better yet, Sitush, and watch the fall-out on ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am better, thanks, and I hope you are also. Did you see what Sitush did to his foot? Look at his talk page if you haven't recently. Is the guitar a new toy? LadyofShalott 03:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What did Sitush do to his foot? I'm going to head over there now. The problem with these cats lady is that both transliterations are used equally by everyone. Tirupur is an extreme example of the case; the correct transliteration is Tiruppur, but the Brits didn't like to place one p after another so they used Tirupur; in recent times the official transliteration was made to match the pronunciation of the word in Tamil, but even the Tirupur district website uses both spellings on the same page! Thiruvannamalai on the other hand should rest at the title with one "a". A speedy rename for the cat is probably a good option. —SpacemanSpiff 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • He almost removed his big toe. (If you go back to the version of his page with the wikibreak noteice, it says that much.) Thiruvannamalai - ok, that has one a in the middle, but it also starts with Th - so that doesn't match either version we use! I'm not going to touch these, as I don't have the knowledge to argue that one transliteration is better than another. I do think we should attempt to be more consistent though, even if the Tiruppur website uses two different spellings in the same page. (That makes me think of the Bard... how many different ways is he supposed to have spelled his own name? It's not quite the same situation, but still...) LadyofShalott 22:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no intention of getting involved in issues of nomenclature/style. I spend enough time at ANI as it is, and in relation to Indian subjects the transliteration issues + ideological POV issues are considerable. I possess only a few brain cells & wish to conserve them: Wilfred (the one in my head) keeps banging against the inside of my skull in annoyance; Oscar (the one in my big toe) is feeling a little detached from events at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick copy edit request

[edit]

Hey Doc, before you head out to your last bbq of the year, could you do a quick copy-edit on List of centuries in women's Test cricket? Just three paragraphs, with proper spelling. My contribution towards making sports coverage gender neutral. —SpacemanSpiff 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. I imagine you're sure about that capital T. Oh, cricket? CRICKET? Drmies (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, that's a WP:CRIC#STYLE requirement.—SpacemanSpiff 20:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand "longest" in the first sentence. It specifies "over five days"; "the longest version played over five days" suggests that length of time is not a factor in "long", that is, "long" does not refer to the length of the match. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cricket matches have several forms, ranging from those that are completed within one day through to those which are scheduled to run for five days. A scheduled five day match may in fact finish in a shorter period simply because both teams have used up their allotted two innings (similar to baseball innings, I believe). The sentence should say something like "among the various forms of the game, Test matches are the longest in duration. They are scheduled to run for five days in the case of men's cricket and four days in the case of women's cricket, although the actual duration of play may be shorter in practice." - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Holy moly. You write that, Sitush, please. What kind of a sport is that? It's kind of like calling Top Gear a program about cars. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, I'm not sure I approve of "includes" in the second sentence: it suggests that there are other things that are part of the game, like yelling and crumpets. Isn't four innings something like the defined length of the game? Drmies (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • At the risk of being redundant, a double century is 200 of the things that a century was 100 of, right? I'm asking because I used to listen to the BBC World Service, and when they read the cricket scores I could never figure out who won. You know, 6000 runs in five overs, and the others had only 2000 runs in four overs, but they only took four wickets per inning so they won. Or something like that. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is a centurion? Someone who scored a century? And shouldn't that be centuria, since cricket is gender-segregated? Drmies (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--I think I got it, if you can tackle the above remarks, esp. the shitty ones. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry for the late comments here doc. Test cricket is now generally five/four days (but teams can continue to opt to play "Timeless Tests"), but it wasn't always the case -- England and South Africa once played for 12 consecutive days (including two rest days) before agreeing to a draw (no result). On specific changes, how about:[reply]

  • "longest version of the sport of cricket played between international teams over five days" to "longest version of the sport of cricket, played between international teams over five days"; you do know that I forget my commas quite often?
  • on includes: there actually are other parts of the game, including crumpets! Each day also includes a scheduled 40 minute lunch break and a 20 minute tea break (when they get to partake of those crumpets!). The thing about Test cricket is that lunch and tea are almost as "part of the game" as the innings! In many cases, if rain delays play etc, they still take lunch and tea at the appointed hour and do not use that time to make up for lost play! Also, typically each session of play is to last 30 overs, but if it's time to have lunch or tea and those 30 overs haven't been completed, what's held important is getting to those nice cucumber sandwiches not finishing the 30 overs. But I'm open to some alternate wording, how about "consists of"?
  • double century -- yup, 200 runs
  • centurion -- yes person who scored a century (I'll add it to the Glossary of cricket terms and link it), but cricket does not use gender-neutral terms in many cases, e.g. Mithali Raj is a batsman and not a batswoman (there was some movement to change it to batter but I guess it makes them look like they're baking cakes or something). Also, it's not gender-segregated exactly. Technically there is no men's team -- what we know as the "men's team" is in theory just a team and has no restriction by gender; but of course that isn't how it works.

cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the changes I suggested above, I've modified in a slightly different manner, can you take a look at the article and see if it passes your baseball tainted judgment? —SpacemanSpiff 07:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I think baseball is even less valid as a sport. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second time around

[edit]
  • "in each side"--my American English sensibility for prepositions would suggest "on", but I assume you know what you're doing.
  • And that's it, I think. I made one edit, combining sentences. You may have noticed that I like semi-colons. Later Spiffy! Drmies (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, I hear you on the "in" vs. "on"; I believe it's got to do with my Indian English. I just checked Cricinfo (from the ESPN stables) for their preferred use and in appears to be slightly preferred over on, but I don't have any strong emotions attached to this preposition. BTW, did you realize that the VW isn't Dutch? The category structure is a bit muddled -- we don't use "Fooian cricketer", rather "Foo cricketer" for members of the national teams; Fooian is used for ethnic/national origin. Thanks for your help on this, a few more changes to the table and I'll take it to FLC. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The VW? The Volkswagen? Of course I knew that. There are only two Dutch cars: the Spyker and the DAF Daffodil, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • BTW, if you're interested, you might be able to take VW to DYK. Apparently the Dutch like their women cricketers (the Men don't have Test status) and I found a fair bit written about her (including one mini-review on her performance against Scotland in a List A match). And although she's a "professional cricketer" she holds a day job and has to take time off to play cricket! —SpacemanSpiff 16:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, you mean Violet Wattenberg! I was wondering already if you took me for a moron. Now I see that I am one. But why would I want to write about a cricketer? Just for kicks? I only wrote her up to remove a red link from your brainchild! (OK, I'll have a look.) Drmies (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UVGI

[edit]

Thank you for your answer. I'd like to know, because you can understand better than me ( I am Italian ), if the Berkeley National Laboratory has patented the UVGI, in a link deleted they say it, but I'd like to know if we can't use this method for poor countries or if we have to pay. --93.150.52.87 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you however for you kind answer, you could have answered that it is not a question for Wikipedia. And it isn't, really, but it is important. I'll do 2 things, not now, but i hope within an hour: 1 I'll re-write the link where it is written that it is patented and licensed 2 I will ask this question directly to the Berkeley Laboratory.
I ask you if could be interesting the link I want to re-write: I can say in the article that the idea is patented and licensed by the laboratory and then we will see the users' answers and considerations. What do you think about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.150.52.87 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand. There are volunteers at the helpdesk who tackle such questions all the time. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you! It is not a question for wikipedia, it is a question about volunteering. I'm asking if the idea is patented and if we have to pay if we want to use it for people who have not drinking water. I'll ask both to the help desk and to the Berkeley Laboratory. Thank you!

WP:CLEANSTART

[edit]

Hey there, Drmies, this is Atomician as an IP, how many times can one freshstart without it being completely ridiculous? Heh, Atomician was an account I set up after retiring thinking I wouldn't come back, but due to general indecisiveness about how much time I spend on Wikipedia (I really do let it take over a lot of my life, so I don't regret it too much) I scrambled the password, hoping to break myself free from the torturous grip of the devilish Wikipedia. But now I'd like a disclosed account whereby I redirect both my old old account and my old account to my new account and I just want to check that this isn't breaking any rules? Cheers man, 94.8.98.105 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Juan Jorge Velasquez

[edit]

Thank you for such a speed and swift action on Juan Jorge Velasques. We work so hard to put some credibility on Wikipedia and people go on making stuff like that... Jack O'Neill (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup. It can be hard to spot sometimes, and if you hadn't placed that note on the talk page I certainly would never have found it. Problem with soccer articles in general is lack of sourcing, but in this case (the claim that he played for Flamengo, for instance) it was pretty obviously a bunch of BS. Thanks again for noticing! Drmies (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User rights

[edit]

I realize that I may be severely annoying you now and for that I am sorry (feel free to trout me), but would you mind awfully if you could allow me access to Confirmed and/or rollback rights so that I can get straight back into my old works. Sorry, sorry, please don't eat me! Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 21:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full article?

[edit]

Can you access the full article truncated here? LadyofShalott 02:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get it for you tomorrowish if drm doesn't. Kevin (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kevin. I don't know if I'll have the time for it tomorrow; I have some classes to teach and some odd jobs to do (like planning a reception for a poet). Drmies (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kevin! Drmies, which poet? LadyofShalott 11:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just a minor poem by a minor poet. Drmies (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a new translation out? (I didn't know that Virgil was available for receptions these days.) LadyofShalott 01:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't end up on campus today - was at the WMF office all of it instead. I should be on a campus connection tomorrow morning to grab it for you though. Kevin (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks again! LadyofShalott 04:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dumb journal won't let you download a pdf. I'll send you a plaintext copy momentarily. Kevin (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Format quotations of lyrics, stanzas etc to display centrally

[edit]

Any idea how to do this? I've tried blockquote cquote, quote etc templates and none of them seem to work when the stanza is a few lines in length. I even tried including the HTML p tags inside the templates. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm, no. There is a <center> tag, I think, which I've seen people use in tables. Have you tried that? Maybe one of the HTML-infected stalkers knows? Are you feeling better? Drmies (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I decided that in the specific circumstances it was ok simply to delete the content, but I'd still like to know for future reference. I'll play with some HTML & CSS, perhaps in a DIV. Yes, I am feeling better: they have downgraded my pain relief again & apparently things are healing ok. Can't feel anything but tbh it is a long time since I felt much at the end of that toe anyway & so if the whole thing ends up sensation-free then I doubt it matters much. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkbalk: User:SpacemanSpiff

[edit]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 14:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I think I have to post talkbacks to your own pages both on yours and MRGs going forward! —SpacemanSpiff 14:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With best regards from Floris and Wendy, too

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

--Shirt58 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

I haven't made any threat. The kid previously vandalized Vaslui articles, with lots and lots of false information. And not only he edited, but after I reverted them, he reverted them back. I tried in vain to talk to him, in English, in Romanian, with no use, because he never returned my messages. At some point, you lose your patience. Of course, it won't appear in his contribs, because that was before I asked for protection for Vaslui page, when he edited without having an account; and he also had a dynamic IP, so it changed each day. He was warned (not by me), there were many attempts to talk to him, all in vain. And just to be clear, I didn't make any threat about blocking him, because I do not have this kind of power. I only said, if he'll keep vandalizing Vaslui articles, I'll report him to the admins. Hope you see this message, and reply me! Alexynho (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2011 (EET)

  • Thank you for your note. I understand the frustration of not being responded to. My question is, which article(s) specifically are problematic, and how? If I know, then maybe I can do something. If problems persist, opening an ANI thread (another one) is always an option. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, not it all stopped. Before there were problems with SC Vaslui page. The media speculated many transfers, and the user edited them all as done transfers. The page didn't had a single reference before, so I edited the whole page, and I referenced every single sentence, and then I asked for semi-protection for the article, which I also received for a week. But that was before, now there is no activity since the page got protected. There were also problems with Simone Tiribocchi, Mateja Kežman, Raúl Bravo, Maniche and a few others (I don't remember them all, because there were so many), the players whom media speculated that would sign with Vaslui, but after i got SC Vaslui page protected, the edits from their pages also stopped. If the problems will return, I will send you a message. Thanks for understanding! Alexynho (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2011 (EET)
      • I see--it looks like you did good work there. Where to go from here? All those recent edits are by IPs, and the article is now semi-protected again. This is the problem with a lot of football articles: not enough sources are provided, and all too often edits are unexplained. And the more edit summaries are given (yes, that means you too!), the easier it is for admins to distinguish between edits and decide what's helpful and what's not... But do stay in touch if these problems happen again. As for Bad good dragosh98, we'll just have to keep an eye on it. Perhaps they will start communicating, perhaps they will start giving references. I hope so. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flying squirrels!

