Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 72

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

I've kind of had it with the good advice. Apparently anyone, admins included, can get away with, are even applauded for, calling other editors and admins corrupt, cronies, abusive--but "you're not so smart" is blockable. Yeah, we're not going to get anywhere with our precious civility.

Previously suspended user back at it

[edit]

Fresh off of his 6-month suspension, 68.40.217.90 is making incorrect edits on multiple pages with sources such as "that's what I heard." JimmyPiersall (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Please

[edit]
If you leave, I'll rampage!
  • Don't go!!!! Our buzzard hasn't been fully cooked yet, and I'd miss Moosezilla. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just got banned from a user's talk page for saying the sentence, "It is a huge no-no". I was not aware that saying "no-no" is only appropriate to a three-year old, thus I was treating them as a child. I'm also in a "why am I here and why do I take this crap" mood. Only a matter of time before we all don't have an answer and leave. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies. Remember the number of good people who you've met through here. Like me. You edit for them, not for the drama. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have missed something. This is what happens when I go camping? Who is going to write the plot of Sharknado 3? These are the things that keep me up at night. Also, I watched Pulp Fiction on the plane yesterday, I had forgotten what an awesome movie that was. Also, did you know that the "L" in Samuel L. Jackson stands for motherfucker? --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, did you know that Buzz Aldrin won't release his famous space selfie photo under Creative Commons? I uploaded it to commons as PD-NASA, but have since nominated it for deletion, as I don't really know if it qualifies, I had asked he release it just to be sure, which he declined. If anyone knows much about NASA PD, I'd appreciate some more input over there.--kelapstick(bainuu) 23:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would never have happened if Lsjbot wrote all our articles.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies. I've only been asleep for a few hours and it seems I may have missed a hint of something of epic importance. Are you hinting at departure? Oh surely not. My heart would bleed. I have just stated elsewhere that you are the only admin I trust and admire. My admiration for you is profound and the ability to escape to and contribute to your hallowed talk page is the warmest fuzzy on Wikipedia. And you write such beautiful prose; here, there and everywhere. Please be encouraged. With deepest respect and regards. Fylbecatulous talk 14:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you are needed. Take a break if you must, you've said it's rough teaching in the summer. But I just discovered that User:Hafspajen may be leaving and I come over here to see if you know and find this? One of our best editors and Admins talking about leaving? Do I really need to do the guilt thing also? Or threaten to sit in your doorway and cry? Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Did you know that when we were in France in April and May, we actually saw this flower, and now I know what it is. I have pictures of it, too, although none of mine was featured. :-) As for your comment above and the ensuing discussion, I'm going to deny what is not possible. Enjoy the pool. See ya.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outraged

[edit]

Who was blocked for saying "You're not so smart"? I'm sure we can get such a block overturned real fast, then welcome you back into the fold. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Demiurge1000: The block was removed about 4 hours after it went in. Currently its at AN/I as a review of the close of the challenge to the close of the block review, Jimbos talk page in a dozen subsections, about a dozen talk pages of admins, managed to infect the Bureaucrats notice board, and various other sundry places of discussion. Last I checked, the current push is to argue that the unblocking admin some how violated the Wikipedia Terms of Service. Monty845 02:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For saying "You're not so smart"? Do we have a diff of that being said? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the diff in question (edit summary) [1] but its also after he used the C word and was already up against the ropes for incivility (and the alleged sexism) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So "You're not so smart" isn't actually what was said. Puzzling. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is the kind of thing a grandmother would say to a young child, so in spoken English it doesn't have a pejorative connotation- more like "you're not thinking properly". "You're not so smart" seems to have a different meaning (to me it's US English usage). Pisda is a small village in Nigeria. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paraphrase, Demiurge. It's done all over Wikipedia. Not so puzzling. You are welcome to come up with your own interpretation of "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?"--you'll have to note, first of all, that the editor was speaking metaphorically. Many readings are possible, of course, and "you're stupid" is probably the most serious of 'em. Blockable? Pfff. Tell me what the punishment should be for this, if "stupid" is blockable. Mind you, I wouldn't have blocked for that remark. Gaijin, you'll have to accept that if someone says something not directed at any person, and he's told that he did again and again, even though he didn't, well, at some point one loses their patience--to the extent that he calls a person "not so smart". You've lost your patience too on occasion, as have I, and we've probably said worse things--and after reading up on Jimbo's talk page, where apparently now Sitush has become the poster child for the kind of sexism that apparently drives people away in droves, I'm about to lose my patience again. Sitush may well be wrong about many things--I certainly don't agree that there is no sexism, or that it's not a problem--but "without honor"? Which, by the way, is a completely masculine-inflected turn of phrase, from the time of chivalry. He Who Uttered that phrase is probably good at holding doors for the ladies. Me, I prefer to hold the door for everyone and to teach Marie de France instead of some Arthurian stuff. Wanna know what we can do to combat sexism, like in real life? Ask Crisco about the buzzard, and then go teach that text.

    Later all, and please, while I appreciate all the words of support, I do not deserve this attention, and I don't matter. Wikipedia needs two things. Apparently we need to Strongly Combat Rampant Incivility Even Though It's Only A Small Core Of Assholes And Their Enablers, and we got some articles to write and some POV to neutralize. Of course if Sitush is neutered, and since Boing! apparently left, we'll have to give up on the area of caste--but hey, that's the price you pay. See, now I've done it again, and I need to finish my grading. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Funny Drmies, I thought Wikipedia only needed one thing... People to, you know, write an encyclopedia? That is what this is, isn't it? Why we are here? I think I read that somewhere... I certainly have my own opinions (on a number of these matters). Like yours, they don't matter. Why bother talking to people, I find oversensitivity uncivil. The more I talk to people, the more I like my Dog... Where is Hafspajen when we need him, I need a good pug picture. I guess the big question is, who the fuck cares? And that is a question for a lot these situations. How long has this gone on for, two days? How much time could people have spent writing articles rather than fussing about over an edit summary, and the subsequent nuclear fall out that comes of it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A pug for k-stick
  • When we paraphrase, Drmies, we don't use quotation marks. Your use of quotation marks led me to imagine, not unreasonably, that this was a quotation. It wasn't. I am glad to be able to be less outraged (and less puzzled) now that I am better informed, albeit no wiser. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advise

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I'm doing my best to hold up my end of the self-imposed IBan with LB, but its difficult to say the least. Granted, I realize that I said "If ceasing to talk about, near, in reference to, or anywhere in the neighborhood of LB will suddenly make her less tendentious, then I'll stop immediately",[2] but her ongoing paranoia based accusations are difficult to ignore let alone not address. For example, she keeps referencing being emailed offsite when making comments or accusations about me. She's quick to say that she has no way of knowing who sent the email, but the inference is there nonetheless.

Admittedly, I have made postings in the last few days that reference her comments, but not addressing her directly. You might have noticed some of this on Jimbo's Talk page and the Talk page for the Gender Gap Task Force. Other than "try harder to ignore it" any sage wisdom you can provide would be appreciated.

Like I said on Callanec's page, I really just don't care enough about her to make the effort to harass her; not that harassment is worth doing for anyone. But if I was as overtly malicious and nefarious as LB makes the effort to portray me, why would I be wasting my time on Wikipedia and not out in the real world causing chaos. I'm not a blogger or a journalist (as LB states she is), I'm just a regular guy who likes this site and sees it as a positive thing. On my User page I have these words emblazoned across the top and have for longer than this thing has been going on with LB...

My overall viewpoint towards Wikipedia is that is it a place of learning and a means to counteract ignorance and bigotry. My reason for this belief is that the lack of knowledge is the seed of bigotry. The more knowledgeable and enlightened people there are, in my opinion, the less ignorance and bigotry we will have in the world.

Call it my personal mission statement or Wikipedia mantra or what have you, but I mean it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it just got a little easier because now its become comical...! LB and I are now BOTH members of the Gender Gap Task Force, the Firearms Project, AND the Pornography Project.[3][4] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've lowered my level of activity, Hot rod, in part because of the aftereffects of something she set in motion. So I'm not the best person to ask for advice right now. But if you want to ban yourself from interacting with her, you probably don't want to sign up for a project that she's a member of. Later, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that's unfortunate. Point taken, but I did not join Gender Gap for any reason that has to do with LB, it just looks like a good project and I'm trying to make a worthwhile contribution. Sorry for the clutter on your Talk page and thank you for your efforts. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Dan56's RfC/U

[edit]

Hello there, Drmies. I noticed that you are a certifier at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56, and because I have something I want to add I thought you could help me. I recently had an unpleasant experience with this user, and I wanted to add that to the RfC/U, but I'm not sure if it's an endorsement or an outside view. You can see what I've written at User:Flow Ridian/sandbox. Can you please offer me some guidance in that regard? Thanks! Flow Ridian (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Flow Ridian, I think an outside view will count as an endorsement of sorts. I always thought of the format as slightly less formal than an ArbCom thing, so it shouldn't matter so much. Please keep in mind that the purpose is not to get someone blocked or something like that--it's to give pointers to someone who has been, let's say, difficult to get along with. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzerino is probably interesting to you. Flow Ridian and Harmelodix have both been blocked.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A new kind of pork

[edit]
Pig out
I just tried this the other day. Kinda disgusting actually, but one should never turn down a chance to taste a pig. A Puka dog, OTOH is something not to be missed. Think of a hot dog in a sleeve roll, injected with delicious relishes and Hawaiian mustard. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like--Mark Miller (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Between you and I

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharktopus vs. Pteracuda

[edit]

You'll have to let me know how it is. My brain's at the point that "Pteracuda" actually sounds logical compared to ANI. At least it beats marking papers! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, it's beyond terrible. These guys figured out how to do some special effects, and then concoct a terrible story around a skeleton crew that works on all their movies. And there's always girls in bikinis, though not as many as in Piranhaconda. I'm done with papers, by the way--phew. Hang in there, Chris. I won't be at ANY anytime soon, unless I get summoned of course, but I'm keeping my head firmly in the sand, tool and all, I think. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very silly

[edit]

Can you please cast an eye over the book titles at Die Swart Luiperd? Three of us have had fun translating them from Afrikaans, but I'm wondering whether mine were accurate. Plus they are jolly good stuff, IMO. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ian Wood (scholar)
added a link pointing to Church History
Rob Meens
added a link pointing to Church History

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, yes and no--I thought there was, but it's a redirect to the ASCH. It's a really good journal, by the way, and I should really try to get published in it. :) Drmies (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation...