[edit]

Doc, you're the only person I can turn to for such help! Can you check out Mechuka Giant Flying Squirrel, the same two sources have been used in different articles for the same content; I declined an A10 on it because the content overlapped with the district that's home to these squirrels. But Google tells me that the book mentions this species, nothing more. And no other books seem to mention it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--Eh, pardon me for butting in. Spiff, it's only now that I see what you're talking about--I did not realize that there are two flying monkeys squirrels in the atrocious English of "It has been named as Mechuka Giant Flying Squirrel Petaurista mechukaensis. These has been named as Mishmi Hills Giant Flying Squirrel Petaurista mishmiensis." Do what you must--unmerge, blank, split, delete, recreate, salt, pickle, brine, recreate--and I'm sorry for throwing a monkey in the wheel of your wrench. Sitush--no one reads what you says, but we love you anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed

[edit]

User talk:Berghahnpaolo - this user's editing seems to be solely related to Berghahn Journals and (guess what?) journals published by Berghahn Journals. There's a clear COI and possible spamming. Going by the talk page, the notability of some of these journals has been questioned. How to treat this? Is a spamuserblock in order, or just a COI warning and request that the user change usernames? LadyofShalott 02:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. They haven't edited since 1 September. LadyofShalott 02:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a hardass--spamublock, yes...I mean, they're basically spamming, and their name is the company name. Lady, you're too nice for this world. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my problem: I hate deleting articles on scientific journals. The notability was questioned by the hardest of hardasses (culs-dur?), Crusio, who I respect but with whom I've disagreed on such matters--this is where I'm the liberal, so to speak. S Marshall and I wrote up a guideline a long time ago which is fairly broad and flexible, and I personally wouldn't delete an article on a journal since it is very, very difficult for the moderately notable ones to establish that they are moderately notable in the first place. Anyway, it's still a spammy editor, but I wouldn't automatically delete those journals. I'm very sleepy, but I'll have a look at them. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, look at Anthropology of the Middle East--not a great article, but no worse than most articles on journals. Look at where the journal is indexed--looks notable enough to me. BTW, after a spamublock they can simply get a new account, right, so asking them and then waiting to see if maybe they'll do it seems like a waste of electrons. Speaking of wh

Slogans...

[edit]

Thanks for the further cleanup; really getting tired of fighting this battle with this IP to keep them off the pages. Nate • (chatter) 06:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep. I've been doing this more or less incidentally for a couple of years now. It's helpful to have Homer on board, and I saw that Qwyrxian was interested as well. The more the merrier--because there is little else we can do but mop up. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see...

[edit]

Bgwhite left us a note on Mandarax's talk page? LadyofShalott 14:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vodka eyeballing

[edit]

Whoops! Sorry about that! I completely missed it! D'oh! WTF? (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

I have one big problem. I wrote an article about Aurel Guga a few months ago, but I forgot to reference it. I started today to link every sentence, but now I'm blocked, because one paragraph I can`t reference it, at all. I saw the information wrote in some images, posted by a user in a forum. In the images are shown articles from that period, and they are authentic, but how can I reference them? The images are available only to registered users from that site. Alexynho (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope I understand your question correctly. Here's the thing: information needs to be referenced, but it doesn't have to be online. If you read something say, in the paper, you can cite that article without it being online. It works similarly here, I imagine--and we'll take your word for it, that you actually read it one way or another, in the same way that we'll accept that the books in this section were actually read by the editor who cited them. So, as long as you are able to give bibliographical information (title of article, name of paper, page, author, date, etc) you're fine. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I appreciate your being really picky about sourcing. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elliewellie558

[edit]

When you have a moment, can you take a look at this user's contributions? She (?) has been asked to explain her addition of ext. links, and/or to provide an edit summary for her changes, but, despite having been reverted by multiple editors numerous times, she continues unabated, with no explanation offered. I think she might require a note from an admin. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? Your response is baffling? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a joke, Jacobite. You've been here probably longer than I have, and a comment of yours back in 2008 (which I've never forgotten) led to the first big job I did here--Kronos Quartet discography. I've left a note for Elliewellie, in what I think are pretty clear terms. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'd completely forgotten about that whole Kronos Quartet exchange! That seems like ages ago. Thanks for your note on the current matter. I do not think she is ill intended, merely deaf and stubborn. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I never did forget. And I agree with you on that assessment--one can only hope that editors listen. Mind you, the links they added weren't total spam or anything like that, so adding them in themselves is not a blockable offense; it's the disruption caused by what might have started as good-faith edits. Also, I wasn't joking with my first question to you. I don't know if you're ever considered adminship, but you have a ton of experience and you've always struck me as a positive contributor and a helpful editor. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deaf and stubborn? Oops, methinks my sockpuppet account has been rumbled. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New messages

[edit]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lemon (author)‎.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, check your email. LadyofShalott 17:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your note and your message, Lady. I was afraid that it was something brief like that, and I think you can guess that it won't make me change my mind... BTW, I signed to start reviewing for Choice, so I guess I'll have to learn to condense a million-word book into a paragraph. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane McCrea

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jane McCrea. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Your persistent reversals indicate a failure to abide by consensus. Please refrain and refer to discussion on the article talk page and on WP:ELN. Graeme374 (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SC Vaslui

[edit]

Just a few hours since SC Vaslui page is unprotected, and already is vandalized. Now I believe more than ever, that the anonymous user who edited in the past, is Bad good dragosh98, because he edited at first from his IP, but he needed to be logged in, to be able to create the page of the player, he added in the squad. I would ask for another protection for the page, but if he's logged in, it would be in vain. Alexynho (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alexynho, I've semi-protected the page again. I left a final warning on Dragosh's talk page; if he does it again, that is, adding unverified information especially pertaining to living people--I assume your soccer players are alive ;), he'll be blocked (temporarily, to start). Now, the IPs you're suspecting are the ones in the 82.137 range. It is possible to start an SPI (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations), where you could argue that the account was created to circumvent protection, and to possibly get a range block on the IPs or so. I'm not the smartest person here, but I'll ask someone to have a look at this; as far as I know, this is what can happen: if Dragosh persists, he can get blocked, and with an SPI (and possibly a CheckUser) the underlying IPs can be blocked easily as they pop up. I hate having to suggest this, but Dragosh is as yet not responding to messages and advice.

    In the meantime, keep an eye on those articles and let me know if you think there are others that need protection; you can request protection at RPP, of course--you don't need me for that. I'll call in some second opinions as well, or maybe those will be provided free of charge by any talk page stalkers. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I managed to talk today with Dragosh. He is indeed a young editor, and recognized that he edited the false information. He didn't thought that what he did was wrong, he thought that all those players will join FC Vaslui eventually. I explained to him, that those were only rumours, and until the player signs, he is not part of FC Vaslui squad. He didn't respond to us, because he didn't know how. I also told him, that if he wants to edit again, he better ask me first if the information is correct, and how to edit it right (I mean to reference it). I think he understood, and he won't bother anymore. Hope so! Alexynho (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right on. I thought it might be something like that. I have to say to, it's a mystery to me how someone can edit articles and templates but cannot edit their own talk page. Please explain to him, if you run into him again, that he needs to start using the talk pages (in English, of course) and that he needs to supply edit summaries. BTW, the fact that you provide edit summaries is very helpful and makes other editors' jobs easier, and I appreciate it. Well, let's see how this goes. Keep me posted. Later, Drmies (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend

[edit]

You addressed my weekend on the DYK review BWV 137: getting a concert program for Messiah ready to be printed on Monday, translate the cantata to German, sing mixed chorale music for Diözesankirchenmusiktag (what a word, almost like Ameisen...), listen to the annual Beethoven symphony ... Amen (please follow this link for the fun of "entirely absurd, and without reason"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help with Category:Articles_created_by_User:Marshallsumter

[edit]

I appreciate you helping with canvassing the articles created by the disruptive editor User:Marshallsumter. I realize there may be an article or two that could be saved, as you have pointed out with Vertikal. It's tough to make that judgement call while skimming dozens of such articles, so thanks for the help, and thanks for being patient. Cheers! AstroCog (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I hope you know that I was not trying to undermine your efforts. I've looked at a whole bunch of them, and this was the only one I thought worth saving--the rest will run its course, and I'm curious to see what happens over the next five days. Maybe you saw the beginning of the ANI thread: I was willing, in the beginning, to accept good faith, but gave up on that after the scale became clear. Thanks for your assistance, Drmies (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability vs. verifiability

[edit]

Well, now you've changed your criteria from verifiability to notability. I don't think you get to say that an entire section is not notable. If you think Abramoff's Brandeis hat is not notable, that sounds right: go ahead and delete it and I doubt anyone will revert. But wholesale deletion without explanation, without the slightest indication why you find every single reference in the section not notable, is less obviously justifiable. I am reverting one last time -- I suggest that if you disagree we put it to a vote. Nightspore (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Nightspore[reply]

  • Don't be silly. Verifiability and notability are two different things. Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you have any factoids involving Brandeis hats and t-shirts, and they are reliably verified, and they are notable, feel free to add it. But this trivia section has been dead in the water for two years, and that User:ElKevbo finally attempted to bury it was only justified. I've left another note on your talk page, right under ElKevbo's warning for edit-warring (you've restored it four times now). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long term vandal

[edit]

Hi - Admin JamesBWatson was my go-to guy for blocking a long-term vandal who enjoys adding false listing to the filmographies of voice actors, but his talk page says he won't be editing until mid-October. The vandal is back at User:184.9.81.223 should be blocked. I've rolledback all of their edits, but they won't stop, they never do, until they're blocked. Could you look into this, maybe look at comments by myself and Doc9871 (who is also tracking this vandal) from JBW's talk page history, and this thread from my talk page, which indicate that JBW was acting on our reports. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. BMK, with you SPI action, can you start an archive/paper trail, in case JBW and I go on vacation together? Kind of like my Roman page? Thanks, and have a great weekend, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Doc was working on that, I'll check with him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at AIV

[edit]

There's a backlog at the AIV page. I think you should look at it and block some vandals.--98.244.158.25 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More true in Midwest than anywhere else for sure.--98.244.158.25 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I don't see how these are vandalism and warrant immediate blocking. I don't even see how this is a revert of vandalism. Please explain more, in edit summaries and on the talk pages (there is room for commentary in the warning template). Drmies (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:190.213.195.8

[edit]

Hi! Your response on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in regard to this user wasn't entirely correct; we were alerted to vandalism of Presentation College, Chaguanas, by ticket 2011091010008703, which pertains to vandalism done 8/11, was submitted on 10/11 and answered by me today.

Please note that the vandalism was done to a page about a particular school in Trinidad and Tobago, and that the subsequent edit (also on 8/11) was done to List of schools in Trinidad and Tobago. That gives us good reason to believe that we're dealing with a local editor who is trying to smear a competitor.

Would you take another look, please? Thanks! Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 05:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

[edit]

I was looking into that screed of Complaint and it's nothing more than someone with a Point getting reverted - content dispute at the worst. Ah, just seen the Complainant has been blocked as a sock anyway. Peridon (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Novangelis was involved in the SPI... Peridon (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewari

[edit]

You had some issues at Rewari back in February. I am having similar issues with the same user - Rao Ravindra - on the same article now. They have even gone so far as to propose a merger in an attempt to obtain inclusion of irrelevant POV about a war memorial. It is clear glorification. What's to do? - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dunno, Sitush, except for this: keep at it. Cite them for vandalism or report them for edit-warring if they continue, that's a possibility. Spending hours separating the wheat from the chaff is a waste of your time, in my opinion, though it's a nice thing to do. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with ew is that I have to be a party to it if the issue is to be forced, and could get blocked myself (although I would have various policies on my side). I am unsure about the viability of any claim of vandalism because it tends to be construed so narrowly. I was hoping to get the message across by discussion but the message below rather suggests that things have not moved on at all in six months, so my chances of changing behaviour/perceptions now are probably slim-to-none. Thanks for your thoughts. I shall have a think. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what is relevant to (or for) Rewari and what is not? The one who deeply knows the subject matter of the article or the one who does not? I have gone to San José, California, a few times because my son has been living and working there for a decade. A few visits to San José would not make me an expert on deciding on or deleting what others have included in an article on San José.

Advise me what is trivial about the places of interest in Rewari that you have reverted? What criteria did you use to arrive at that conclusion?

Rao Ravindra (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can start with the requirement that information be verified by recourse to reliable sources. Someone with intimate knowledge does not count as such: Wikipedia doesn't allow for original research. As for what is relevant or trivial, such matters, if they are not immediately obvious, are decided by consensus, usually. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More fun at the Cincinnati Zoo

[edit]

I suspect the blocked contributor couldn't wait any longer [1]. Please correct me if you think I'm jumping to conclusions. Thanks, 99.184.129.216 (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

What is the point of this? [2] By linking to the edit, its the same as calling me out by name. Why not link to my response instead where I clarify what I meant for those that didn't notice the context of me saying it after quoting the publisher's site for quotes from reliable sources that reviewed that product? [3] Dream Focus 03:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Well-Spoken Thesaurus

[edit]

Sorry. I was blanking it because there is a duplicate with the proper capitalization now in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emjayfal (talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wish you said that before! God gave us edit summaries for a reason... I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since I edited the incorrectly-titled version later than you (or the CSD nominator) did the correct one, I could move it with no problem. Please look at the history of the article to see what hoops administrators may have to jump through. But all is well now, but for one thing: please don't add all those quotes and Pulitzer-prize winners to the article--it's fluffy and appears promotional. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Chapel

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I just got your note about "edit warring" on Calvary Chapel. I do not believe you are justified in your assessment and placing a note on my page at all, much less on my page alone. If you really felt a note was necessary, I believe you should have identified the same on the other three editor's pages. But to this, que sera, sera.

COI/NPOV/et al: More importantly, looking over the talk page and the archives, it is my opinion (and the opinion of many other editors, as you will see) that the page suffers significant NPOV, COI, and other issues. The page is actively protected by a few editors, and any information that they wish to not have on the page is immediately removed, usually with no information placed on the talk page. I asked that (Wiki:multiple issues) or anything else be placed on the page, to provoke additional contributors to the Talk page, but the three Protectors actively removed it. Many other people have suggested improvements, especially in terms of critical information, and all of it is denied by the few Protectors.

Other editors notes: One of the many other contributors provided, "I'm concerned that the criticism section has been eviscerated down to 2½ lines, especially since there's an ongoing mediation case about the "Accusation of Cult Status" subsection, which Bluemoonlet removed." -- this was ignored by Bluemoonlet, the Protective contributor that presented me to your counsel. Another editor writes, "This white-washed POV..." when it came to protecting the happy faced POV presented by a few of the editors.

Archived matters that were never resolved: In one of the Archived matters that was never resolved, one of the writers presents that the article suffers COI in that :

"1. The Calvary Chapel article contains a preponderance of material from Calvary Chapel itself, linked to web-sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.
2. The preponderance of links to other web pages are to sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.
3. The preponderance of source material and links in the article are to promotional materials produced by members of Calvary Chapel.
4. The edit history of editors demonstrates a pattern of removing material that might be perceived as critical or inconsistent with a "first person" view of a member of this church movement who adheres to and defends its beliefs."

When I presented these archived but unresolved issues to the Protectors, the information is discarded because they have a few "consensus editors" -- but those few are actively ignoring the other editors, and are actively preventing new editors from contributing (you can see this in the History and the Talk page).


I present this to you because you got yourself involved by writing on my page. Now I need your assistance. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia:RFC process. I will read up on that. What am I supposed to present, though? That the page is actively protected by a few editors in support of Calvary Chapel?

Also, is there a way to put a banner on the page to alert new readers that they should look over the Talk page? Right now I read that the protective editors want to archive the talk page -- my attitude is, why? So new visitors don't see the history of problems on the page? Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Doc, thanks for your response and your time.

  • On the link you provided, I read it before I send you the previous message. Coverage on that link is two users:
    • BlueMoonlet (where your initial response to him was to seek RFC, which he did not do because that is not apparently his goal -- I have asked repeatedly on that page how to get neutral parties involved, I had not heard of the RFC), and
    • 71.199.242.40 (who cited specific and out of context links to content that I responded to or edited).
    • After BlueMoonlet's parroting your response on the talk page, one of the other contributors responded, "...Sliceofmiami wasn't really doing anything that can be considered objectionable as per Wikipedia standards."
I read all that. And I humbly submit that the problems have been ongoing way before I ever stepped foot on that page a year and a half ago. But your judgement cited me alone, your quote is, "it is clear to me that Sliceofmiami is a longtime disruptive presence here." To your quote, I think you are in error. I got baited, but that doesn't make me the only culprit in the childish fight.
  • On the problems on the page, other NPOV users (of which I already quoted a few above) have identified issues -- and those users are warred against by the few protectors until they give up.
    • Example of one of the other editors who gave up, "...My resolve is weaker than your power to bait me, I guess. Now you're calling my position "ignorant" -- though the neutral mediator decided in favor of my position."
    • Example of one of the other editors identifying a problem on the page which has been ignored, "Basically, this article sounds like a pamphlet written by Calvary Chapel itself"

That said, what am I supposed to do on the RFC page? I'm new at this process, but I am interested in learning.


Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gisling

[edit]

Thanks for your intervention! --Macrakis (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


User:Mariah84

[edit]

Hello Drmies, this is the user Mariah84. I just created a page for the band Folding Legs, who were previously Otterclan (they have had a wiki page under that name for a long time, that I created, and I want to add a page with their current name now). My page was just now deleted, and I received a note saying that I had violated copyright laws. In what way? It referred to the band's Facebook page. I am the leader of the band's fan group and own the rights to the photo I wanted to use (I took it). I also help run their Facebook page, as I am their direct link to their fans. I am not violating any copyright laws. Can I please have my page back as it was? It took me a while to design it. If not, can I at least get some tips on what to do so I can create one that stays up? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariah84 (talk • contribs)

  • Well, first of all, you can't copy and paste text unless there is a copyright clearance, for which you could email the folks at WP:OTRS. But more importantly, you can't just copy and paste a text like that because it is not encyclopedic--specifically, it was not neutral. Most administrators would probably have deleted it as promotional, even if it hadn't been for the copyvio. I can put the old version in your user space, sure, but I'll give you fair warning: it will have to be seriously trimmed and edited before it stands a chance. Next time you will go live, you will have to suggest notability by our standards (see WP:N, or WP:BAND), and have some references to reliable sources (see WP:RS). Best advice, though: look at other articles. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otterclan did have an article, but it was deleted three times under the A7 criterion (see WP:CSD). Drmies (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell me that User:Clovergrunge and User:Teratripp are not you. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I saw that it had been recreated, with the same Facebook text on it--and, in the meantime, it had been recreated twice more, and twice deleted. I am going to put some salt on that article title so it cannot be easily restarted; if you want to write a new version, which established notability, does not copy copyrighted and promotional text, and meets our guidelines, you are welcome to do so--you can do that in your own user space, see Wikipedia:Sandbox. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Drmies. I have been out of the apartment, but have roommates who are big fans of the band as well. I told them about the situation of the Wikipedia article I had tried to create before going out, and I can now see that they have been eager to get the site back up and running live (without knowing to check for your tips and comments before reposting the site). I'm very sorry about that, and understand that that must have come across as very obnoxious. It seems as if it is now impossible to work on the site at all. I assume that the salt you put on it has blocked it. I would feel horrible knowing that I all together ruined the chances for this band to get a Wikipedia article by someone, even if it wasn't me. If the band name is salted, that will make things really hard for someone who wants to write something about them. Me causing that would be the direct opposite of my initial intentions, which were to feature this band more. Is there anything I can do? Can the salt at least be lifted? I will not repeat the same mistakes again, and neither will my roommates. I hope you understand. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Mariah84 (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but that's not a very likely story. Three roommates, all of them using your account, two of them creating the exact same article that had already been deleted and that they couldn't see in the archives. That persistent recreation is of course why I salted the page, yes. What I laid out above still flies: you can write the article in a sandbox, and when you think it's ready to go live, you can ask an admin to move it to article space and override that salting (so to speak). I'd wait, though, until I had gathered some coverage from reliable sources. But those roommates' accounts will be blocked permanently, and your account might be blocked temporarily as well at the discretion of the closing administrator of the sock puppet investigation, to whom I've pointed out your comments here. Sorry, but them's the shakes. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. I had copied the code for the Wikipedia page I had created into a separate Word document on my computer, as I'm not the best with formatting and thought that would save me time if the entire article got deleted and I needed to go back to square one. That way, I would at least have the article still there to reformat, instead of having to look up how to code everything again. All my roommates did was log in, with new accounts, and copy paste what I had saved in my Word document. Pretty simple. Don't underestimate the eagerness of an apartment full of girls who all want to see a page created for one and the same band. I thank you for your advice, however I will not be making any new attempts at creating this article, as I think it has become clear that I'm not the person for the job. Therefore, it saddens me that it now won't be possible for anyone else to do it either. Your decisions regarding the matter are however, of course, up to you. Have a nice day. Mariah84 (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you

[edit]

Thank you for catching the edits on the TEAMS Design page I created. Lots of people complain, few appreciate. Just know that your efforts are noticed and appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designerx (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sinfest AfD

[edit]

Drmies, you're generally a very reasonable and calm editor, but your comments at [4] make me think you either got up on the wrong side of the bed or that one of us is misunderstanding the conversation. I think DF is saying that checking the publisher's site to see if _they_ list reviews is a good move before heading to AfD. I certainly do that for game-related AfDs because most publishers like to brag about reviews. I don't think DF was arguing to cite the publisher's website. Rather that one should, ideally, check the publisher's website to see if there are (claimed to be) RSes out there. One of course then needs to confirm those sources are non-trivial, reliable, etc. I think that was DF's point at least. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hobit, first of all, you're probably giving me too much credit. Well, I'm taking DF at their word: "If you ever doubt something is notable, look on the official site that publishes it." I've seen them misunderstand all kinds of notability guidelines so often that I am not inclined to give them the latitude that you do. (See, for instance, the comment "'The best webcomic out there. -comicsworthreading.com".) DF is, of course, an inclusionist pur sang and I would not put it past them to cite the publisher's blurbs. What you propose, I could not possibly find fault with--but you have to realize also that "nominator should check WP:BEFORE" comes out of DF's mouth on a very regular basis, and the good faith you extend to them they don't extend to others. No, I have neither love or respect for DF, and while I usually try to stay out of their way, I didn't this time. I'll try not to make a habit out of that, taking your comment in the spirit in which I think it was intended. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm closer in wiki-politics to DF than yourself, so it's easier for me to AGF on DF's part. The strong deletionists are harder for me, so believe me, I can relate to that frustration. And you _do_ tend to be quite reasonable and calm, don't see yourself short... Hobit (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Raize

[edit]

Hi Drmies. I had posted a link to my website at http://www.jasonraize.net on the Wikipedia article for Jason Raize, an actor/singer and a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Environment Programme who died in 2004. You had flagged my page as a fan site and removed the link. Yes, I am a fan who operates the site. However, with the exception of a handful of pages about site background, my site contains over 140 pages of detailed information about Jason's projects in theater, film, music, and goodwill work, all of which comes from sources which are credited.