[edit]

Both the editor who started the RfC and another who supported it have been blocked as socks of an editor who's had a deep-seeded issue with me, thus confirming the suspicions I've had all along. Dan56 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Dan56, and I'm sorry someone put you through all this. But I see there's CU evidence, for future troubles. I've left comments in various places, as you've no doubt seen. Thank you for the note, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message at Kww's talk page. In response to your question, I suspected it when Harmelodix made his first edits to Wikipedia, continuing where the previous blocked user had left off at a few of the articles I had been contributing to significantly, particularly Dark Magus. After two days of noticing he had been editing such articles (similar to the ones Jazzerino had with the same kind of changes), I made a report at "More_possible_sock_puppetry_related_to_Jazzerino" and later at Past ANI revisited", both of which were not given a legitimate chance/review. I'm grateful though that Kww took a look into it recently. Ironically, the result of Harmelodix's report back then was to encourage me to assume good faith more with new users, which can be difficult as evinced by not just Harmelodix, but the other one I notified Kww about here. Hopefully, the sockmaster has been discouraged by all this enough to move on. Dan56 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Codex and consolation

[edit]

Thank you for your Boniface-related articles! Teach me: the articles which name a codex by a place are named "place Codex", the others "Codex other", - is this one special? - Did you know why you should read that soprano Ada Cherry Kearton was married to wildlife photographer Cherry Kearton and recounted their travels in her autobiography On Safari? - Would you believe that a RM close that took a lot of my energy in 2012 is still hotly debated (on the talk, to be precise, and I didn't have the last word ...)? - I wonder if lambananas are sweet? - "He who speaks a word of consolation ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, that's what reliable sources call it! ;) Don't take his word for it--see what Lutz von Padberg calls it. There are occurrences for "Codex Ragyndrudis" as well, just not so many. Also, no, I don't, though I just did--I suspect this has something to do with the South-African pulp novels I was asked to look at. Finally, I've not seen that RM, and I suppose I was unaware that Mkativerata had resigned and all that. Just another occasion of me missing some perfectly good drama... Drmies (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The singer is one of the set of about 160 BBC-related articles hat Andy proposed to the arbs to get permission to add infoboxes himself. They said no, but Voceditenore added one to this, in an admirable act of generosity. - Did you miss the perfectly bad drama that brought me close to asking for consolation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Sorry, I gave up on infoboxes... Yes, I saw the Boingish drama and have left a note there. My name was actually brought up there, in the context of An Attempt To Bribe Manchester. I love Sitush. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing requested from you in terms of infoboxes, only admiration ;) - Looking closer, I saw your beer, thanks for sharing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I admire everyone on all sides of the infobox dispute--how's that? Drmies (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no infobox dispute I know of. - An editor formatted the attempt of an infobox by a newbie, - he was observed, taken to arbitration enforcement, which found "no violation", but he is still treated as if he did something wrong and should not have made that improving edit, simply sad, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been nibbling away at the horrible language in Charles Close without even noticing it had an infobox- just had a look to find out. These boxes remind me of the backs of cigarette cards or baseball cards, or maybe Pokemon (Charles' allegiance is UK, his favourite letters are K,C,O,B and E, and his activity is Mapping War). Infoboxes are excellent for describing steam locomotives. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I improved it a bit. - One of the common miunderstandings: an infobox is not there to describe, but to make key information available at a glance. I would not have found his place of death easily in the article. - Back to my sadness: whatever topic, if an user made a helpful edit he should be praised. Here, he was asked to self-revert. Would you (y'all) do such a thing? (To be precise, I meant would you self-revert a good edit, but the other question, would you ask, might also worthy of consideration.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it's there to make it easy to find key information. One problem is that some information is too disputed or ambiguous for infoboxes but editors still add it. See my userpage for a statement on infoboxes you might like. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that and was amused, but it doesn't answer my question ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to answer the question- often the key info I need on a subject couldn't be contained in an info box. For example how to date an Anglepoise lamp (you give it flowers, and promise it 500 volts ). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the question, which is: would you revert a good edit on request, or would you ask someone to revert a good edit which - you think (!) - is not following restrictions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any useful answer to either question (this is after an hour or so of thinking about them). On the other hand I wouldn't spend time trawling through POTW's contributions to find out if he breached a restriction on the page of the vice-chancellor of PNGUT, or "threaten" him with a week's block. The whole BLP has two references, one of which is a dead link and the other a link to a 66 page pdf in which Schram is (presumably) mentioned en passim. So, the important thing about this article is that POTW mustn't touch the "infobox"? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a specific answer. I was thinking more broadly: would I report anyone to AE? No. But nonono for something simply improving. Did you kow how much time was spent on discussing this little edit? Well spent? (Five long threads on three noticeboards, not counting some like this. And this. And this.) Don't we have more important things to do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4.6 million articles, 8.4 million pages of "discussion". A brief scan of Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content doesn't seem to preclude using that material in publications, so long as authorship is acknowledged. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerda--Andy is topic-banned from doing infoboxes, was denied permission to add some and found to not be in violation, Voceditenore added one, Voceditenore was asked to revert and threatened with sanctions? As for reverting a good edit if it is in violation of something--well, if it violates something, is it still a good edit? Drmies (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andy is not topic-banned from doing infoboxes, he is restricted not to add one (and some other things). For the article causing the discussions: He didn't add one. Period. No violation. - More generally: if it was a violation I would look violating what, - call it the spirit of the restriction. But now he didn't even violate the letter. - Voceditenore added an infobox to the soprano, one of Andy's articles, I sing praises: that is the way forward. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
archived as had to be expected: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Amendment request: Infoboxes, - this is the list where articles are waiting for generous people who donate an infobox, because their creator thinks they are naked without one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for looking. - Did you know that the arbs supplied only one diff as evidence in the case, and that one follows a similar pattern, looks like addition of an infobox, but is only uncollapsing one that was there before? Not guilty. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Gerda. As for Boniface, I'm not quite done with him yet. I picked up von Padberg's two books on the codex from my office and will be working on the article some. I guess it should be on the front page, on top, to protect the others from martyrdom. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PANHEAD2014

[edit]

After returning from his second block, don't know where he has edited because i am retired from editing, so i have not reverted anything. What i know he has done is file a complaint about me and User:MYS77 writing in a non-English language in each other's talkpages, which is not forbidden by WP guidelines, User:Writ Keeper had the courtesy of informing me today.

My apologies in Mr.Panhead's (as well as the user that received the complaint, then issued me the warning, User:MrScorch6200) page were summarily removed with the summary "Don't wish to be bothered by this person". If you again come into contact with this user, please tell him if he does not wish so, then please stop talking about me/reporting me behind my back.

Attentively, your Portuguese chum --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco, you know I love you like a [insert gender-correct term for relative], but sheesh, sometimes you just gotta let go. People are gonna talk, and haters are gonna hate; it's not fun, but there's little that you, I, or anyone else can do about it. I'll back you on the language thing--the complaints and warnings were based on misinterpretations of policy and were contrary to common sense anyway--but we can't stop people from talking about things, and calling people "idiot" isn't going to help either. Just leave it be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but i am genuinely trying to reach out to this person, and his DESPISE is really bothering me. The "idiot" part was because i was seething, i removed it immediately after writing it. And you are correct, we have to let go sometimes, well i let this go... now! Thanks for everything. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see he continues to distil his loathing of my person (in Scorch's page, now i'm basically being called your baby, and a coward when my IP address is static!), but i can't do anything anymore about it, i'll let it go. I asked several people to go in his talkpage and tell him, on my behalf, that i genuinely wished this run-in had never happened and that i wished we could collaborate in WP articles, no one has ever conceded that one :( I'm stubborn as can be, but even i know when to pack it in (why write him nine messages? To see him erase them NINE TIMES?!). --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad, but it's as they say: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. They're clearly not in the mood to listen to you, so the best thing for keeping the peace is probably to just leave them alone, at least for now. Even kind words are more likely than not just going to make things worse, even if one of us relays those words from you to them. It's not that we don't want you two getting along--we very much do--but I at least just don't think that looks very possible at the moment, y'know? Maybe in time, but not right now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Always to-the-point and "legally cosmic"! Thank you (both) for everything, now i wiki-sleep (god, how long have i been saying that? Just shut up already AL!) --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Student of yours?

[edit]

Obviously, a student of yours... Smilerslove. Bgwhite (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorio Vardanega

[edit]

I just declined a speedy delete on this article. If you compare it to the French wiki version, you'll see that it's pretty much a translation of the French article. The French article is slightly better formatted, but both versions suffer from run-on, resume-like exposition and almost no sourcing. I can easily fix a little bit of the look of it, but I thought that you or one of your stalkers who know more about this sort of thing might want to improve it substantively. The fellow appears to be notable to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded a little bit. Seems to be associated with MADI, which might be notable in itself (an organisation promoting hard-edged and geometrical art in association with the Dallas Art Dealers Association (DADA)- my mental picture of a Dallas art dealer is somewhat like a more healthy Matthew McConaughey) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bbbee and Xanthomelanoussproggy. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors pitched in, too, and it's much appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domination

[edit]

Why is it that I feel like the pouncee in this discussion? Putting aside the obvious charms of the user, the deletion was a close call, and I'd welcome other administrators' views as to whether it was the right call or whether it should be restored. This chauvinist pig awaits your thoughts.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeying about

[edit]
She said, "Oo ee oo aa aa, ting tang walla walla bing bang"

Oh great lord of pop culture drivel! Does thou know that our simian brethren also take selfies? And that the well of Commons runs deep with their copyright-free holdings? And these images must have articles! (GigaOM, Buzzfeed). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Thomas

[edit]

William Beach Thomas passed GAN a couple of days ago. Thanks very much again for your help with it. If ever you fancy turning your lead-writing skills to Sara Jeannette Duncan, well, that one should be reasonably fettled within the next couple of days although, bearing in mind my recent kerfuffles with feminism, I'm not looking forward to dealing with that aspect of it. I'll do my best and watch out for the lynch mob. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roman historians

[edit]

Is any of this true? If it is, does it matter? It sounds like a series on Showtime, but what do I know.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PXE

[edit]

Hi, the toughest part is already done; It might need a bit more polishing but I think the issues of lack of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view have been addressed. The article now follows the PXE specification in simple terms and it puts the standard in a time context establishing the relationship with its ancestors, sibling, and descendants. I think it's a good starting point for people interested in adding complementary information if needed. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. Thanks for your help. Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Míchel Salgado

[edit]

Hi there MIES,

interesting that Panhead was blocked twice, no one was blocked besides him, but the current version of the article is his. He even reverted you in the CELTA sub-section of the club career, calling your English pidgin (the obvious "first-choice right back", when he did nothing but play in that position his entire career, is mind-boggling); the reference in the intro, which is not obligatory per WP guidelines and is only A LINK, is still there. Last but not least, even though even an admin (User:Mattythewhite) said that, even though it was the first time he saw an injury being discussed in the page of the "perpetrator" instead of the "victim", he would not contest its inclusion, the Juninho Paulista incident has never been included again or, at the very least, brought forth for discussion again, as he wanted.

Don't know why am i doing this, when it's obvious if you revert him i'll be deemed your baby or akin. Maybe you should ask for a second opinion that Panhead does not consider harassment or akin, and if the other person deems the version 100% correct i'll have to abide by the consensus (only speaking from a reader standpoint, will not edit anything); by the way, Panhead, User:Gringoladomenega and User:MYS77 are still at each others' throats, dunno if that's the case (if it's not i apologize for the accusation, to him, you and WP in general) but it looks like the first is firing on all cylinders to see if the other two are blocked like he was, thus getting "even". Should you or User:Writkeeper ask "is this what you call letting go?" i'll say "yes, i have let go of the messages here and there, now i am only worried - for one final time - with the contents, Salgado's page is one i hold dearly because i developed it greatly since it was only a snotty stub.