I do not wish to violate Wikipedia policies and will not argue if my site cannot be listed. If the issue was that I listed the site myself, it is my error for not reviewing the conflict of interest policy for which I do apologize. I simply wish for Jason's fans to have a place to go for credible information should they wish to find out more beyond the brief biography on his Wikipedia page. I'm not competing with other "fan sites" for traffic: Jason's official website has been inactive (except for a brief message) since shortly after his death, and looking for "Jason Raize" on most search engines yields primarily articles about his death (which is the main reason why I seek to provide fans with more information about his life). If jasonraize.net is an allowable external link for people to visit to learn more about Jason Raize's life and career, I would very much appreciate being able to add my link back. Thank you for reviewing this request.

Raizeresource (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. I will try the External Links Noticeboard as you suggested. Raizeresource (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good. What I hope is you will get a good response there from more than one editor--win or lose, you'll see, I hope, that this is a matter of consensus among editors, not just my opinion or so. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Mulder

[edit]

Hello Drmies,

If you have a couple of minutes to spare, I need the assistance of someone who speaks Dutch. I ran across Joseph Mulder in an AfD debate, and have expanded and referenced the article a bit. Before I got involved, the article consisted mostly of a scatological anecdote referenced to a 1718 Dutch source, which appears primary. Google Translate doesn't do a very good job - I suspect that the language is archaic. Can you take a look, please? Does this seem like a reliable source, and is the story described accurately? I've got a lot of doubts here, undue weight being among them. Also, I can't find any secondary sources discussing the incident. Your opinion would be appreciated. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, and I hadn't even seen this message! Yes, the language is archaic (but very to the point!), and the source is fine with me--that site, Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren, is highly reliable and even invaluable for Dutch literature and associated topics. Now, that doesn't mean that the story is necessarily true, of course. As for undue weight--the Dutch have a saying, "to row with the oars that you have," and we don't have a lot of different oars here, unfortunately. Thanks for your interest in and work on the subject, Cullen. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few oars among the shoreside flotsam and jetsam. You found one too. Together, we have paddled the boat in a promising direction. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your work on this artist! Nice to see he has been rescued and when I have time I may try and get some sort of picture for this article based on the new clues you both have added. Jane (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of images. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Heehler

[edit]

Hi Drmies, If you have a moment, could you check this one for me? I noticed you'd made a couple of edits to The Well-Spoken Thesaurus, and this is connected. The creator of The Well-Spoken Thesaurus has also made a page for the author Tom Heehler. Tom's only claim for notablity is as the author of the Thesaurus book, which as far as I can tell doesn't meet wp:bio or wp:academic (The Well-spoken thesaurus is probably of marginal notability, but it does have 2 proper reviews). The creator of both articles is adamant that Tom's genius need be recognised - do you think it would be appropriate to change Tom's article to a redirect and then put the Thesaurus up for a deletion discussion? Or just create a redirect?? If you think anything should be done, could you (please..) make the change? If you check the Talk page of Tom Heeler, the creator is getting quite passionate (and I'm getting quite blunt). thanks! Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to "Pankaj Oswal"

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I do apologize for the sloppy work. I'm sure you noticed this was my first time...no dirty jokes please. Really should not have attempted to edit until reading Wikipedia procedures more thoroughly. Thankyou for not automatically deleting. Reading the history for this page it is clear there have been problems with previous contributions. The main issue is negative, one sided text with information primarily sourced from mainstream media. I have attempted to unravel some details by going to a variety of sources, but remain unhappy with my efforts. What I wish to achieve is a civilized approach to the subject so that other more knowledgable people might contribute (rather than ranting.) I will amend the shortcomings after reading up on procedures. Thankyou for note, it confirmed my own thoughts. Think I made it worse because I wanted to "fix" problems and went back repeatedly, and then I finally saw your note. Just call me a slow learner. Any sugestions you might have for this novice are welcome. Best regards. A fair go (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I must have been grumpy. Oh, I have little advice, but this: use "Show preview" before you hit "Save page", and if it doesn't look right, tinker with it. And provide edit summaries along the way, so you and others see what happened. Sorry, gotta run--but no worries. There is nothing in Wikipedia you can break. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:KSRolph

[edit]

Dear Drmies,

User:Bgg2 is studying Wikipedia authorship and editing; our ambassadors have been advised, and the deletions and detail of how this affects the user, interaction with Drmies, etc. is useful for learning. Please permit Bgg2 to edit again. I will oversee his contributions. Thank you kindly. Really great to know there are gate keepers too, by the way! KSRolph (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of KSRolph/class list

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on KSRolph/class list requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Karthik Nadar (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reaper, thanks for taking care of this. I see now that I made a mistake, but I appreciate your note here! Drmies (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed your note on her talk page too Doc, you must be slipping...Did you know that at Heathrow at the Air Canada arrivals lounge there is a bacon butty that is so good, that people are don't want to take pictures of it, lest they feel the wrath of said sandwich (true story, was just reading it in a frequent flyer forum). I am going to try and get one in a few weeks.--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I remember now what I needed to do. Thanks K. And a frequent flyer forum is of course the most reliable of sources, so I'm sure you're adding that right now. Enjoy! Drmies (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutly reliable. I will let you know how it is when I sample it myself. My favorite quote was "It's not the sandwich, it's the idea of the sandwich. They are a lot like children, not that great, but you love them anyway."--kelapstick(bainuu) 20:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe! Even when I wasn't an admin I would just userfy obvious user subpages and tag the redirects for speedy deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at new article, Hunger's_Rogues

[edit]

Doc, if you'd be so kind, please take a look at my newest effort, Hunger's_Rogues, just moved into mainspace after a gestation of some months. I hadn't run across many books about the black market period in formerly Nazi Germany and its formerly occupied countries. This one is a good read and deserves not to be lost. Besides, the author sounds like he was a heck of a guy! Thanks, Geoff Who, me? 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Guitar Corporation & glassdoor.com comments

[edit]

Do you mind sharing your opinion about what is amounting to a long-standing editing war about uncited (well... formerly cited) glassdoor.com comments that this user keeps re-inserting? There's an older discussion about it on the talk page. – VisionHolder « talk » 08:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did jump in there--this is important stuff. That website, that's no good; it relies on anonymous contributions, and who knows what their editorial oversight is. I think we're dealing with a disgruntled employer here. Thanks for keeping an eye on it, and please let me know if I can help again. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Hearne (lawyer)

[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Elwes

[edit]

It seems notable, but it is an autobiography. He's been editing it for months. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

logan1939 miscommunication

[edit]

I do not understand how this system works - I hope this goes to Drmies -for me this way of communicating is non-intuitive. I have asked for an email correspondence which I know how to do but I will try to make this work. I tried to make reference to a blog and it was deemed illegal and never explained to me except with some boilerplated rule which said "People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. " I don't see how I violated that prescription. I also tried to make reference to my book Understanding New Media and that was disallowed - again it was not explained to me. Finally the article talks about scholars who were influenced by McLuhan - I fall into that category so I added my name - this is a true statement - I have written half a dozen books based on my former collaboration with McLuhan and have been invited to speak all over the world on McLuhan. This is a fact. I do not see the bias. I do not think I broke any rules as you state that people with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject. I do not see any bias that I introduce by making references to a blog, my book and stating a fact. I am guily once of forgetting the 4 tilda rule but it was obvious I sent the edit and just forgot the 4 tildas. Please sort this out for me keeping in mind that I do suffer from a mild form of dislexia which I have over come for most media like email and writing books but I have not master wikipedia speak - for this I apologize - I meant no disrespect - to follow this conroversy see the record of edits at the article Marshalll McLuhan - Bob Logan Logan1939 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)logan1939[reply]

  • I was just asking you to be more careful in posting messages. You've been here since 2006 and have created and edited articles about you and your work, but those talk page messages were unclear, and incorporating other messages inside them made it worse. Please use the "Preview" function. While I don't wish to go into the content of your dispute, blogs are generally not reliable sources, and as an academic you should know that conflicts of interest are serious things. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to the original comment on the editor's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John Hearne (lawyer)

[edit]

You have a message there. LadyofShalott 01:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your help! I edited the page I created and hopefully it will meet your approval! Best, --Iamawesome100 (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voice cast vandal

[edit]

Back as User:75.250.166.109 Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Special sticker"

[edit]

Thank you so much for this prestigious award, which I will display proudly in my lighted trophy case. It makes up for my pathetic failure to machine translate archaic Dutch texts written roughly 290 years ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

What am I supposed to do after this (It's on the September 12th log)? I'm too lazy to find out when you can help me. BTW, are you allowed to review this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, eh, I don't know. Wait? wait more? I am, I guess, allowed to review it--but it's about cricket, which is totally boring, and everybody knows you and I are socky alternates. I don't know, Spiffy. If I wake up tonight I can have a look. Tomorrow it's probably not happening. Sitush, aren't you a fan of that sport? Drmies (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it looks clean enough. I don't care for the plethora of ESPN links, but I guess that's unavoidable. The batsmen, whose initials you give without punctuation and such, is that a kind of consensus among cricketers? I understand you don't want to do entire first names since it has to fit in the cell, right? Drmies (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is my first DYK now, and I've never been that side of town so far (my earlier DYK credits were courtesy of you and Harrias). If you promise to behave yourself, I'll gift you a wonderful list on Dutch women cricketers soon. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the ESPN links either, Cricinfo was owned by Wisden before and it was more respectable, but ESPN it is now. For scorecards we use either ESPNcricinfo or CricketArchive as they are the two most comprehensive databases. As far as the initials without punctuation, that's accepted convention on scorecards, and is generally followed on our lists here (including those of the featured variety): here, here, and here (a current FLC candidate). The only difference between this list and the others is that I've used the same format for Pakistan cricketers too which the other lists don't (some external sources do, some don't). I plan to take this to FLC once the women's Test centuries list gets substantial support (missing the substantial part right now) at FLC. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news/Bad news

[edit]
  • Good news: Only two more days and I am on the road (or in the air as it were).
  • Bad news: Air Canada flight attendent strike looming, with a start date on the day I leave Seoul.......

--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The folks over at FlyerTalk are hearing that all the international routes will run, even of some of the domestic ones don't, so that should at least get me into Toronto, where I have some other options. As Drmies knows, I rate FT as an unquestionable reliable souce.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, K-stick. You know, if you get thoroughly derailed, you can always stop by here and lounge by the pool for a couple of days. Yes, we're across the street now, with internet and cable and all. And muscle pain, lots of muscle pain. Happy travels, sir! Drmies (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Abbasi is notable, sir

[edit]

Mister, I reverted your edit on Barani Institute of Information Technology. We are trying to put notable alumni on the page just like every other school's wiki has. To say that Kashif Abbasi is not notable is crazy. The guy is a major presenter for ARY News, a huge Pakistani satellite channel. I don't know if you are from India or something, but anybody from Pakistan knows Kashif. He is one of Barani's most august graduates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mister? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, no. What's with the "if you're from India or something"? Is that an ethnic slur, or just a nationalist one? Your famous alumnus can get linked in the article if he has his own article, that's how it works. Also, "we" suggests either group editing or a conflict of interest. Please don't let either peer pressure or such a conflict influence your editing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]

I'm having a few issues with a particular editor, and I'm not entirely sure what the best approach is; I was wondering whether you could take a look. The issue is essentially this: said user generically dislikes list articles, preferring categories (despite long-standing consensus that the two are not mutually exclusive). To this end they nominated a bunch of the metal lists for deletion, although they subsequently admitted that they were looking for clean-up; examples are here, here and here. They also have a problem with artist nationality being recorded in llist articles (for example, this edit), although curiously they have no issue with date of formation being listed. The list articles were all kept following AfD, so their new tactic appears to be to delete everything without a source, which is fair enough if the editor has looked for sources themselves, but in this instance appears to be a pointed attempt to blank pages since they didn't get their own way at AfD. The latest, and most baffling altercation concerns the newly renamed (unilaterally by editor in question) list of Swedish death metal bands. Their unusual argument is that there is some huge distinction between a Swedish death metal band and a Swedish death metal band, although it is unclear where they have gleaned this distinction from. Nonetheless, I have done due diligence and found sources for everything on the list (initially Allmusic, although I have pointed said editor towards print sources (Daniel Ekeroth's Swedish Death Metal, Albert Mudrian's Improbable History, Terrorizer death metal specials etc.) but this particular chap is just removing all the sourced content (e.g this edit. A quick look at the talk page gives you a fairly clear idea of how they approach consensus-building; the "new inclusion criteria" have apparently been decided by him and him alone, and it far from clear exactly what they are. This kind of editing is essentially disruptive, but I'm not exacctly sure who to take the issue to... what do you reckon? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. I looked at the diffs, various talk pages, and List of melodic death metal bands (where I reverted). It is disruptive, indeed--the four AfDs are clear enough. An RfC may be the way to go, unless there are individual events which are disruptive enough to be a matter for ANI. Please keep me posted: I don't keep track of my watchlist. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Fonda

[edit]

Hi, Drmies. You've been diligent in keeping out unverified claims at Olga Fonda, as I have just done, and I wanted to alert you to an SPA, User:Nebuchadnezzer56, who looks as if he may be a sockpuppet of User:Poopandcarrots and User:Verificationguide. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize before that you were an admin. The user, under various socks and his old regular IP from months ago, 71.109.110.104, is continuing to edit-war by restoring the same uncited claims and pooping carrots all over WP:BLP. Can you protect the article and see about sanctioning this user, who has been warned repeatedly, for his edit-warring today at Olga Fonda? Perhaps block his IP? He has made three reverts so far today, under the IP and User:Truthserum21. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe I wasn't last time we talked. Here's what to do: an SPI, which will take care of the account, the IP, and any underlying creepers, and which will create a record for easy DUCK comparison. That means instant block. Again, I can't do much now other than what you're doing (reverting) because I have no evidence that they're all the same, besides the quacking, and none of them have been blocked yet. The violations themselves, while irritating, aren't really blockable on sight--but after a positive CU in an SPI, they will be. I'll set it up right now so we can move quickly. 01:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sidenote: the IP had made so many such violations that I blocked them temporarily. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nebuchadnezzer56. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of it and being proactive. And congrats on the adminship — I'm happy as heck to see a new sheriff in town! With great regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't have done anything had you not gotten this ball rolling. Thanks for the note, and thanks for keeping an eye on things. Let's see how this goes; if the page needs protection, let me know. In the meantime, consider marrying her. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your help needed

[edit]

Hi,Drmies,I had edited and cleanedup the names of poets without wiki articles from List of Urdu language poets,but several time someone with different IP is vandalising the edits,and reverting without giving reasons.Dat is lastig,for me,every time I begin again and again.And that's happened now today again,I tried to revert per rw,but happens nothing.It costs my time,I will try again.Please help me to do some thing in this regard.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Username

[edit]

Just wondering do you know if it's possible to change your username i would like to change mine to remove my surname but wouldnt really want to start again. Just not sure if that's possible. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help got it changed. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisjnelson

[edit]

As I expected, Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evaded his block by editing as an IP. I've blocked him indefinitely as per our discussion and his IP is blocked for three months. Let me know if you have any objections. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eagles, I could say "don't be such a fucking asshole", of course, but you've heard that one before, I think. ;) Sad that it has to come to this. Thanks for taking care of it. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmilz38

[edit]

Edits like this indicate Hmilz38's talk page access needs to be blocked. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 03:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huiswerk

[edit]

Haha, ik had mijn huiswerk al af hoor. Stijnsation (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR

[edit]

Most of the time I have no problem with this policy. Sometimes though, I wish we'd pick some variety of English - I don't care which one, just pick one - and stick with it. It's annoying having to guess if this article is about an "organization" or an "organisation". </grump> LadyofShalott 02:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this years ago in Wikipedia:Standardize spellings/Archive but it never went anywhere lol 67.246.14.41 (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a more reasonable policy would be to not tie down specific articles to specific versions of English, and simply allow all articles to use any version of English, even mixing versions within an article. It's not as if it's very difficult to remember that a "lorry" is a "truck" or that a "lift" is an "elevator" or a "flat" is an "apartment", and whether it's spelled "organization" or "organisation", the intended meaning is perfectly clear. Any specialized vocabulary needs to be explained even now: "X, referred to in the United States as Y", and that won't change. I mean, who really cares if it's "colour" or "color" as long as the reader understands what is meant? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would drive me more crazy. I can just see "honours" in in sentence immediately followed by "honors" in the next. Of course, I despise the American spellings, and will use the British spellings unless forced to do otherwise, of "judgement", "acknowlegement", and their ilk. Your solution would allow me to use my preferred spellings of those while still using American(ized) versions of everything else. LadyofShalott 17:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I'm concerned BE lost in 1776, and I'm with Noah Webster. Ha! Drmies (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ragan Fox

[edit]

please see Ragan Fox. As an unregistered member I am unable to nominate for deletion, but I do not believe it meets notability guidelines. Please review and perhaps nominate to delete on my behalf, I'd appreciate it. 67.246.14.41 (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemable?

[edit]

Saw your work on Paul S. Farmer's autobiography (in which I have a geographic and subject interest) and wondered what you thought of Paul Hopfensperger's (if you have time to look at it), currently up for deletion. Is it redeemable? --Errater (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahem. You know I nominated that, right? ;) I'd close it as a delete right now, but as the nominator I can't do that. I don't believe that even with the recent changes it passes, and the consensus is clear. I'll try to find a closer. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits?

[edit]

Hello. You reverted my edits on Mike Nystul, saying that they were disruptive. The facts from the article were taken directly from the encyclopedia brittanica. Can you please explain which edits were disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.91.6.101 (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

[edit]

I ask for you help, hopefully for the last time. I can honestly say, it was in vain to try to help Bad good dragosh98. Although it seemed he understood, he still edits false information. Since I contacted him, I kept an eye on his edits, and corrected what he did wrong, and explained to him why. But all in vain, because he doesn't seem to understand anything. And when I ask him why he did what he did he answered "`cause I wanted so", or "just for fun". He vandalized many many articles, besides the ones involving FC Vaslui. Hope you'll help me this time, too. Alexynho (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Alex, here's what you can do. Start another thread at WP:ANI. Collect a few of those diffs that clearly indicate he's being uncooperative (I looked through a dozen or more of his edits and found only the usual unexplained and unverified edits). I saw he's still making unverified BLPs, even after the last ANI thread--mention that as well. I think it's time for a block, and I'll support you. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reavis High School??

[edit]

You must be wrong..i have not made any changes to this article referring to a highschool in burbank, Illinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.42.242 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance, if you please

[edit]

See User talk:LadyofShalott#Please could you help with Takeover Roc Nation. LadyofShalott 23:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Roman Catholic" vandal has created a user name...

[edit]

... User:Gullucum1956 Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably some sort of monkey business going on, but the account was in fact created two years ago. Hasn't exactly had a sterling career as a Wikipedian though. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, F, but the offending edits are recent. Their account, BTW, predates that of Rev.JamesTBurtchaell,csc by a few months, and I always considered that the master. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That'll teach me to read the edits with which I {{edit conflict}} :( An SPI could be interesting, methinks. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed it was an older account, I just assumed it had just been created. Interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha

[edit]

Apparently, you, Leaky caldron, and I are all sockpuppets of one another. LadyofShalott 17:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving again? New car? Investing in "community development" (not to say "becoming an oppressor")? Bongomatic 21:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Property is theft, right? Good thing the bank owns it all. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ereira-Guyer

[edit]

Would appreciate your opinion on this short article - my first. Fully appreciate it may not be worthy enough, either the subject nor my prose and technique! --Errater (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Odd. Ever since I worked on Green children of Woolpit, Bury St Edmunds pops up in every other article I look at. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations--and thanks for contributing content! Now the nasty parts.

    I'm not entirely sure what "In terms of actual votes" means--is that 'as opposed to relative voting differences (in percentages?)' or so?

    Note 3 for that sentence is to a Wikipedia article (which has no references), and if that article had references (like polling results or so) I don't see how it could make the general point about the narrow margin.

    "Well" in "His philosophy was well described" is not entirely neutral. I suggest taking it out and instead making one or two points about what that philosophy entails, if it is important. Recasting the sentence to say something like "He supports curbside recycling and opposes the use of the internal combustion engine", with a reference to that article, might be an idea as well.

    Notes 4 and 5 may need to be moved to follow "joining the Green Party"--I can't tell what note 5 verifies since the article doesn't pop up for me.

    Also, the references need work--go ahead and use our citation templates, lest someone slap a linkrot tag on the article. I made a few minor copy edits--good luck with the rest! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Drmies - a lot to think about! --Errater (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm harsh... Just be glad we're not married. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RC Vandal

[edit]

Now at 184.6.66.71 Last IP block was for 2 weeks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to cut off 184's access to the talk page, since he's flinging around personal attacks about "bigots". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes LP list

[edit]

Hi Drmies, can you explain me why you delete the list, it's hours of job you turn into nothing in one second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooltra (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragosh

[edit]

I don't think the case was judged. I mean, Dragosh should be blocked now, but I just reversed another vandal edit of his.

PS: I`m sorry that I posted twice this message (the previous note, I wrote it in the last topic, so I don't blame you if you haven`t noticed it). Alexynho (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howl (g)riff capitalisation cock-up

[edit]

I may have made a cockup on the Howl Griff page.. the title of the page is capital H, lower case g Howl griff, but as it's a band name both should be capitalised, would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction for changing it Mglinearart (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I fixed it for you. The key is the tab labeled "Move" at the top of each article. LadyofShalott 16:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lady. I was wondering about it but hadn't yet looked into it. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. LadyofShalott 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know the water is still warm enough? Drmies (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that does sound nice. LadyofShalott 23:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, today it was down to 73--I got in, but apparently this was our last swim of the year! BTW, this homebuying stuff is really for the birds. We've moved the closing date three times already, and it's still iffy. We moved in two weeks ago, of course, so this better work out. Anyway, I still thank Wayne Greenhaw every day for having had the pool installed. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would stink for it to fall through after you're already in the house. What's the holdup on the closing? LadyofShalott 15:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--Weird stuff. The appraisal came in late, and then it came in low. Here's a funny detail: our insurance agent assessed the house at almost twice the value that it appraised for the next week. So the price has dropped some and we're getting a lower mortgage, which is nice, but again there's a delay. Hey, I went swimming twice today, but this morning it was only 71. Brr! How are shakes in your neck of the woods? Drmies (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar weather - the high today was 69 - a bit chilly for swimming! Once you have the house officially, you should think about heating the pool. <evil grin> Anyway, construction and its noise continues at work, and yesterday we said good-bye to one person from my department and welcomed a new one - so at least we won't be more short-staffed than we already were. LadyofShalott 22:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FL Studio

[edit]