Well, going to work again in my translation (400 pages at that, first time i have worked in EIGHT years, a paid endeavour, English to Portuguese if you should ask), tough but i'll get by! Cheerio, all the best --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I have to give them credit: mine is the non-pidgin version. Maybe Matteythewhite or GiantSnowman can take a more active interest in this; it's really not my cup of tea. Plus, I don't understand why Gringoladomenega keeps insisting on "nearly ten years" when, if I remember correctly, the reference has him playing in Spain for fifteen years. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice

[edit]

Drmies, you were quite helpful with the Category:Group of 88 issue, so I wonder if I could impose on you again? One of the editors involved in that issue (@Shakehandsman:) has nominated an article of theirs for featured article status. I gave some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Ross Parker/archive1, which they first ignored and then answered with a preface that accuses me of having "an unhealthy" level of interest in them. Yes, I have been looking at what they are editing because of their involvement in the group of 88 issue, but I have not done anything that could be seen as harassment or even impoliteness. It feels like Shakehandsman is attempting to discredit my comments on the article. I have further comments on the article, but don't want to inflame the situation. Any advice? Nigel Pap (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added my follow-up comments and Shakehandsman has now declared that most of the items I raised are "closed" without substantively addressing the issues I raised. I don't have any experience with featured article nominations, is that normal? Nigel Pap (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, not knowing much of the subject matter I can't really comment on the questions and answers (and it's a lot of words), but no, that's not really normal. One of the FA regulars (I'm thinking of Crisco 1492) can give better advice, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any decent refs in Dutch?

[edit]

Crookram is a Dutch hip-hop artist who may or may not be WP notable. LadyofShalott 13:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there's a scarcity of biographical information (probably 'cos there's nothing much to say). His music seems to have some popularity. Needs some music critic to write about his "pandiatonic clusters" and "aeolian cadences".

    The other trademark of their compositions is a firm and purposeful bass line with a musical life of its own; how Lennon and McCartney divide their creative responsibilities I have yet to discover, but it is perhaps significant that Paul is the bass guitarist of the group. It may also be significant that George Harrison's song “Don't bother me” is harmonically a good deal more primitive, though it is nicely enough presented.- William Mann, The Times

    Don't you love discovering great music by sheer randomness? Crookram is a downtempo/trip hop producer whose music will blow you away....Through Windows shows glimpses of (early) RJD2-esque stylistic diversity with its lush, atmospheric soundscapes. As instrumental LPs go, Through Windows is top notch.- Hip Hop Is Read

    Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies admin helpline - abortion pov

[edit]

As there are discretionary sanctions on the topic, I need some input. I haven't dealt in discretionary sanction areas before. I've got IPs and an editor going around adding this to articles about Australian MPs. In the MP's article, how a MP voted on this now becomes the only mention on how a politician voted on a particular topic. Am I offbase on this? Any other advice

Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg

[edit]

This article was in very sorry shape. Although I was already familiar with her, several weeks ago I saw the documentary about her and was very moved. I have essentially rewritten the entire article. More work than the few articles I've created from nothing. Anyway, you're welcome to improve it if you wish. As you'll see I had to use Highbeam for just about everything because I couldn't find good online sources. Google's archived news has been a joke for some time now. Anyway, you often find sources I don't, and then there are of course your talk page stalkers, some of whom dance circles (while she plays the violin) around my abilities as a content creator. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm kinda proud of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to include the word "spewing"

[edit]

Hi Drmies. Thanks for your "welcome back" three weeks ago, but it was premature, as I may only now be ready to do a little editing, but I wanted to comment on the recent controversy which I just saw mentioned at the top of your talk page. It's disappointing, to say the least, that your friend apparently got blocked for an isolated, relatively innocuous comment, while elsewhere an administrator was allowed to go rambling though WT:DYK on a reign of terror, continuously spewing incivility for months, without consequence. Though it does appear to have abated, it all left such a bad taste in my mouth that after driving me away for nine weeks, I still feel unmotivated to resume my previous level of Wikiactivity. (More on my talk page.)

Last I heard, Wikipedia is desperately in need of keeping editors around, but here we had an administrator who drove away other users and basically said "good riddance". Shameful. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, my dear Mandarax, I stuck my little pinkytoe into ANI and got a couple of earfuls again--apparently I'm providing a "fig leaf" from behind which abusive IPs can throw their vitriol around. I so understand the editor formerly known as IP xx, and also as User:J__. You know I slum around regularly myself, and am, for the most part, treated well by editors with accounts (including admins), though Andy the Grump was not very helpful last time. And all the while it seems we are indeed losing admins (goodbye Boing!--Sitush has to go it practically alone now) and editors. Well, at least we got color-coded tables for every individual fucking installment of Lose Your Fat Or Die or Three-Year Old Toddlers Dressed Up As Sluts In Beauty Contests For Your Viewing Pleasure, and every Percy Jackson character has at least 30k of plot summary (well, not the two I redirected the other day). Then I discovered that not a single work of Ambrose (except for Veni redemptor gentium) had an article. That it would take a diletante like me to write De bono mortis, that's just sad. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Schenkl

[edit]

Hi. Along with KylieTastic, I also patrol Category:Articles with missing files and I noticed the Karl Schenkl article and your recent edit summary. Perhaps I misunderstood the German but it seems like the image de:Datei:Karl Schenkl.jpg is not definitively public domain. The image is assumed to be PD because the term of protection for the work has expired. I'm not willing to transfer the image to Commons because I am not certain that it's PD. Can you ping "Crisco" (I'm not sure which Crisco you mean) so we can get this solved? Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 23:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for helping to clear this up! I noticed that the source for the de.wp image seems to be a broken link. Unfortunately, I don't think I got that German wrong. - tucoxn\talk 23:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Crisco- it's drawn from a photo. Is there anything on its origin? I've come across German and Austrian cartes de visite drawn in the same way, which date to the 1870s (e.g. Bismarck). I can't remember seeing a German-language book of the period with an illustrated frontispiece of the author- do they exist? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very often such images come from an obituary in an academic journal, but there are also a few directories of German-speaking academics by subject that de.wikipedia has taken lithographs from. I'd seen the statement on the image page and went to comment it out in the article but edit conflicted with Drmies :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kids being taught TV was invented 2400 years ago

[edit]

Ouch, the next generation of Wikipedians from India are likely to be even more awkward to deal with than quite a few of the present generation. Did you know, for example, that television was invented by Indians ca. 2400 years ago? - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, mine is a Daily Mail type of headline, but you'll get the gist. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the ridiculousest story I've read in some time--I mean, it's even stupider than the letters to the editor in the Montgomery Advertiser, and that's saying something. (Here's a sample--esp. Tony P. from Prattville's letter is worth reading; he writes in regularly. The work of Marcus West from Montgomery is not in this sampler: it boils down to "Obama is a muslim who wants to take your guns rah-rah". I wish I could find the letter from that moron from Deatsville, who wrote in to say that since bicyclists don't pay road taxes they should get the fuck off of our streets.) Drmies (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prattville, eh? I just found it. There are some brilliant names over your side of the pond, it must be said. Shame about the "-tville" because the expression "you can take the man out of Yorkshire but you'll never take Yorkshire out of the man" comes to mind, with an appropriate placename substitution. Still, we've got Twatt over here, so who am I to noodle. Seriously, though, 42,000-plus kids being taught that the car originated 2400 years ago and stem cell work has something to do with 100 pots of ghee used in a fable? I knew Narendra Modi was the public face of a weird but highly popular right-wing outfit but this is ridiculous and there is another five years of the man as prime minister. Unless there is some sort of revolt, there'll likely be an additional 1.2 billion flat-earthers before he's finished. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, "Prattville" shows up as my location for my IP. One time when I was slumming some idiot kept telling me I lived in Prattville; there was no denying it. Yeah, what does one do when the truth is staring one in the face but you don't want to accept it? Answer: you fry it in ghee and teach it mandatorily. I haven't looked at the Modi article since he got booted up in the hierarchy, and I don't think I will. Well, at least he's not a Muslim, like my president--according to some people anyway. Is he taking people's guns? Do all people in India have guns? And if they don't, how do they protect their children from Ebola-carrying immigrants from Latin America? Drmies (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And lest you think I jest, here is a sample, but before you go into utter despair, know that the editors of this paper also have the best police blotter in the country! A sampler: "Numerous turkeys were killed on Hodgson Road. The canine suspect remains at large." and "A man called from Highway 35 in Kalispell to report that he hasn’t heard from his girlfriend since he sent her out to get beer on Sunday." Just saying... Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with paraphrasing gray area?

[edit]

Hey, Mr. Drmies and associated stalkers. I picked up a DYK review because I didn't feel like preparing for classes -- I don't start teaching for another month. Lionel Fraser didn't seem particularly notable at first, but I won't argue with the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is the primary reference. I re-classed this to "start" from "stub," and it seemed like it was an easy pass. However, I ran the duplication detector, and I'm on the fence. It's not just that several short phrases are duplicated. I'm not comfortable with sentences re-jiggered so that the words are nearly the same, but in a different order.

That said: The article creator has been around forever, has a bobzillion DYKs to their credit, and presumably knows what he's doing. That implies that, most likely, I need my standards aligned better. I'd very much appreciate it if someone would take a look at the dup detector result -- I hope the link works, or just run it yourself on reference 3 -- and give me a second and more experienced opinion.

Much appreciated... Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, if you come here explaining to me that you're really being lazy, and that you should be getting ready to pour knowledge into little children, well, mister, you got another thing coming. I should pull out my Calvinist cat-o-nine-tails and teach you industry (or, industriousness, I suppose, parallel with "moral ambitiousness"). Drmies (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I can't read that duplicator report easily--or I just don't know what to conclude from it. Yes, there's real REAL close paraphrasing going on, and that one paragraph entirely derived from that source is also some, well, really poor writing (note the He was...He was...He was...). But then, the source also does not excel in prose. If this were me, which it isn't, since I hate writing biographies, I would try to find a much better reference/source to build that biography on: a review of a biography, that's cutting corners.