Thanks for your recent edits to FL Studio. I had a qusetion about this one: you removed several artists from the notable users section, stating lack of verification. Their use of FL Studio/Fruit Loops was mentioned in each of their Wikipedia articles; did you remove them because of a lack of a proper citation in each article? If so, thanks; I'd been wanting to check on that myself. —danhash (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I think such verification should occur in the mention on the list, though I will grant you that I'm not always consistent. With lists of notable people, for instance, such as you find for towns and universities, one assumes the verification is in the article, but with lists like this (and see Echoplex, for instance), I think it's valid to ask for verification right there, esp. since too many of such lists are based on very vague and unreliable sources (there's a lot of marketing there, which you don't really find in articles for towns and universities). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, especially about the marketing issue. There's been some discussion on the talk page about the notable users section. Would you care to share your opinion there and help us reach a new consensus on criteria for inclusion in the list? The current guidelines listed on the talk page should be updated, but I'd like to have somebody else's opinion included before rewriting them. Thanks! —danhash (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responded there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd: Facepalm

[edit]

-

[edit]

hey hi, I just figured that you removed the article which I edited. However, I feel the content was not irrelevant and was based on Barro and sala-i-martin textbook economic growth. It described the AK model which is base to endogenous growth theory. I agree about the grammar but deleting was no solution, it could be improved.shikha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • It's not deleted--it's still there in the history, if you're talking about Endogenous growth theory. Combine the grammatical problems, the lack of reliable references, and the problems with the style book (see WP:MOS), and I didn't see any other options. Sorry, but them's the shakes. You can improve it, of course, and place it back. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you put it back and let shikhabhanu and others work on it? It seems to be authentic information if it were sourced. He needs to supply the references, of course, but anyone can help with the language problems. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's so poorly written I can't tell if it's authentic or not. But I put it back and won't look at it again, since it hurts my head. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey thanks Fred Bauder and Drmies for getting back the article. I'm working under WikiProject Education in India. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and will try my best to improve the condition of the article. The content is not irrelevant but i agree that it is not referenced properly. any help regarding how to put reference to improve the article will be appreciated . thanks once again. User:shikhabhanu Talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Another happy customer

[edit]

Why did you mess up the Wyandanch, New York article you autistic nerd, it was the greatest webpage on the whole of the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.83.69 (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of best pages on the whole of the internet, don't you miss your poetry award? Bongomatic 14:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Yes, I sure do. That was fun, and I loved flashing that at people. I should have made a print-out. I don't know how this wayback machine works--does it work on that? Drmies (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Schmetterer

[edit]

Hi Drmies, thanks for your work editing the page Bob Schmetterer. I will set about to add the citations that are currently noted as missing. Question regarding status of photo -- have emailed Wikicommons the signed release (Creative Commons Attribution Shara-alike 3.0) and the photo -- is it okay to leave it here in the meantime? I value your input and thank you for your time. KellieFlan (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Kellie--thanks for your note. Don't take my edits personal: it's a thin line between encyclopedic article and resume, but it seemed to me that a couple of edits would alleviate that, without the need for a tag of some sort (e.g., Template:Like resume). I don't know about the photo, that's above my pay grade--but it seems to me that you did the proper legwork. Perhaps a talk page stalker can weigh in here. Thanks again for contributing, Drmies (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies, here's a concern: with the removal of a chunk of career, we lost track of his second wife, I think. May we return that reference and any of Bob's post-retirement work? Do you think that work is encyclopedic worthy, i.e. the census design, Board work, historic houses? Sometimes the line between encyclopedia and biography is hard for me to discern. I'm open to the education, and thank you again for your time.KellieFlan (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I just don't see how marriages are encyclopedic material, unless it's to Liz Taylor. The same goes for the historic houses etc.--I think the way to go (and this is how I write biographies, and I've written quite a few) is to look for the (reliable, independent) sources first, and work into the article what those sources provide. For instance, I just added a reference for his Volvo work at Scali McCabe--but as far as I'm concerned, the other names should go until there is a reference for them. Does that make sense? You are much more likely to end up with an encyclopedic article if you work that way around, rather than starting with the resume and trying to find references for the individual items. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank makes sense, of course. Will work on it, thank you. KellieFlan (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC) PS Thanks for the link! KellieFlan (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

It's not vandalism. Those links don't wrong and are incorrect. Brown never called himself Indian. It's wrong. 173.56.72.65 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RC vandal

[edit]

New IPs at 76.4.182.220 and 76.4.181.46 Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Hi there, Drmies. They're now at it from 184.6.69.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), FYI (looks like you're the one handling this). Regards, Swarm 19:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Mays

[edit]

Hello Drmies,

I appreciate your feedback regarding my recent updates to Wikipedia. My goal with the recent updates is to try to ensure that Academy members, such as Willie Mays, are given the proper credit for their achievements and highlighting the fact that they are the recipients of the Academy's Golden Plate Award. In addition, I am finding that Academy member pages have direct quotes from interviews that we conducted with them over the years and thought the links to these unique and intimate interviews would provide some great insight into their lives and careers. By no means is it our intention to help optimize the search for our website (I know that they're not being followed). If the use of external links is prohibited in Wikipedia (and I can provide many examples of where they are being used for much less value that we are providing on our website), I will refrain from adding them. However, I don't understand why you removed the reference to Willie Mays receiving the Golden Plate Award. Is such an edit frowned upon as well? As side note, the founder of our non-profit organization took the most famous photographs of Willie Mays, which were on the cover of several issues of Sports Illustrated.

Further guidance would be greatly appreciated. Aaaeditor (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aaaeditor, thank you for your note. It is clear that you have a conflict of interest here, and note such expressions as "unique and intimate interviews"--it is not evident to me at all that the organization is so important that membership is of encyclopedic value, and it is certainly my opinion that those links to the interviews, and the lengthy quotes, do not add significantly to the article. But, as I mentioned to you, I've opened up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, and that's where a discussion really should take place. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest?

[edit]

There are a few of us who have gotten interested in reviving and probably renaming and rescoping Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. It's very much in the works right now, but it looks like we're heading towards a more general academic bibliography scope. Would this interest you at all? LadyofShalott 02:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Success070707

[edit]

Could you please block them; I've put them down at AIV but they seem intent on hijacking the article in the meantime. Calabe1992 (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already got them. Thanks. Calabe1992 (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yes, I was following you a bit. Thanks for checking in. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have to wonder what exactly they were trying to do. Did the person that they were pasting there have an article about them? Calabe1992 (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed--it was a bit weird. The article was typical vanispam, and bookspam to boot (see this). Drmies (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting site. Bookmarked and guess I will watch for a sock later... Calabe1992 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttlesworth's death

[edit]

I was pretty bummed out when I read that Shuttlesworth had died. It's a nice gesture that Alabama's flying the flag at half-staff. Best, — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a lot nicer than trying to bomb his house... We got some making up to do. But maybe you've seen us in the news: Hispanic kids are leaving the schools because they are intimidated by teachers asking about their parents' immigration status. I think I told you I saw Jim Zwerg speak here in town--he said "There are no illegal human beings." We didn't listen. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Black Moses" seems a little over the top. Besides, wasn't that Isaac Hayes? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

i just felt like you needed some sort of kitten!

Kevin (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TOMS Shoes

[edit]

Thanks for your edits at TOMS Shoes. The company seems to elicit some strong feelings from both supporters and non-supporters which means that praise and criticism seems to be added quite often. I can't keep up with it all and your edits look great. Keep up the great work. OlYellerTalktome 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I got led there by way of ANI, of course. I saw you were being accused of being on the pay-roll--how is the pay? Maybe I can donate one edit to charity for every edit I make on that article. I've looked at Litch's edits a little bit and may look again. Don't worry about having forgotten to notify--you're supposed to but it's not a hanging offense. I'll warn you, however: it may well be that BWilkins has a point and this is more a matter for an RfC, unless these insults (which I haven't looked for yet) are themselves blockable, but such long-term patterns of incivility (that's mostly your accusation, I think) are not always acted on on ANI, for various reasons. Keep the faith, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources

[edit]

Hello Drmies,

I was just trying to find online sources for the items that needed citations. Can you please tell me why the sources I cited are not good? Kind Regards, Puregoldxxxx (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because they are simply websites that reproduce his resume. Surely you noticed that neither this nor this are websites belonging to newspapers or magazines of note. I am sure you also noticed that they are carbon copies of each other (how could one miss that?) or, more likely, carbon copies of the resume that Polansky or his organization supplied them with. This is, of course, where the Wikipedia article was copied from. I hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I just saw this, which clears things up considerably. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at OpenInfoForAll's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again,

Well, I am the webmaster of his website. I didn't have any experience in editing wikipedia articles whatsoever and I learned a lot in the few weeks I contributed especially from Moonriddengirl. Now that Paul's page has been cleaned, I have no intentions in messing it up again, e.g. adding unreliable citation. Again, I must stress that I'm "really" learning and don't know to be honest to even cite something, I simply copy/paste another citing. I would like to learn and become like you and Moonriddengirl and do work through wikipedia. Maybe you can give me an advice? At the end, since Paul's article's still neutral and with my promise that I would not do any edits on it anymore, can you please remove that tag you put? I would really appreciate it. Kind Regards, Puregoldxxxx (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Special:Contributions/Jackbots

[edit]

Special:Nuke is a fast way to delete pages added by 1 user. Just thought I'd let you know for future vandalbots. →Στc. 02:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thanks for taking care of Jack. I went offline right before I could notify anyone of the problem, and had to hope that someone would catch it. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template edit

[edit]

Hi there. I recently reverted a crude edit to an infobox (if you want the boring details, an IP had tried to insert the name of the vice-captain of a national football team by simply typing it under the captain's name, as the infobox template for national football teams doesn't have a vice-captain slot), but I promised the user on his talkpage that I would look into getting the template adjusted to include a vice-captain slot. I've raised the issue on the template's discussion but no one seems interested in responding. I would be bold but I don't have any experience editing templates, and don't want to catastrophically break such a heavily-used template. Can you help? Or perhaps suggest someone else who can? Thanks basalisk (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance for a new user

[edit]

Any chance that you can assist in providing guidance for User:Godissupreme? I have left a shed-load of notes on their talk page as well as comments at various other venues, most recently Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rajput_Ganpal_Foundation#Competence. There seems to be a total unwillingness to engage and a persistence in repeating incompetent contributions.

Obviously, they are new and clue-less regarding policies etc, especially with regard to sourcing, but I am not getting the message across. My fault, I am sure, although others seem also to have tried with regard to AfC issues. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: they have started talking but it does not look good for their Ganpal article. I feel a bit bad about this & am wondering whether I have handled it correctly. Conversation starts at User_talk:Sitush#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FGanpal and runs to the following section, which is similarly titled. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, give it up. You've tried long and hard enough and spent time on that editor that you could have spent polishing the front fender of a vintage motorcycle. That stuff on Ganpal (removing the PROD and you reverting them) went on for too long: it is never a good idea to rv the removal of a PROD, for reasons explained in the PROD guidelines. Anyway, I've sent that article to AfD, which is faster than PROD anyway. They're not listening, and no amount of electrons you waste will change that, it seems to me: no person with a Ph.D. listens to reason others' opinions, and that goes for me too. Now, that foundation will be gone before you know (as soon as it goes live, I imagine), and at some point that editor will give up. You've done what you could. Don't worry. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. You got involved and straight away I got "Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.". Some admins are out to really control things ;) Rv of the PROD was not the point of the reverts and, in fact, someone else actually changed the PROD rationale along the way. I was reverting the unreliable sources etc. But, yes, shifting it to AfD should have been done sooner. Despite seemingly > one billion people disbelieving me, I do actually want to be neutral and fair when dealing with contributors from the India/Pakistan etc regions. In fact, it is the rough ride that I have with a few that probably makes me over-sensitive to the rest.
I am also not particularly fond of the heat at AfD and have one on the go there already - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Races_as_described_by_Megasthenes. Having two running simultaneously would fry my brain. I find the "extreme" inclusionists somewhat frustrating to deal with but, of course, that also is entirely my fault! All this aside, I accept your advice - my brain knows that it is correct, the problem is my heart.
I shall have to get my 1956 maintenance manual out. I cannot recall seeing "fender" among the parts list ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I have no idea, I'm just making it up. My father once had a British bike and let one of his buddies drive it--it was one of those weird machines that shifted one up, the rest down, and so the guy destroyed his transmission. Ouch! Seriously, I admire your patience. You're one of the nice guys, and we should have more of you. But this is not a case where your efforts will be rewarded. BTW, I juggle a bunch of AfDs around at the same time, but I'll tell you my tactic: I present my case and then trust the community. I often don't look at them anymore (in part because one might get worked up). Take care my friend, Drmies (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I get the impression that the self-appointed representatives of the previously mentioned 1 billion would disagree with your opinion of me, give or take a few hundred :( Regarding AfDs, you have a point with the "nominate it and leave it" approach. I have not been through a tremendous number of the things but those with which I have been involved have proven to be awkward. Tbh, that has probably been in part because of my poor phrasing of the noms. I'll learn.
Yes, there are some odd gear change arrangements, but they made perfect sense at the time. Try riding one of those Soviet jobbies with a reverse gear - now they really are confusing. Off to look at a BSA M20 tomorrow - £2500, in original desert colour (and probably some sand in the tank). - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Will you ride it? Did I ever tell you I knew a guy in Amsterdam with an Enfield Taurus, the 18 hp diesel? He had bought it in India, and paid for some unforeseen (and possibly invented) customs charge by giving someone his SLR camera. It was sitting in his living room of his apartment in Oud West--on the third floor. How he ever got that up there is still a mystery to me. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested.
Message added 14:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sole Soul (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the first hit was a false positive. I changed the filter since. Now we will wait and see. Sole Soul (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re High residue diet

[edit]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at 220.101.28.25's talk page.
Message added 16:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dragosh

[edit]

Hi Drmies. I noticed that many things happened while I was gone. I noticed that Dragosh is once again a subject due to his vandal edits, and wanted to ask you what is the verdict of the case. I mean, I saw there were many talks, many warnings, but nothing concrete. Alexynho (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A barnstar for you!

[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar; it means a lot to me! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for the help and understanding. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 23:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Special Barnstar
For this bit of insight.[5] I was thinking almost exactly the same thing, particularly after reading "Brogrammers are typically well-groomed, physically fit, wearing shades, and are raging on code using one or multiple screens", which is perhaps one of the most banal sentences I've ever read on the project in five years. Sometimes the truth just feels nice to say, doesn't it? Trusilver 00:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke emata

[edit]

I speedily deleted it as vandalism. Compare it with Aljur Abrenica. LadyofShalott 02:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson

[edit]

I saw your note on Fleetham's talkpage, and can only say that I support your viewpoint entirely. He's currently blocked in any case (precisely for this kind of stuff), so don't feel bad about reincorporating the content.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. In the South, they refer to that as a hot mess. I returned the content to the Gibson article and had to merge the histories, which is a big pain in the butt. I ran into that editor before; they were making some serious POV edits to the article. At any rate, I've been working on Gibson Guitar Corporation a bit, but it still needs a lot of work--as do all the related articles. PAF (pickup), for instance, is atrocious. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about guitars, sorry can't help you there. I've just had troubles with this guy for a year and a half on various Chinese car company articles, where he did the same exact thing (and much worse) - I have to admit I was (very guiltily) somewhat happy when he began defacing more popular articles, as this has made enough people notice the guy to get some action. It seems that no one but me really cared about the fate of FAW Besturn and other, similarly exciting articles...  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a merge proposal

[edit]

If a merge proposal had little policy-compliant support and the proposer has formally withdrawn it, can anyone close it? I was involved in it & so it seems probably not to be a good idea, but if the thread is left open then it will just attract occasional comments for the next six months even though there really is no policy argument that can sustain support for it.

BTW, no, I have never seen a diesel bike. I did once have a BSA Bantam in my bedroom, however: I just partially dismantled it to get the thing up the stairs. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm. In general one probably shouldn't, and I think it depends on whether there were votes on both sides. "Little policy-compliant support" could mean that someone could disagree with you, I think. I don't know if it takes an admin to close it--I think I'd drop a note at WP:AN, just to be on the safe side. In your editing areas there's already enough bickering and accusing... Drmies (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. That's why I said this a few days back. It's just that I know the occasional person will turn up and add a comment weeks and months later, which will cause the whole kerfuffle to blow up for another few days. The bickering is at DRN right now, regarding a different article but the same broken record. I am fed up of a certain person doing this same thing everywhere I've been but no-one is capable of putting a stop to it. It is clever stuff. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I'm concerned the comments by the one IP who supported it are so unclear (grammatically and otherwise) that I am not even sure they support a merge and on what grounds. Sheesh, what a mess--why can't they register, or at least sign their frigging names, or at least separate and indent comments correctly? (But who is the culprit in this merge proposal?) Yes, take it to AN and maybe someone will be nice and quick and experienced enough to handle it--you and I are bike buddies (or it will seem that way to some), and I don't wish to close it lest I give the wrong impression. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Composed a (too long) response and it got lost in a weird edit conflict. Went somewhere else but feel that I do need to say something. The something is that it was not my intention to ask you to close & I apologise if you felt otherwise. I am still finding my way with some of the procedural niceties and am also trying to spread my queries around for fear of overloading any one person. I have now taken it to AN. At least it seems that I got the "involved" bit right - one day I will be perfect! I am sure that you are on the opposite course: young daughters think daddy is perfect, but wait until they hit their teens! - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • BTW, Lady is next on my advisory cycle. Woah, I bet LoS suddenly decides to take a Wikibreak! - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • LOL, who, me? LadyofShalott 00:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Lady has now been granted a dispensation from the cycle as a consequence of her assistance at WP:RX - one good deed deserves another, etc. The list of advisers is fairly short, however, so she has not got long to go unless I return to editing in the sphere of defunct Mancunian manufacturers (latest: The Lancashire Steel Company - poor, but it should survive until I can get to a library). Wikipedia:AN#Closure_of_merge_discussion has not attracted any takers yet and I rather doubt that it will, although I am aware that things tend to be a bit quiet over weekends. So be it - I'll just deal with the crap as and when it arises. The daft thing is, the person who dragged all of this up has not actually commented in the discussion. My experience is increasingly that there are people out there who "set up" other users to do their dirty work, and do so in a manner that seems to be "unfair", ie: promote a position, cause an event to occur and then see how the wind is blowing before getting involved. This is worse than canvassing but, of course, there are a lot of naive people who will not see that they are being manipulated. We're losing potential contributors because of it. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help moving a page

[edit]

I think this needs admin permissions to do. Editing:Warren Chaney needs to be moved and the redirect deleted for obvious reasons. However, Warren Chaney is already as a redirect to the problem article. Bgwhite (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, Thanks for your help and thanks to Bgwhite for picking this up! This is all my error and was unintentional. I worked on the article "off line" before moving to a user space where I worked for some time before saving and when I did I inadvertently saved to an article...then worked some more before realizing my error. As I said in a note on the discussion page, I nearly stroked when I saw what I'd done, given the article was nowhere near ready for an article save. The mistake was compounded a 2nd time when I moved the article to editing, etc. I have no explanation other than my mind had to have been out to lunch. I do know better and it is embarrassing. Sorry for the aggravation but thanks again for the help. I do appreciate it. Sinclairindex (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would, please delete the Editing Warren Chaney page (the product of my 2nd error - "cheesy"). I will work in the new User:Sinclairindex/Warren Chaney area that you created. Thanks again! Sinclairindex (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poke

[edit]

Hey, next time I'm so clearly ignorant about something, let me know. I only found this because I went looking through the history because I got curious about the disposition of that report. I was assuming the editor was a Harry Potter fan. LadyofShalott 00:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait--you don't think I'm serious, do you? That link was the only hit found for the username using Google; my point was to indicate that it can be really difficult to guess intent. I agree with you and Daniel, and whoever reported it should stay away from my literature classes, where interpretation is bound by rules. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--No. Let's stop trying to figure this out. Alabama won, UGA is winning, life is moderately OK--let's keep it at that. My oldest is actually in Tuscaloosa and went to the game, and had a lot of fun hanging out with the band and the cheerleaders. The sun will be out tomorrow and the water might get up to 69; I jumped in today and it was delicious. Any plans for tomorrow? Are you working? Drmies (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, I will be. A Sunday means a short, but hectic, day. One of my young patrons needs help on her school project, but I don't know that I'll be able to give the amount she needs - and I don't think she can get it from home. Does your daughter want to be a cheerleader or to play an instrument now? Or both? LadyofShalott 02:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thank you for your comment , on the ANI. [[6]] Its nice to know i have at least some support from people :) Goldblooded (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Ed17's comment at ANI. I do not support the charge brought against you, but that does not mean I think you've been without fault. Answering in a dozen paragraphs is a bit over the top; lay low and do some work that improves the project, that's the best thing to do. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ive taken that into account, thanks. Well it was more along the lines of half a dozen and they were in rsponse to CityofSilver primarily, but yeah i completely agree im going to try and be the guy who doesnt stick out but gets on with it, and ive already been creating some new articles and improving a number of others over the past few days since i was unblocked. Goldblooded (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great attitude, Gold. – Lionel (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why ?

[edit]

My page was removed. Why? What that means: "Stop copying the company website, please" ??? I'm a scientist and member of GAMMA collaboration. I was author of this page and author of each of sentences. Most of the info were taken from official GAMMA webpage where author is again me. User: Samo2b. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samo2b (talk • contribs) 04:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Samo2b. Two things: first, I cannot smell from this distance that you are the author of that page and/or the copyright holder. You can email WP:OTRS for copyright clearance. Second, the text you copied in many ways does not confirm to our Manual of Style (see WP:MOS) on how our encyclopedic entries are to be written. BTW, "your" page wasn't removed--it's not really your page once you post it in the mainspace, and all I did was undo your edits. The page, GAMMA, is still there, but I removed the edits you made (and I assume you made those before, as an IP) as a copyright violation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muisjes and other matters of importance

[edit]

My dear Drmies,

I was about 21 hours into my Yom Kippur fast when I took a break and read your comment about the bounties of Dutch food on my smart phone. Though I know very little about your national cuisine, I imagined it in the hunger of the hours that remained of my fast. I had a visual input for my food fantasy as well, since Mrs. Cullen and I had gone to San Francisco to see "Dutch and Flemish Masterworks from the Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo Collection" in its final day before moving on to Houston. What a delight! One of the paintings was a table setting, a triumph of realism and symbolism. Each crease and fold in the table cloth was rendered perfectly, along with the cheese and the ham and a heavy wine glass or mug. There was a Chinese bowl filled with butter, teetering awkwardly, and a knife embellished with the artist's monogram leaning against the precarious arrangement. So that gave me something to think about in my hunger. My wife (who sends warm greetings) and I enjoyed that art exhibit immensely, and also learned a bit, I hope, about Dutch history and culture. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Cullen, thank you for this nice and detailed note! It made my day. My kids had toast with blauwe en witte muisjes this morning; one thing the article doesn't tell you is that afterwards the poor parents have to scour the floor to pick up the muisjes that fall onto the plate and then bounce off (they're hard and sugary and bounce fantastically). I hope you enjoyed your fast (ahem), and please give my regards to Mrs. Cullen. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is nice to know that you can obtain such a delicacy in the hinterlands. As for the bouncing and picking up of the sweet particles, I guess that Dutch efficiency doesn't extend to all things, especially when it comes to treats for children. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TF

[edit]

Sometimes, you just have to shake your head at conversations around this place. NO beer, but this evening I had a lovely adult beverage with Bailey's, vanilla vodka, and chocolate. LadyofShalott 03:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency

[edit]

first they deleted the federal vampire and zombie agency, and then when the vampires and zombies came for me, there was no one to delete them...— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Down the hatch

[edit]

I needed that, but no more man, i don't want to spill it all over the keyboard (does that constitute disruptive editing?). Dankiu vel, happy week!