    Now, I'm not real familiar with that editor so I won't comment on them. I think that this isn't over the line, and if you run that detector on some of my articles you might find the same thing (I hope not). But yeah, perhaps Eric Corbett, Crisco 1492, or Moonriddengirl have an opinion...? Also, you don't teach for another month? You got it made in the shade, Moishe Rosenbaum. Are you ready yet for the 2014 SEC Championship Game? Drmies (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for taking a look. I'll plan to pass the hook unless I hear from someone else. Glad I asked. Yeah, we don't start 'til 10 September, but we teach on Saturdays and have evening obligations on Sundays. And I figure I can write the game summary already: Tide take lead, Tide expand lead, Tide, well, roll. Not kissing up to the Good Doctor and his minions, just stating facts as I see them. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a strange school you're at! Also, your honesty, insight, prophetic gift, and friendliness are greatly appreciated. Don't tell my employer or my students, of course. I start next week... Drmies (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been meaning to tell you and this page for a while: It's absolutely fabulous to talk to people who discuss and authentically care for both types of football. I do play-by-play for both my school's American and Association football teams, I am an enormous fan of both, but it's rare that I meet a fan of one type who doesn't imply (or outright state) disdain for the other. Y'all root for the wrong teams, of course, but I love reading the conversations. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, good sport is good sport. This past World Cup was fantastic, even though we didn't get as far as I had hoped--but it's better to be third than second. Two weeks it was very cool here, and it felt like football weather--I love it when it feels like football weather. Nice of you to drop by again--and, as a DYK reviewer, you may always take the opportunity to tweak and edit the writing. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotcha. Thanks, Drmies. I put in an ILL request for the only real independent source out there, a 1992 book referenced by the ODNB, written by the author of the ODNB blurb. There's an autobiography, too... but is an autobiography a true "secondary" source? Hey, I'm a scientist, so my default answer is "no," but you humanities folk might have a different thought. I might just rewrite the current article a bit, pass the DYK, then come back to it when/if the ILL appears.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Update: Good point, I guess there's no reason I'm not allowed to rewrite some things, right? I did so, and I think (hope) the prose is improved. Thanks for the prod in that direction. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Moishe Rosenbaum, I suppose I should really give some kind of answer: I don't know what humanities humans do in their spare time, but this one does not put too much stock in autobiographies in Wikipedia articles. Let me tell you something completely different: I was going through a bunch of books related to a DYK nomination (for Caesar Blackwell) and found myself highly critical of one of them books (from a UP), one with a wikilinked author even. I mean, it seriously lacked some serious editorial oversight--and that's as strong as I'll put it publicly. :) Drmies (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meriden School

[edit]

Your reverts at Meriden are removing Federal Sex Commissioners, District Court Judges, and mayors who are notable as women breaking the glass ceiling. Wikipedia does not have an article on every notable women known to exist. Compare the Meriden list to the List of Old Girls of PLC Sydney before you revert carelessly again or are you going to remove every red inked-woman in Australia. Please be consultative. Castlemate (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that alumni lists worldwide should include only people who have referenced Wikipedia biographies. Male and female. Australian and Chilean. If an editor considers a person is notable, write at least a start class biography, and add a blue link to the list. Otherwise, these alumni lists get clogged up with non-notable people and unverfiable information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Write the article first is an often-cited essay supporting the need for bluelinks in this context. Wikipedia:WPSCH/AG#Alumni is a more consensus-based guideline that does not have that strict a requirement (but instead does require cites to verify both attendance and WP:BIO notability). DMacks (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Castlemate, there's no need to get in a huff and a puff over this, and please don't play the sexism card. If you're concerned with representation, write stubs (as Cullen says, correctly). That's what I do. If these people are notable, as you suggest (a claim that I do not automatically subscribe to), and if they deserve an article, write it. You've written a lot of articles, great, but I actually can't find any women in that list. Removing unlinked or red-linked names from such lists is common practice and finds support in WP:NLIST, because it is obvious that we cannot allow such lists to turn comprehensive and allow every alumnus of every school to be listed--and . My short "no article, no entry" reflects common practice, even if not every one edits like that, and DMacks's addendum. Thing is, the moment you add a redlink that meets the specifications that DMacks sets out, you might as well use those reliable sources (!) to write up a two-sentence stub, and thereby you have achieved much more than you will by simply listing someone somewhere: merely listing says very little, and it certainly does not make a name searchable or add them to the relevant category. There are BLP issues here as well, which DMacks's indicated specifications address alleviate also. So now you have the counsel of four highly seasoned (well, three--I'm merely old) Wikipedia editors. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever meet you, Drmies, I will be happy to sprinkle you with the seasoning of your choice (in addition to buying you a beer, my standard offer for awesome wikipedians). DMacks (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, and you helped me out with fettling that dreadful article about the female Canadian author a couple of days ago. Appreciated. Like you, I'm a bloke who really doesn't give a stuff about the gender of either a subject or contributor but in my case I'm getting a bit irked by this current climate: the best way to get better representation is to bloody well do it and do it properly. - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did away with a comment from the user who started this--check out the tone. Reminds me of Candleabracadabra (don't know if you ever ran into him). And funny too, that kind of criticism (well, you know, one of those fake compliments) from someone who can't be bothered to write a single biography of a woman, but wrote up over a hundred blokes. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot that needs to be done to remove systematic exclusion of women on Wikipedia, and that is writing articles about them, not making lists of red links in article space. Drmies has done more than most to help with this process, Castlemate. LadyofShalott 14:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandal

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I went to IP 128.193.152.161's talk page to leave a vandalism warning and noticed you've already given user a final warning [5]. They've vandalized the Meghan Trainor BLP twice in past 2 days. [6], [7] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni

[edit]

A cupcake for you!

[edit]
Thanks for the copyedit of Trijata. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Redtigerxyz, and you're welcome. Thanks for your own efforts to increase our coverage in that area. (Also, I enjoyed learning about this interesting woman, her cultural history, and her importance. I think that's why I came here in the first place.) Drmies (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[8] Feel free to trim. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The master of all bad words

[edit]
A classic Saab 340

Re the master of all bad words, see also Darwinbish's latest "Quote of the week" on her talk. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I don't remember...

[edit]

... who was your lovely assistant in killing off edits. But to my opinion, these edits qualify for permanent removal. And the IP itself, let say he has an interesting but not completely neutral agenda. The Banner talk 16:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Banner. I revdeleted a couple of contributions (tell me if there's more) and blocked the IP for three months. Ambitiousness set aside, this goes well beyond what's acceptable. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Betancourt

[edit]

Hello Drmies I want to really thank for protecting Derwick Asociates artícle, I was spending a lot of time restoring what seemed to me as obvious bad faith edits.
There is a problem with the BLP for Alejandro Betancourt López.
The user with IP 116.193.159.36 whose edit you reverted for Derwick at 00:31 after you warned him that you where going to block both pages, he was fast enough to sneak in a bad faith edit in the BLP at 00:32 , at the same time I assume you were doing the block on that page that was effective at 00:34. This locked in his bad faith edit which was previously reverted two times, please see Talk its even worst because besides been biased and spammed at the top, in the source only the company is cited to be under preliminary investigations, not the BLP. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest that, since this is a BLP which needs some attention, that you post at WP:BLPN. The BLP violation wasn't immediately clear to me so I'm not going to go in and edit an article I protected, but that may be done following a discussion there--but please post on the article talk page that you're doing so. It's high time these matters are addressed by Wikipedia editors whose interests are broader than just those two articles. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, Thank you for the advice, I agree with you, and will do as you suggest. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman Part: Ugh

[edit]

Hey Drmies, hope all is well with you. Got a mess of edits from your favorite vandal and mine (I think it is safe to call him a vandal now). He used IP address 73.39.107.138 today, made a mess of a few articles, all located in the same area as WICL. The IP geolocates to the same area where the rest of his edits come from. Blocks all around? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Tedman

[edit]

Drmies et al., can I ask you to take a look at this article and the associated AFD? I'm fairly convinced of my position but the original author of the article thinks rather differently and nobody else has commented yet. Hopefully some of you may have more expertise in the subject's field of study and be in a better position to comment on notability. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mandarax? Pretty please? Drmies (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably you asked me because the guy's an artist, but the article isn't about that aspect at all, and there's nothing to indicate that he's a notable artist. As for his status as an author and academic, I'll leave that to those who are more knowledgeable about notability issues in those areas. The discussion certainly has some of the most amusingly obvious ballot stuffing I've ever seen. Signed Mandarax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandarax (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you Signed Mandarax. (That's probably more valuable than an Unsigned Mandarax--there are many imposters around these days.) Screenprinted Drmies.

Darren Espanto

[edit]

Hi Good Day. I understand your reason for reverting my last edits. Can you help me be a better editor? Also can we start a discussion in the article's talk page? I believe you can really help me improve that article and I saw you have a lot of good contributions in this site. Have a nice day. White paladin888 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • White paladin888, thanks for your note. I think you're a fine editor already. My edits were concerned with the relevance of the content. It seems to me that in the long run some of those comments have relatively little value; they're immediate reactions that do not, in fact, have a long-lasting relevance. For instance, if person X says that person Y should get a record deal as a result of their performance, and label Z does indeed offer X a record deal and say, "well, we listened to Y's advice", that's a different matter. In this media age, where everything gets commented on immediately, it can be difficult to discern whether some comment or other has some actual value (as you know, lots of stuff simply gets repeated for little reason--the Echo chamber (media) idea), so it's editorial judgment whether something should be included or not. I personally advocate reticence. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment and thanks for explaining those things, I didn't know some of it before. Anyway, I know you're very busy and you have your own projects to do but is it okay if you will join us in the talk page of the article? I'll make a section wherein editors can discuss their concern, opinion, judgement regarding the complicated (or tentative) things that will be added in the article. Don't worry you don't have to commit all your time, just a little part of your time. I believe we really need an expert like you if the article is preparing into a higher class. Thanks again. White paladin888 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for feedback...

[edit]

I'm looking for feedback from lots of people, but maybe not everyone quite yet, on this thing I've written, and if anywhere qualifies for lots-of-people-but-not-quite-everyone, it's here. The idea is at User:Writ Keeper/Community desysop process, and is basically what it says on the tin. We're probably all quite sick of these proposals, and how they inevitably fail, but tough. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward, I wish we had an easier way to ask fro people's opinions, that could also still be seen as "draft mode". I mean, I might have a few more ideas, going forward, and I like to test 'em out. Do any of y'all have ideas on a place where I could do this going forward? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page has gone forward, in the sense that I have more watchers than Eric now, so this is pretty public. I'm not a frequent visitor to the Village Pump, in part because I have my own water cooler right here. Hey, is Dennis Brown still around? (And thanks WK, for writing this up.) Drmies (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DB is on a break, Drmies. See his talk. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that Dennis is otherwise occupied. Thanks for the note, Sitush: I should check people's talk pages more frequently, but I tend to get preoccupied with me, me, me. I'm sure Dennis has little time for him, him, him right now, and I wish him the best. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Thomas FAC

[edit]

Just a heads-up, Drmies, that I'll be taking William Beach Thomas to FAC in the next few days. You may recall that is the article for which you managed to get me an obscure-ish antiquarian book journal. I'm hoping that journal passes muster at FAC because it really was quite useful. The article can live without it but I'd rather it didn't. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, good for you, Sitush. Good luck with it, and let me know if I can help. (I can just show up and blah blah something and say Support.) Will you do something in return? Help me beef up Zombie Shark? It has enormous DYK potential. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive205#Rena Owen. Thanks.  NQ  talk 07:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity

[edit]

Hi there amigo,

can you tell me what this tag in this edit summary note means (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MYS77&diff=621230109&oldid=621229785)? And Mr. AL is accused again of... a bit baffling!

Kind regards --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courage

[edit]

I saw you semi-protected Courage for three months. The volume of vandalism by IPs or new users didn't seem particularly high to me, and the last IP edits arguably were beneficial removal of spam. Would you mind me unprotecting it? Huon (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw long-term vandalism (but I agree with your comment on the last IP--I left them a welcome template thanking them) mostly by IPs. If you want to unprotect, that's fine with me (Pottery Barn etc...!). One question, though, Huon--are you a firm believer in gerunds ("gerundium"?)? ("...mind me unprotecting") Do y'all handle that differently in German--no genitive? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought I see your grammatical point. In German I'd have chosen a wording like "would you mind if I unprotect it"; use of a gerund (with genitive) would grammatically be possible, but would sound unnatural and overblown. I didn't think up in German what I wanted to say and then translated it, but formulated the message in English right away. Huon (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can you show me the formal way? I need to practice (seriously). Thanks! (I rarely "translate" any more--I probably dream in English.) Drmies (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From a purely grammatical point of view, you could say something like "Würde mein Aufheben des Schutzes Dich [or "Sie"] stören?", but nobody talks that way. At most you could use such constructions to emulate "Behördendeutsch" if you ever want to sound like a pompous bureaucrat. Huon (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm reading a bunch of German scholarship from the good old days, and it's tough going. It's not just bureaucrats who write like that. You're familiar with "The Awful German Language"? Drmies (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had heard of Twain's essay, but I've never read it. And yes, 18th- or 19th-century scholarship might use such constructions as well, but I dare say we've gotten better (at least somewhat). Huon (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56 and Jazzerino

[edit]
Case closed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First off, I want you to know that I will no longer be adding to the sock rings trying to redirect Dan56. It's obvious that until an "established" user, as Kww put it, has the courage to ask Dan56 to follow the rules like everybody else he won't, and no matter how valid the concerns the community would rather Dan continued as a copyright violating bully than let a sock got away with making a valid point. I have better things to do then to futilely bang my head against a wall.

Secondly, I want you to know that at least three individuals have been blocked as Jazzerino, but the actual Jazzerino stopped editing on June 8. There were a couple of us that took up the torch, so to speak, but none of these blocked accounts were operated by Jazzerino, at least not according to him, and I certainly know which of my accounts were blocked as him or MariaHickey. I guess it doesn't matter, since meatpuppetts are the same a socks, and since we all wanted to teach Dan some manners I suppose we all might as well have been socks.

Third, I want to express how disappointed I am in the community, particularly Kww, who has now removed 28 disputed fair use tags from files Dan56 uploaded. These files obviously fail NFCC#3, but Kww would rather break our policy than see Danny treated poorly. I respect that Kww wanted to "protect" Dan56 from socks editing "his" articles, but to violate the intellectual property rights of uninvolved third-parties is idiocy. If you want to punish and/or deny socks, you should never do so in a way that breaks copyright laws and Wikipedia policy. Why is nobody willing to ask Dan56 to respect copyright laws? I don't know why, and I don't care anymore.

Lastly, I want to suggest that you and Kww be more careful when rushing to Dan56's defense. I am done socking, and the others say they are too. But I get the feeling that Danny will use the Jazzerino thing to his advantage long after we stop socking. Just be careful that every new editor that gets into an argument with Dan56 isn't black-balled as Jazzerino, because they won't be him. Thanks for tying to help. I wish we would have been more patient with the process, and avoided uses multiple accounts, but the way things are around here, it's Dan56 and a few of his friends pushing everyone else away from articles, and nobody will listen to the valid concerns with his behavior. Realitycheck2014 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well. That's certainly an odd confession, if that's what this is. You know what one of the problems is with socking? In a collaborative environment, you have to trust people at least to some extent. Every time I invest time and energy in a case to find out later that, basically, I was shafted, I have less faith. You're (plural or singular?) not the first sock(s)/master/whatever I waste my time and energy on. For fuck's sake--the fucking RfC/U? So don't give me that bullshit about "protecting Dan", and as far as those tags go: I have no reason whatsoever to trust you on some legal or content issue when I can't even trust whether you are one person or a dozen fucking grad student roommates in between keg parties. Were you also pretending to be black and offended at a perceived racial insult? So you shafted Malik as well?

    You didn't teach Dan anything: you gave him ammunition, if anything, and you taught me and others to distrust anyone who disagrees with him in the way that you (and your pals) did. Good work! Drmies (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am black and I was offended, and I wasn't hostile to Dan56 until he and his friends bullied me by committee. Basically, when socks do what he and his friends do all the time they get blocked, but Dan gets supported and applauded. If you look at the editor interactions you'll see that Dan56 engaged all of these accounts first, and he did so rudely and aggressively. I live with 6 other grad students and several of them made accounts to edit pages that Dan "owns". I wasn't lying about FlowRidian, we are two different people that must have accidently used the wrong proxy when editing, but we are not socks of anyone, certainly not Jazzerino, who like I said hasn't edited since Kww blocked him for socking when he wasn't. I got CUed after Maximum Edison got into with Dan, but I have no idea who that is, except maybe Maria Hickey. I'm not sure that any of these blocked accounts are actually Jazzerino, because I know that 3 or 4 of them aren't, but what difference does it make?
If you think that I am wrong about Dan's OGG files, just ask Nikkimaria. These files can be no longer than 10% of the original, but many are as much as 33%. Also, the quality needs to be reduced to 64 kbits, but many of Dan's are at or near 128, which is commercial quality. This is not my opinion, just look at WP:SAMPLE. I understand the denial of socks, but to do so while violating copyrights is counter-intuitive. If a sock makes a valid point that sock should be blocked, but the point shouldn't be ignored out of an anti-socking principle, especially when it involves the intellectual property rights of major agencies and publishers. Removing theses tags without discussion to determine their validity is to ignore the NFCC issues just because Kww thinks they are Jazzerino, but they aren't him. Remember, the only reason this started was because Kww blocked him for "hounding" dan when all he was doing was editing pages he liked. BTW, the "confessional" part only apples to the accounts I made after being indeffed for being Jazzerino, I never operated Flowridian or any other account until I was wrongly accused. Anyway, I'm done here, so you won't hear from me again. RC2014 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Brownlie Docharty

[edit]

Would anyone like to dig a DYK out of this prosaicness? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it's about twice as long ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. This is going to DYK how? Drmies (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd--you'd think that that would generate plenty of coverage, but I couldn't find it. Do you spell "under water" as one words or two? Maybe Google is too picky. Or maybe the Skots spell "orca" with a k. Anyway, I found one tidbit and added it, but that's all I could find. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:(

[edit]

Even worse than the run-in with User:Panhead2014, much much worse, i am crying as i write this, will leave WP forever after one final edit (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.81.115.107).

I did not fucking learn to stay put and had to converse with certain people, serves me soooooooooo right! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bye al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.115.107 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye most definitely! I like you like a wiki-brother you know that, but enough is enough. Eight years of putting up with a lot of shit (including my own, i admit it), but i blame myself for having this clashes with several users (not saying i deserve the insults, i do not) when i know 100% well what the football world is, a WAR! People killing each other over a football game almost every month. Why would WP be any different? People don't want fair and precise articles, they want them to look like a blog or a personal page.

You hang in there, you are a kickass contributor and a great chap. Dankiu vel --84.90.219.128 (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of leaving, just take a break, and when you return, consider edting in another area - one that won't cause you so much stress... LadyofShalott 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's like telling me I can't edit K-pop anymore. Might as well give it up altogether. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matter of fact, i don't like football or sports all that much (the riots, the lack of basic education, the "journalists", the "fans" who care about nothing than winning, they don't want to have a good time) just happens to be that i'm caught in an invisible net of whatever... please pity this fool :(

These last two incidents have been a bit of a blessing in disguise, i'm slowly but firmly rising to the surface of the real world and leaving the wikiworld, the punks (not insulting anyone in particular, i've been here for eight years!) can go write whatever they want in whatever article they choose (bet i am a punk or worse in their eyes as well, so there) --84.90.219.128 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enriquez de Cardona-Anglesola

[edit]

You have been so good as to advise me in my etiquette lately. I should be glad if you could look at this Talk:Portrait_of_Doña_Isabel_de_Requesens_y_Enriquez_de_Cardona-Anglesola#Edit reverts and let me know if it meets your approval.

Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Münstermann

[edit]

Hi Dr., can you expand this one? That 2006 novel also might be worth starting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unmasked...

[edit]

They're on to us! Our right-wing Zionist cabal has been exposed! :-)) --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps I've told you the story of the non-notable Florida wannabe politician who objected to my nominating his vanispampuff article for deletion. He called me at work and ragged on me, saying I was trying to get him deleted because of his stance on Israel: he was convinced that a certain star on my user page was a Zionist symbol. If you look at my user page you'll see why that's both hilarious and stupid. (He didn't win his primary, needless to say.) Drmies (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait--isn't that person saying that my SPI is counteracting their group of Zionists? That's the problem with such folks: cain't parse their sentences. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More matter for (internal) tears

[edit]

Panhead2014 went in the page of the last anon user that harassed me and offered him his support, calling him the latest victim in wikibullying, great! Maybe if you show him the contribution where the person changed the name of Beto (Portuguese footballer, born 1982) from "Beto" to "Betoteiro" (Portuguese compound word of his name and cheater), he won't think so highly of him. As we all know, he has forbidden me of addressing him, so i have to oblige.

Happy weekend --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It's handled"? Half of it is (the anon user), Panhead continues to harass User:MYS77 and myself (MYS77 by calling him a "silly, immature children, [with] petty squabbles and nonsensical contributions", a "troll" and a "fan"; myself, by saying without any actual words i as am worst as it gets by wasting no time to read if i was actually right to revert the anon user's contributions and going to his page and urging him to "stay strong". Another person, User:PeeJay2K3, went to his page to ask him (politely) not to encourage disruptive edits, was summarily reverted like MYS; he won't rest until (at least) MYS and i are blocked.

"Hey, leave it be"? Sure i'll leave it be, both users have succeeded in their approaches, i have never edited again in Míchel Salgado and Sergio Busquets since the run-in with Panhead nor have i written him any more messages after he banned me from his page, nor will i edit in S.L. Benfica-related articles anymore (was accused by the anon user of hating Benfica even though i did not edit ONCE in the club's page in EIGHT YEARS).

Even though i don't fully comprehend your reaction (i left things be, but the others keep landing jabs in my wikiface, or you don't think Panhead's message in the anon person's page is a direct attack at me?), i send you happy vibes --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the (great) respect i have for you, rest assured mate, last message i post here regarding this subject no matter what the outcome may be (pages protected, users warned/blocked - including myself! - etc). Cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

[edit]

Thank you for your comments. that helps. I was really surprised to see my AFD described as such. If we cant err in making an AFD (and its not really an error if we didnt see notability ourselves), then why bother at all? I think i overreacted, but i tried to not attack others, only express my (then) severe discomfort. im feeling better now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You wouldn't be the first one to overreact and you won't be the last. I, of course, have never overreacted in my life. Take it easy--Chinatown is on TCM, and you may yet have a delicious cold beverage in your fridge. Going for a one- or two-week walk is always a good idea. Anywayz, I hope you'll see an apology of sorts. I'm not one to block quickly for "civility", but I hope I made it clear that I did find both those comments quite uncivil. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was attracted by the header, mentioning something rare, thank you for bringing it up! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ragyndrudis Codex

[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another exquisite one, related to Germany. Only thing wrong with it is that the Inkpot Madonna image was replaced soon after appearing, but it was a pic before restoration anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a comment

[edit]

Hi Drmies -- You pinged me with [this edit]. I appreciate, honestly, your apparent effort to be nice to that editor, whose recent edits at his talk and user pages indicate some stress and call for some humanity. "Please remember that i am a human being, before commenting here" and "If you dont have something constructive to say, please dont bother commenting here. I dont need or want any trouble" are decent talk page leading notes he's had there. I like your own current leading note "I've kind of had it with the good advice. Apparently anyone, admins included, can get away with, are even applauded for, calling other editors and admins corrupt, cronies, abusive--but "you're not so smart" is blockable. Yeah, we're not going to get anywhere with our precious civility," which is a pretty good note, too. Frankly, there has been too much crap for too long about civility at wikipedia, used like other concepts to bash both newbies and experienced contributors. And too much bullying and toleration/encouragement of that. Wikipedia is a horrible place where decent, well-meaning contributors get trashed and driven away, that's the main thing that goes on, IMHO.