Confused

[edit]

Ok I have a question. How do I add sources to a page I started to create if there's only some of the content that's now accessible? I'll add citations if I can get to the rest of the article! (I am referring to the page started for Kay Sumner) Kmckee (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What was there is still there, in the history. However, what you're doing is starting with the resume and then adding some sources, and that's not a recipe for success, since the first thing that is required here, besides references to reliable sources, is neutrality. Start with the facts that you can verify reliably and build the article on that, that is the best advice I can give you. If there is confusion here, it's between encyclopedic article and resume. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Finger

[edit]

Thanks for your quick deletion of my page on Harold Finger. The page was in need of work and citations, but the material used was supplied by Harold Finger himself in response to my request. Finger makes a lot of speeches, and he always sends in the same resume, which you'll find all over the web. I'm not entirely sure how to solve the problem, but I can and will rewrite his biography in my own words. Voronwae (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • But why do you need his resume to write an article on him? Is he not known outside of it? Drmies (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reason for using his resume was that I wanted to get something up quickly. I'd been trying to get to it for several months and I never seemed to find the time. I have a question for you, as well. How does one prove that one has secured permission from the author of a work such as Harold Finger's short autobiography? After all, Finger did supply it to me, and it's standard practice for speakers to supply something like that every time they give a lecture. The piece is posted to the web by whoever's in charge of publicity, although frankly when I put up the Wikipedia entry I was chagrined to find that what Finger had given to me could be found in several public places. I won't end up using Finger's autobiography; it was inappropriate to be anything but a quick placeholder, but I am now wondering how one might solve that problem. Voronwae (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, copyright permission has to be given. Some of the visitors to this talk page know much more about this, but from what I understand, if you have permission from the author, say in an email message, you can forward that message with a note to the volunteers at WP:OTRS. If I understand it correctly, if such text is used in an article there will be a "ticket", a note explaining copyright permission, on the article talk page. But go look at the OTRS page and see if that answers your question. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zomby

[edit]

Hi Zomby, sorry was my fault. There is a dubstep producer named Zomboy, but also one named Zomby. Could you please delete Zomby and move Zomboy back to Zomby. Thank you, --NiTen (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New vandal editor

[edit]

Username User:NuclearWonderland created today, looks like it's aimed at User:NuclearWarfare. Begins with a disingenuous user page ("Um, I'm just here to look stuff up...") and two vandalism edits, both with deliberately misleading edit summaries. Do you think a block might be in order? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, tough call. Two edits is usually not enough to block as a VOA, and the NW connection is not a given. Worth keeping an eye on though. I'm throwing in the towel soon--maybe the Lady will be online later if this gets out of hand, or take it to AIV/ANI. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BMK, what you can always do is report them at AIV as vandalism-only (given the edit summaries, for instance), and you might run into someone who is more trigger-happy than me... Drmies (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Fleetham

[edit]
  • But I suspect that there might be more, my observation of his behavioural pattern is telling me that he belongs to one of them category of problematic editor in such fields, especially with regards to WP:Synthesis. They all refuse to discuss about their actions with oters, they all upload image files with questionable copyright status and they will edit war to push their views through when left unchecked. All classic signs of misguided individual, who can be lead back to the right path if they chose to listen to us but usually they don't because they refuse to discuss. Personally, I've seen a number of these folks, who are either from China or India, doing good work on Wikipedia but not adhering to our way of verifying and citing sources, some has even turned nasty or resorted to socking to push their view through when they get blocked. Having said that, I just wished that there was more ways to reach out to these people but I guess what we can do at this moment is just to watchlist them for the time being and cleanup after them. TBH, I don't want to be seen as bitey when I've been very patient with them. Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, Dave. On the Gibson article, it was pretty clear they had an agenda of sorts, but copyright or other big issues weren't the problem--just POV editing. I haven't seen evidence of synthesis etc. in other articles they've edited, but I haven't looked very closely and right now I don't think there's a pressing need for it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your help

[edit]

Would you introduce this editor to the norms of working here? Bongomatic 01:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made some edits to the article. I looked at the talk page but I'm not sure what I could add--unless, of course, you were also referring to this editor. Have you considered AfD? I haven't done the legwork to check for notability. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review these blocks

[edit]

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

  1. 175.100.41.250 (talk · block log · block user) by Drmies at 2011-10-11T17:49:55Z, expires 2011-10-25T17:49:41Z:

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu

[edit]

Greetings. If you could also protect Cthulhu, it would be appreciated. The unnecessary additions are incessant ([7]). Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure. I've given it a month, but I hope you realize that these problems are ongoing and can't easily be solved by protection. In my opinion, the best solution is to make the article as good as can be--good articles are less likely to be vandalized, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance Industries Page

[edit]

Hey, You have commented on the Reliance Industries Page regarding the Length and the content. Could you please tell What else could we plan to update the page as per the wiki guidelines that should go on all such the companies.

I am new to the Platform. So may have made the extra changes. Also, how do we change the Status of the Page that u have put in.

Waiting for Reply & Guidance in the matter. Thanks & Regards . Mananshah15 (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm--who is "we"? The problem with the article is, I think, pretty clear: right now the directory information is gone, but the whole thing reads like a collection of highlights/press clippings, not like an encyclopedic article. Then there are a lot of WP:MOS violations, and way too much non-neutral text. Neutrality and reliable (third-party) references, that is the name of the game. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We" as u and me.. With your help, i am learning a lot from you. Thanks for that. i will keep the suggestions in mind while editing.! Mananshah15 (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

blessed are the peacemakers

[edit]

While you feel the article is not ready for mainspace, can you share any reason why incubation is not worth considering? It would seem to me that it would address two isues at once. A removal from article space to appease those who do not feel it ready, and allowing those who see a minor notability to continue efforts to strengthen the article as anticipated coverage grows and the child does more outside youtube. I would think this a reasonable compromise. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're talking about Jenna Rose, right? Sorry, but I don't see her as a notable subject. I wouldn't say she's not "ready" for mainspace--I would say it's not notable, and that's different. I didn't say incubation is not worth considering. I've never dealt with that (and in my opinion userfication works just as well), but you don't need me or other AfD participants to have it moved there. I don't think in terms of "once she's done more to make her notable"--lots of things can stand in the way of becoming more notable, including trains and peanut allergies. If you need anyone's blessing to have it incubated, you have mine, of course, but this isn't a matter of compromise on one thing or another, since I'm not opposed to incubation: I just have no opinion on it. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you

[edit]
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

[edit]

It doesn't really matter if the term was used at the time the video was made or not. There are many examples of terms that are used only in retrospect ("baroque", "rock music", "science" etc etc). It is clear from the article "Music video" that Penny Lane was a music video, although the term was not used at the time. It is more consistent to use the heading Music video to describe it. "Promotional film" is nowadays an old-fashioned and quite imprecise term, whereas "music video" is clear and straightforward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHeadTrip (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you're using Wikipedia to argue a point about something in Wikipedia. That's probably giving us too much credit. When you find a reliable source that says it was a music video, that might lend some credence to the argument, but it's still anachronistic. Not all promotional films are music videos--see The Song Remains the Same (film). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find a reliable source about the "video" for Penny Lane, and come back to you. Your example of The Song Remains the Same (film) actually supports the point I try to make, namely to use "music video" as the generic term for "a short film integrating a song and imagery, produced for promotional or artistic purposes", or in more popular terms, "the kind of short film MTV would show." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHeadTrip (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"They [the Beatles] were the first group with a music video..." (Dwight Rounds, The Year the Music Died: 1964-1972: A Commentary on the Best Era of Pop Music, and an Irreverent Look at the Musicians and Social Movements of the Time; Bridgeway Books , 2007). Is it okay to change the heading now? DrHeadTrip (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:83.86.215.243

[edit]

Not sure how to proceed, as I've never done this, but the user you have blocked two days ago resumed vandalising the same article. Please advise. (Also, if you don't mind explaining what I should do in these cases... :)) Salvidrim (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked them again--seems to not be a very dynamic IP. Next time, sure, you can let the blocking admin know, but reporting them at WP:AIV is probably the quickest solution. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, just saw that. Thanks! And thanks for showing me the way to AIV too. :) 02:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim (talk • contribs)

Another article to be moved and removed

[edit]

"Brandon Howard" needs to be moved and old link removed. Bgwhite (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are your feet cold?

[edit]

Try on:

What to do?? Bongomatic 22:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, doc, & sorry for slacking. Things in the so-called real world ya know. Bongomatic 01:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Well, the real work still has to be done--article cleanup. Do you like the template that I found? You can't use it, of course, or you'll be indef-blocked. I hope CoM comes back, if only to give me shit for it. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:End of Day

[edit]

Hi Drmies, nice to see your name popping up at quite a few RMs recently. Anyway, I see that you moved End of Day to End of day as uncontroversial (good call, IMO), but the talk page remained in the same place. So could you please move Talk:End of Day to Talk:End of day so it matches up with the article? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey thanks--odd that it didn't move with it. I guess it's because it was over the redirect and there was content (I've restored that history), but I would assume a warning would pop up. Anyway, thanks for noticing. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks also for closing those discussions--honestly, I didn't know that needed to be done, though now I don't see why I thought that. ;) You learn something new every day. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for getting that – I guess there's not a warning because it not often that a talk page of the redirect has a bigger revision history than the actual redirect. No problem about the closures – they only really need to be done so that the bot knows to remove them from the list of RMs. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EMERGENCY: Hullabaloo Wolfowitz vandalizing more Janet Morris' pages in retaliation for decision on Gilgamesh in the Outback page

[edit]

This is the edit history for the last couple of hours of editing by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz of The Sacred Band of Stepsons page. This page has stood unmolested since the Spring of 2010 and now Mr. Wolfowitz is trying to dismantle it since he was overruled in vandalizing the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. Is there some speedy process to have him blocked from vandalizing any more of Ms. Morris' pages?

(→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: dubious, subjective, inadequately sourced) (undo)

  1. (cur | prev) 20:32, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (15,861 bytes) (→History, myth, and philosophy meet fantasy: or/subjective/synthesis, unsourced) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 20:31, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (16,353 bytes) (→The ancient viewpoint: OR/subjective/synthesis, unsourced) (undo)
  3. (cur | prev) 20:30, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,325 bytes) (→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: ce) (undo)
  4. (cur | prev) 20:29, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,452 bytes) (→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: fix typo) (undo)
  5. (cur | prev) 20:01, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,453 bytes) (→Reception: add review) (undo)
  6. (cur | prev) 19:56, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,190 bytes) (→Lovers and brothers and friends: pair-bonded characters driving the fiction: more obviously promotional text) (undo)
  7. (cur | prev) 19:55, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (18,383 bytes) (nfcc violation, multiple nonfree images without image-relevant discussion in text) (undo)
  8. (cur | prev) 19:52, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (18,461 bytes) (→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: wretchedly excessive promotional text) (undo)
  9. (cur | prev) 14:46, 17 October 2011‎ Orangemike (talk | contribs)‎ (20,081 bytes) (it's a copyright violation; we don't continue a copyright violation while some nebulous process is taking place) (undo)
  10. (cur | prev) 22:22, 16 October 2011‎ Marcus Qwertyus (talk | contribs)‎ (20,174 bytes) (Let this go through the process first.) (undo)

Please see if there is an emergency procedure to stop this vandalism as soon as possible.

I have just reviewed the edits in question and see no evidence whatsoever of vandalism, which has a very specific definition here on Wikipedia. I think that the article is now much closer to meeting our standards, and that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has improved the encyclopedia by these edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_20&oldid=1145843532"