However I wish you would not, in the process of speaking up encouragingly to an editor who seems to need it, bash me. U suggested i had "bad taste and bad faith" and that I "appear to have never read WP:AGF or WP:NPA", which is harsh. And, I am not sure that conjuring up the idea of an ANI or RFC/U or other dispute battles with your put-up-or-shut-up-type admonition towards me is that great for the editor. I assure u i have no intention of opening an ANI or RFC/u to prosecute like that; it seems this person is, at least right now, a bit sensitive, and in some responses, has "heard" what i had to say anyhow.

In an online forum, it is hard to get civility and decency exactly right, at the same time as giving real, genuine feedback and not completely shying away from substantial issues about content and policies and behavior. I have myself mostly been participating at AFDs about organizations and companies recently, and I do have concerns from time to time with editors abusing the speedy deletion or AFD processes. Some deletion-nominators (not meaning this one) are quite obtuse and destructive in their effects, IMHO. I have intersected with this editor in 3 afds, the first i recall being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hospitality House, where i was pretty insulted, and my contribution of legitimate substantial sources (offline) was completely dismissed by this editor. I am a big boy and pretty well used to a lot of nastiness here, and a different editor spoke up, and there is no real problem for me. This editor has gotten some mild though apparently-slightly-hard-to-digest feedback from me, since, within Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titstare and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Pizza. By prevailing standards, i was really quite mild, IMHO, and if u look at what i wrote you would agree that I was mild, i think. Note this editor has 78,000 edits. But I am concerned too that the editor's reactions indicate some pain experienced, not what i intended. I was pondering what i could do on the nice side, and I "thanked" Carrite for their nice comment.

Again, I really do appreciate your sticking up for this editor, but do wish you didn't feel it necessary to bash me. I could easily be justified in accusing u of what you accused me of, for what u said and how you said it. It's not all bad...I take it as feedback to me, too, what you thought based on what you saw, and i will seek to avoid causing that kind of reaction from a person like you, too. Despite my feeling your reaction towards me is a tad unfair. Do let's not get into a negative thing, though, and do let me end by simply thanking you for helping that editor. No reply necessary, but if u do comment here i will see it. sincerely, --doncram 15:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, Doncram, I only had to stick up for this editor because they felt unfairly criticized by you. It's a package deal. You said there appeared to be a pattern of bad nominations, and that's about as serious charge as you can make. I would take such a charge personally as well. I believe, though, that this is the kind of comment that can be unsaid. And if you had trouble with them in other AfDs, there are better ways to handle that, starting on their talk page. I actually don't know that editor very well, and I don't think I've had much interaction with you (odd, really, given our edit number), but that remark taken by itself was simply unacceptable. I'm all for BEFORE, and I'm all for taking editors to task for not doing their jobs, but that was not the right place to make the remark without context, evidence, etc. That's all, my dear Doncram. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, all your points noted. I did not think my comment in the afd would come across as you interpreted it to be, but his + your reactions show me otherwise. I've given mild user talk page comments to many persons before, and agree that seems like it would have worked out better to start there, this time. Thanks for your consideration. And, yes, I can't specifically remember where we have crossed paths much before in any direct interactions, though i know your name from your comments in general discussions. --doncram 17:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you Doncram. I'm just trying to keep the peace here and there, usually failing miserable. You know, sometimes a comment comes just at the wrong time, through no fault of the commenter. Maybe that's what happened here, I don't know. But y'all are two longtime editors and we can't afford to lose any more. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help at Titstare

[edit]

User:Betafive is edit warring and engaging in WP:IDHT at Titstare. Can you intervene? The issue is a statement from The New York Times that explicitly says that a CTO was fired because of his comments about Titstare. Betafive is edit warring to keep the information out of the article, despite multiple sources that quite explicitly say that this happened. I'm getting quite tired of this, and the article may need to be protected. However, since you recently closed to deletion discussion, I thought maybe you might be somewhat familiar with the article, and maybe we can resolve this without protection or blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an appropriate way to resolve content or policy disputes; please see WP:CANVAS and WP:DRR. betafive 19:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Betafive, what on earth are you talking about? A person can't come and ask me for advice? I'm about to have have a look, and if this Pirate is correct, then you'll just have to accept it. BTW, I haven't forgotten what you said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titstare, and I'm still wondering whether you have the WP:COMPETENCE required, given that CANVAS is entirely irrelevant. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to explain policy to you. You made your opinion about me known at the AfD for Titstare; NinjaRobotPirates choice to appeal directly to you for "help" was clearly partisan. betafive 01:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't know why you're here at all. And no, it was not partisan, since you or the Pirate have no way of knowing whose side I would be on in this content dispute. Unless, of course, you realized that your own position was ridiculous, and that the Pirate and I had the common sense to know that. In that case, yeah. Also, don't you go and explain policy to me: I am not convinced you can. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you and I don't agree about common sense, but please quit casting personal aspersions in my direction. You're turning a content dispute into an interpersonal conflict, and it's inappropriate. betafive 15:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could turn every other word blue here. I'm not casting anything in your direction, except the charge that you're wrong. Good faith has nothing to do with it, and the "interpersonal" conflict is all yours: I have no conflict with you because I have nothing to do with you. What's inappropriate is that you can't see your inappropriateness (your false accusation of a personal accusation, which is of course a personal accusation), and that you continue to beat this dead horse. Now go away. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You questioned my WP:COMPETENCE and WP:COMMON sense, because, afaict, we disagree over content. If you don't understand how that constitutes a personal attack, perhaps you shouldn't be an admin. betafive 00:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to receiving a notification that you started that paperwork. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the way you seek out and cultivate conflict, I have no doubt that is the case. betafive 05:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You sound terribly familiar. Strange! Or these false accusations are just normal these days. But I don't think you need me to find conflict--I think you're pretty good at it without any help. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may intrude: how about both of y'all just stopping? Betafive, Drmies asked you to stay off his talk page; please do so. Such requests are traditionally allowed and should be honored. Drmies, I can't really dictate to you on your own talk page (or to anyone else anywhere else for that matter), but Betafive can't really be expected to let things go if you keep replying to him here, right? So let's just let this thread, and the others like it, die an ugly yet quiet death, and everyone return to their corner, okay? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may. But you may also explain, if you like, how accusations of threats and harassment are themselves personal attacks, the kind of things that this person templates people for fairly regularly. I've bitten my tongue more than once with this person already, WK. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arseniy Yatsenyuk

[edit]

If you or any of your talk page stalking administrators think that my actions were inappropriate because of my prior reverts, please do whatever you think is appropriate with the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering that neutrality was clearly at stake there (in a BLP), I don't think this is a situation where you as protecting admin should not have reverted. Thanks for that, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tjapko van Bergen

[edit]

Can you add more to this from Dutch wiki about the 1928 olympics and his Nazi leader work, only if it can be sourced of course..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin requested at Simon Schama

[edit]

If you have a second [9] cheers! Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I gave you an editor, not an admin, since I agree with you on the content. I reverted and left them a templated 3R warning, so I won't be blocking them--that's what we have Bbb23 for. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]

Will you please block my account for 2 weeks. Please also remove talk page access.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else to block?

[edit]

I've had a crap day here and amongst the crapness have been the goings-on at Jadoon. Although I've opened a case at SPI is likely to take ages at the moment due to a volunteer shortage. This is the latest revert to a dreadful version of the article by the sockmaster. I added a link to the SPI at the very bottom of their talk page and they've had the caste sanctions warning etc. They're still not talking and I'm fed up. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, both. As for blocking me rather than them, well, I've sort of been on the end of accusations today because I've got a clean block log. Perhaps if it was dirtied ... - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archive failed

[edit]

I don't know what I should think of this: archive failed? The three threads are now nowhere, not on the talk, not in the archive. Diff to one is on top of my user page, "Inkpot", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't that automated archiving, I could just do something manually, but this bot usually goes round and changes links from "to the talk" to "to the archive". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to leave soon and can't diagnose it at the moment but will try if it is still a problem when I get back tomorrow (weather permitting). Try pasting the unarchived stuff in a sandbox and see if it will let you save it. If there is a blacklisted link it will hopefully show up...if so then just mangle the url a little and the bot would then go ahead with archiving.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without having seen this, I restored it to the talk, and it seems to have been properly archived now. I also commented the Signpost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A while back some of the threads from Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were "archived", but the newly created Archive 10 failed to appear for several hours. It was as if they were somewhere "in limbo" awaiting creation of the new repository. I assumed this was some kind of low-level bot/server problem. They eventally appeared in the new Archive 10. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Group of 88 and biographies

[edit]

Drmies, I was pretty sure there was a conclusive discussion about undue weight and inclusion of Group of 88 material in biographies. I can't find it now. If you recall where that discussion was can you post it at Talk:Grant Farred#Removed sections? Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re message

[edit]

I got your message about being blocked I am sorry for not properly enquiring if it was alright to add how those mp's voted on Ru486 again, although I am against abortion, I follow wikipedia's policy of remaining neutral, I did not say Robert Hill sadly voted for the horrible RU486, I just mentioned that he voted for Ru486. Same with Andrew Robb voting against Ru486 and Bruce Billson voting for Ru486. I am trying to be reasonable in what I do on wikipedia. --Smokeyfire (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire[reply]

My ears are burning. Not a fan of pork ears myself, but I enjoyed a lovely pork pate last night. I thought of you when I saw it on the menu. In any case I have been trying to encourage Smokey to discuss on the talk page. I have also requested you to do the same, and I'm asking again please. While Smokey has not hid his motive for his proposed edit at this article, amongst others, the responses he has received have been often uncharitable. I made a suggestion that the Hill article could have a "positions" section, where the RU486 source could be used, in addition to Hill's other positions. I find it surprising that a politician who has served for such a long period of time doesn't have that in their article already. His notability derives from politics, so I would expect to learn something about his political career. I hope to see you there. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, somehow I haven't yet made it over there, but I'll have a look. Also, last night's dinner was carnitas. Very tasty. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question

[edit]

Aren't Basque and Catalan two different languages?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep. Catalan is a Romance language, and Basque is...Basque. (It's a fascinating subject matter, look it up). Neither of them are Spanish, of course. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I did look them up. Neither article seemed to connect to the other except geopolitical boundaries over time. I'm not sure that what you find fascinating I'd find fascinating. I was in Basque country once, though, and that was exciting. We were staying in the French Pyrenees at this absolutely idyllic Michelin one-star hotel/restaurant on a river. When we left, we were headed for Barcelona. We didn't have a car, and the trip by train or bus would have been tough. So we hired a driver to take us over the border. When we got to this small border crossing, the scary guys (don't even know if they were French or Spanish as they didn't say anything that I can recall) weren't even interested in looking at our passports. Instead, they searched the car and our luggage for arms.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a not unexciting story, Bbb. I think you can make it better by having had arms in your baggage--I think plastic explosives used to be quite popular in that area. But who in the US still knows, or ever knew, what ETA is? Drmies (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We left our arms at home. I figured I could always buy anything I needed. Seriously, there is nothing better than sitting on a terrace right next to a river eating superb French food. The meals were included, and you always got one dessert with lunch and dinner. One time the chef made this lovely cake, and I asked the server if I could have another. They were so impressed that I could eat another dessert after the rather generous meal, they gave it to me for nothing. Ah, life was good.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know far more about the Basques and their movement than I do about punk rock songs. Never even heard of the Clash. Ironically, two rock stars have lived in my neighborhood.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoRD, I won't cite you for this MOS violation, not this time. People, Bbb is a strange and wonderful person and we have to make allowances for genius--and let us remember that Bbb went places, while you and I sat at home getting fat and watching football (Bbb also doesn't know what the Tide is). MastCell, I wouldn't say "Philistinism" here, but it certainly is odd, isn't it. Bbb, "Spanish Bombs" is certainly worth checking out, though my favorite is "The Guns of Brixton", if only for that bass line. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I still listen to the Sex Pistols frequently) I'm sure Bbb has heard Should I Stay or Should I Go? ...or This is Radio Clash? I wore out two vinyl records of Combat Rock back in the day. It should be listened to with the volume set on 11 on a scale of 1 to 10. Well worth exploring if you don't know it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "Should I Stay or Should I Go", I never got that. I think it was the soundtrack for a Levi's commercial or something like that, and that ad was cool, but the song, I never cared for it, just as I never cared for "Brand New Cadillac". I mean, I'm sure it's an homage and all that, but still. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with any of this stuff, and I'm not going to listen to it, either. I'm going to remain ignorant, narrow-minded, and a second-class snob. Philistinism, indeed. Has any of you ever seen a three-claviered harpsichord dedicated to Catherine the Great? It's quite stunning. It has a painting of the dedication on the underneath of the lid.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made by Hieronymus Albrecht Hass it has 16, 8, 4 and 2 foot registers, with a painting of Poniatowski offering his big instrument to Mrs. Stallion on the lid. Wanda Landowska was stunned by it when she saw it in a Parisian junk shop. Only time I ever listened to the Clash was in a cinema- a free showing of some film about them. The audience consisted of Hindu families and skinheads. Just after the "blowjob in a toilet" scene, the skinheads started fighting each other, and the Hindus panicked and ran out of the cinema, the lights came on, and I never got to see the end of the film (and never will, hopefully). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says it was owned by Rafael Puyana, who, regrettably, died. Puyana, btw, was the last student of Landowska. Mrs. Stallion, hehe.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Autism, you may be blocked from editing. betafive 17:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right. Please stop your template abuse, betafive. Bishonen | talk 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Bish. I'm sure you saw the conversation on User talk:Betafive. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but have you seen my note on User talk:Thomas.W? Bishonen | talk 21:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Ah Bish, kids these days... Can't even get a "fuck off MRS. Drmies" out of them. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

There is currently a discussion, you might be interested in, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Inclusion_of_Amazon.2C_Spotify.2C_iTunes.2C_Beatport_under_digital_charts Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • prokaryotes, I appreciate the ping, but I'm not sure how I could shed light on anything there--it's not something I know much about. I do, however, have some general objections to various listings of online charts if it turns out they're really not references but rather commercial links, in the way that too frequently Amazon products are listed to references trivialities like release dates. I don't know if that's going on. I had a quick look at the conversation and I think that, at first glance, I agree with Two kinds of pork's comment, and I generally agree with Kww on matters of sourcing as well, but I really have little expertise. TenPoundHammer might have more of an interest in this matter. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks:) prokaryotes (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic IP editor

[edit]

Hello! I see you blocked 72.223.56.123 (talk · contribs) in May for three months for disruptive edit warring. The block has now expired and he is back editing as before. I'm pretty sure this is the latest incarnation of CameronPG (talk · contribs), who was blocked indefinitely in 2010, but seems to have continued editing from IP addresses ever since. His characteristic editing patterns include repeatedly overlinking names of musical instruments, changing "horn" to "French horn" and "clarinet" to "soprano clarinet", and editing the article 700 Years of Classical Treasures: A Tapestry in Music and Words, which he created... indeed the edit history of that article is a fairly good catalogue of all the IP addresses he has used. He also has an interest in editing Disney-related articles. Various editors have tried to engage him in discussion, but I don't think he has ever responded. I'm cautious about being too heavy-handed as a note on his user page, apparently from his mother, states that he has been diagnosed autistic, but his edits have become a long-term problem. I've wondered about opening a sockpuppet investigation, though I'm not sure how effective that would be as he seems to use many IP addresses. I would welcome any thoughts or advice you might have. --Deskford (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll have a look at the IP's edits. I was not familiar with this user (that cri de coeur on their user page--well, what can one say. So there's no SPI? It doesn't really matter anyway if they're not socking, just using IPs. You could consider adding an entry to WP:LTA, outlining favorite targets, methods, etc. You could ask some smart person like Kww or a hot shot like Elockid to set up a rangeblock if there's multiple IPs being used, though that should probably come after an outline an investigation; they'd need to know the scope of the problem. It's a pity the blocking admin, PMDrive1061 is no longer around (I miss them dearly), since they might have had some ideas as well. Basically, if you think that this person is using a lot of IP addresses to create a lot of disruption, then it might be worth starting an SPI if you have any suggestion that they're socking, and/or an LTA case. BBL. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I blocked that IP for another three months. I think it's a good idea to start a paper trail of some sort, maybe at LTA since that's really what we have here. IPs point to Mesa, Arizona, but I'm not smart or geeky enough to do anything clever. But a list of favorite targets, for instance, would be helpful, yes. Thanks, and keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I think LTA might be the answer. I was unfamiliar with this, so I'll read up about it and see if I can put together a submission. If nothing else, it might make a good place to collect information about this editor. I know I've had various conversations about him on other editors' talk pages, but I'm not sure I could find them all now. Thanks for blocking 72.223.56.123 again. Now I think about it, I haven't seen him editing under other IPs whilst this one was blocked for the last three months, so this could be his main address at the moment. --Deskford (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (talk page stalker) The IP is allocated to Cox Communications. I only recall once ever placing a rangeblock for this ISP. Looking back at it, I'm pretty sure that was just one user using their own and some friend or neighbor's connection. It's one of the better ISPs since they can't simply "change" their IP. 67.161.238.135 is allocated to Comcast. That's another one of the better ISPs. Their IPv4 addresses are sticky dynamic IP addresses, allocated to one customer and can be blocked for extended periods. Elockid (Talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Real world pressures mean I'm not going to be able to do much about compiling a LTA report for a week or so, but checking in briefly today I notice he's now editing from 68.15.184.51 (talk · contribs) with many of the familiar patterns – overlinking names of musical instruments, especially in instrumentation lists for orchestral works, changing "horn" to "French horn", editing Disney articles; calendars, geological time periods, dinosaurs, US presidents are also amongst his favourite subjects. This IP address also appears to be registered to Cox Communications. --Deskford (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burton on Trent vandal

[edit]

Hello again. I don't know if you remember, but you were involved in repeatedly blocking a persistently disruptive IP editor a few years ago. He almost exclusively targets Hong Kong martial arts films, and he's been the subject of temporary range blocks, a sock puppet investigation, a community ban proposal, and, after I filed a new ANI complaint, I've volunteered to write a long-term term abuse report. On my talk page, MarnetteD helpfully suggested that there's an admin who had extensive experience with this vandal, but he can't remember who it was. I was hoping that you might remember to whom MarnetteD was referring. If you can't remember this far back, that's fine – I realize this is a long shot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, don't know. I may have dropped the names of Kww or Elockid, the go-to rangeblock experts. Do keep me posted, please, and thanks for taking the time to write it up. Let me know if I can help, if for instance there are regular targets that could do with semiprotection. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got a question about venue. The vast majority of the user's edits are massive edit wars, usually over genre, categories, or to reinstate previous disruption. This can affect up to 80 articles in one session, though each article is typically only reverted once per day. How should this be reported? ANEW seems ill-equipped to handle this, especially when you consider the sock puppetry, block evasion, and occasional vandalism, such as removal of valid tags and templates (such as {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Refimprove}}). He also deliberately introduces factual errors to sourced text, though I think he just disagrees with the sources and disregards them. (diffs here) So, where should I report this mess? It seems most applicable to ANI, but we can't open a new ANI complaint every few days. Others have labeled his edits as vandalism and given level 4 warnings, so I've defaulted to AIV. Is this correct? Should I recommend this behavior in the LTA? Unfortunately, given the wide scale disruption, it's difficult to point out just a few articles. However, I've created a table that lists some of the most common targets at User talk:AddWittyNameHere#Martial arts vandal back again?. Heart of Dragon, Don't Give a Damn, Puncture Wounds, I Come in Peace, and Zodiac Killers are common recent targets, and they are probably the ones most in need of protection. If there's a positive side to all this, it's that I get relive my love of cheesy Dolph Lundgren films. Also, can you block 94.0.242.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ew. Please don't mention him on my talk page: this is a happy place. Yes, AIV is probably the best/fastest way to go, esp. if you can point a patrolling admin to an LTA page, or even a subpage under your own name that outlines tactics, used IPs, and targets. (Sometimes, when I'm slumming as an IP, I pick the first admin that I see is active, or I abuse ANI for the purpose, since that has most people watching, and I'll ask for really quick assistance.) Or you could make a couple of admins acquainted with the person and their edits, and drop a line on their talk page. Besides me (sure, why not) I'd suggest Bgwhite, who's typically just sitting on his hands anyway until the next Dr. Who episode comes on. NawlinWiki is one of the good guys as well and does a lot of vandal blocking.

Request

[edit]

Hey Drmies, would you or a stalker mind taking a look at this discussion, my closure, and then participating in this closure review I initiated to ensure I did not grossly misread consensus. I would ask on AN, but then again the thread is on AN, and you seem to attract a lot of admin eyes :-) Thanks. Go Phightins!

ANI

[edit]

Could you explain why you close ANI, then make it sound im at fault? Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Various_user_accusations Is it okay to call peple names? Open ANI again. prokaryotes (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You weren't called a name in any way that calls for warnings or blocks or physical punishment. You shouldn't have modified those comments to begin with, and you shouldn't have started an ANI thread over it. That's all. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's an observation from a friendly talk page stalker, Prokaryotes: In my opinion, Drmies closed that ANI thread to protect you from the possibility of harsh criticism, since you made a mistake in refactoring that talk page comment. He did you a favor. So, the takeaway lesson is to avoid refactoring other editor's comments, except in truly extraordinary circumstances, which don't apply here. This should be a positive learning experience for you, in my opinion. Please consider it as such. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cullen, I certainly didn't mean to be cryptic: certainly you read my comment perfectly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand it, i read the terms about disruption, this refers to long term and much more actions, when i once made a ANI thread about a user where i briefly mentioned he might have acted in bad faith, i get denied, now this. It's always like, when you post to ANI you gonna lose:/ At least for me, where is my Cabal.prokaryotes (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • At best this was an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. But the fact remains that you edited (or, messed up) the formatting of their comment, which needed no help. So understandably they were a bit miffed. As for losing--not everything is a fight. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Village PR

[edit]

Can some other eyes help out at Bommareddypally? Someone really wants this to be (one of the) PR site(s) for his town. LadyofShalott 17:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSG International

[edit]

I was wondering if you or one of your stalkers might help keep an eye on the page. I've been told by a Wikipedian that the prior paid editor they hired was part of a ring of astroturfing accounts that habitually abused their editing privileges to attack other paid editors they lost accounts to on e-lance. Of course whether that's true or not is hard to say. user:Bluerasberry is also a paid editor and I don't mind him getting involved in my articles. However as I clean up their promotion and junk sources, I suspect there is some possibility of vindictive editing and would feel better if it had a couple eyes on it. This is one where I have my usual COI and will prepare a GAN-worthy draft in due time, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 00:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • But we both do it for free too ;-)
The Key People parameter in the infobox also needs axing and the "Awards" section, but I will also clean it up myself if you do not eventually when I have a draft ready. I just started researching today. CorporateM (Talk) 00:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list in the infobox is a bit longish, but not excessively long. I don't care for infoboxes and their content one way or another, as long as it's not too crazy. The awards, yes, but I'll leave that to you since you're researching the topic. (Sorry Corp, but those articles you work on--booooooooooooring! There's no poetry in 'em!) Drmies (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSG Systems International

is an American multinational

it has clients galore

and is looking for more

in a way that is entirely rational

Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so glorious doing Wikipedia for pay. There's the boring subjects, the paperwork, the opinionated clients, the tedious Bright Line stuff, and the endless parade of companies that insist they are notable, their article is unfair, etc. when they are not - volunteer work is much funner. I initially advised that I felt their prior vendor had made a good-faith effort, but was just in-experienced and made a lot of typical COI mistakes, so it was a bit of a shocker just how gullible I am when I learned they were part of a sock-puppet ring. No worries though, I will clean it up. CorporateM (Talk) 16:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corp, who was the master? Drmies (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question - can't seem to dig it up now. The article's author has already been blocked for socking though (the block notice doesn't have a link to the SPI case).[13] Although he/she deleted the notices from their page, it looks like most of their articles have already been deleted.[14] CSG didn't know they were doing anything unsordid. I'm sure like most paid editors they've moved on to a new set of accounts or whatnot. I don't really know much about how SPI investigations work, as I have no admin tools or any aspirations for them, it's not really an area I dabble in. CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it may be worthwhile digging it up and checking if there is an SPI--that's always a good thing to have access to. I just nominated an article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gullands Solicitors (2nd nomination)), which has been recreated twice (by BigMatthewWortley and Jack Giant 3902). Now look at Jack's contributions: ten minor edits from disparate articles, all over the place, before creating the Gullands article. (And afterward, their most notable edit is this combination). Interesting. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm not sure I see the point in SPIs for paid editors. The only thing we can block is arbitrary IPs and usernames, which are easily replaced. We have no way to effectively block persistent editors. It would actually be more practical to just focus on content. CorporateM (Talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gullands has a badly edited website giving details of their history. As a family the Gullands were able to distinguish the importance of putting first and this has been something that has been impressed on the firm from the very beginning. It's also well out of date (references to Home Information Packs). Isn't this arse-over-tip? Instead of trying to get into Wikipedia they should get a Wikipedian to edit their website. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not for paid editors per se, Compsterix, but for socks and masters. If you have an SPI you also have registered accounts and possibly CU information, and a record of edits and styles. All that makes it so much easier for admins to act on something: "rv, blocked for evasion" is short and sweet, but you can't say that unless you can point at patterns and articles. And that's what we have SPIs for.

Xanty, I've felt the same thing about many websites I've looked at, but I'm not cleaning up their websites for free. I already have plenty to do here, while Jimbo is on vacation. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I bet you do the same as me, look for the (non-existant) edit button. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would go a step further. Almost all marketing material could be improved and written in a more credible and informative fashion with the help of a Wikipedian or journalist. Also, the writing and research skills one gains at Wikipedia is transferrable to a wide range of fields, such as legal, PR, government, etc. that need neutral content.
However, a lot of corporate bureaucracies are unable to get neutral content approved internally. In many cases the PR rep knows their press releases are spammy, but they are unable to fix it; helpless victims of their paymaster's whims. The same is often true on Wikipedia.
I have more leverage than most to persuade clients to avoid promotion as a breach of the site's policies and a sign of COI impropriety. Additionally, clients contractually, voluntarily give up a certain degree of control over the content, which is unheard of in business. I'm not sure I would be able to keep a marketing job anymore, because I would be forced to write promotion. CorporateM (Talk) 17:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment, Corp. Shame that the culture works against their better interest. I suppose we're all shortsighted in our own ways (a point De Man would appreciate). Drmies (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are all Kent solicitors semi-literate? Warners Solicitors, proud to live in the poor house. I agree with Compsterix that the skills could be transferable- I think that in a lot of fields the skills might not be too welcome. Too much vested interest in keeping the bullshit level high. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across equally crappy articles about solicitors before but I can't remember where. This SPI is worth looking at and especially Huon's comment (I came across the SPI myself too noticing the same thing as him). Mamadoutadioukone was writing articles in their sandboxes e.g. User:Mamadoutadioukone/sandbox/Supa and then other users were copying them into mainspace - Supportpay by User:Lvlada in this instance who also left this 'interesting' explanation at the SPI. I've just realised that this is linked to a dodgy account I noticed a few weeks ago - Special:Contributions/OneoNater. Notice how they use the a similar format in their sandbox names to Mamadoutadioukone. It's quite reassuring to see how effectively these crappy articles are dealt with by the community though, but others slip through the net e.g. the creator of Harmel S. Rayat is also related to these accounts and it's survived for 8 months. Anyway back to the original topic: how come the stupid award list has survived so long? SmartSE (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Too much vested interest in keeping the bullshit level high." But even spin-doctors need neutrally-written content if they want to sound credible. I don't think that is a conflict with skillset, but with principles. Anyone with a background that values objectivity (Wikipedia/Journalism/academics) would have a difficult time transitioning to one that values successful advocacy (law, PR, etc.). (hint, advocacy jobs pay more)
Regarding Compsterix, I haven't looked at it and won't get involved. However, Drmies, I did track down the SPI case. The master seems to be Sibtain 007. You can see the SPI here. CorporateM (Talk) 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should that award list be axed? I just looked at it, and I can't understand anything in it therefore can't judge its significance. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse Often "Awards" sections are the result of poor examples setting precedence. I wonder if there is a way to find every article with "awards" in a section title. With the right tool to identify the articles, we could remove almost all of them within a week. CorporateM (Talk) 21:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone, and never called me "Mother". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it! It was all sourced to press releases (don't let the wsj.com domain fool you) so it's completely undue to include them. If there is one thing I've learnt here is that companies love giving each other awards! I don't know of any special tool to find them though unfortunately. Thanks for the info RE the SPI. I've added two users to it just now. Interestingly it was found before that these two groups weren't technically related i.e. they're meatpuppets rather than socks. SmartSE (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WOW. In all my time working on COI, I've never come across anything quite so blatant as this portfolio! Plenty of clean up left to do. SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bruno Fernandes to the left of us, Bruno Fernandes to the right of us, into the valley of spam we rode. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He'll look into your eyes, sell you something and then punch you in the face ;) Is it even worth trying to tidy that mess up? SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I have a list of articles on my user page, and people call that "disclosure". Add logos and the word "portfolio" and suddenly it's an advertisement. It's interesting to see that list because I have consulted some of their clients in various circumstances (not for pay, just giving advice and such). It's best I not get involved, but I'm happy to see the community is so vigilant. CorporateM (Talk) 23:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: The real difference though is that you disclose your COI and don't create articles with shitty sourcing, or as in the case of Alexei Beltyukov completely made up ones! There is a more up to date portfolio over at dewiki: de:Benutzer:Bouake123/sandbox/PTF. Now I see that whoever these guys are, I've been deleting their crap for months, if not years, already! SmartSE (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ...

[edit]

So I've started teaching Latin at a small southern liberal arts college. Advice? (BTW: Cats are neat).  davidiad { t } 02:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, semper ubi sub ubi of course. You could teach Boniface's Enigmata of course, and write the Wikipedia article for them. You should probably contribute as much as you can possibly afford to the pension plan. And whatever the dean says you do, you do. Oh, as a Latin teacher you should probably bear a bow tie. Congratulations! Are you anywhere near me? Drmies (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grad students are an excellent source of free labor.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not where I am, we even have to pay undergrads. Never mind that it takes more time to teach them things than do them yourself... So I don't take undergrads any more (I'm under no obligation to teach) and let the university moan that they can't find enough lab rotations for their students... --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About user Plarem...

[edit]

It seems the editor is on a campaign to remove all mention of the word pride in a number of LGBT related articles. LGBT rights in Sweden, LGBT rights in Switzerland, LGBT rights in Portugal‎, LGBT rights in Greece, LGBT rights in Ukraine‎, LGBT rights in Bulgaria‎, or LGBT rights in Turkey. Could you take a look and see if this is getting out of hand.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would be both interesting and kinda stupid. Drmies (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left them a clear and probably somewhat unfriendly note. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that note. I have added quite a lot of diffs from the past 2 days to DRN of edits by Plarem, which makes an extreme pattern of disruption, despite multiple reverts by multiple editors in good standing, hard to ignore and I'd appreciate it if you would take a moment to check through them. I am taking a different slice through Plarem's edits this afternoon, covering a longer period, which I'll consider adding to DRN (depending on how much time I have over this bank holiday weekend and what pops up), however the amount of evidence is already quite daunting and more than sufficient for action, IMHO. --Fæ (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, a celebrity on my page! Welcome Fæ and thanks for dropping by. I only became acquainted with this editor yesterday (this edit war) and have not looked at a great many of their edits--it's not something I typically do on a first date, or even a second. So I don't know, for instance, to which extent we're dealing with a warrior, and as a consequence I typically assume the best, redemption and all that. If you start something, please drop me a line. "Bank holiday"--that sounds so quaint! Lovely! Like "Boxing day"! Or "Rise up now and declare yourself an internationalist!" Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Begging for bacon

[edit]

The bacon cabal has apparently had a major impact on the US market. Hopefully, no one will find out or some of you - and you know who you are - may receive hate mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know I've bought bacon once in the last three months? Actually, it wasn't even me, it was Mrs. Drmies. So don't point that finger at me so quickly. Still, I wish I could afford to eat those fancy-ass bacons, from the monthly bacon club and stuff like that. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're obviously not saving enough from your salary here as an administrator and eclectic. You really should budget more carefully. And blaming your wife is worse than my pointing a finger. Besides, you don't know which finger I pointed, and I pointed whichever finger at the cabal, not at you. I just used your talk page because that's where y'all congregate.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti admins

[edit]

In the world of one certain user (and three or four of their acolytes), all admins are badmins. I believe it's time to suggest to such critics of adminship that they either shit or get off the pot. Using every possible occasion as a platform for denigrating admins and arbs is certainly disruptive to the collaborative spirit of developing this encyclopedia, and as you correctly state, "is nothing but a figleaf for trolling". My milder calling them the 'anti admin brigade' has been too polite. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I mean and I don't need to be told. I'm sorry, Editor/User Xanthomelanoussprog, but I just don't see how your analogy fits the matter being discussed. Being an admin (if that is what you are referring to) is absolutely not a reward for prolific work or good conduct. And most of us admins don't drive Jags - we prefer Mercedes or BMW. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with my deletionist tendencies which are partly prompted by the desire for energy conservation, this admin drives a Prius. I also don't get the analogy, but that's not the first time. Yes, Kudpung, I'm getting tired of that user dropping their little turdlets all over fora they hate, and if they keep it up, at some point I'm going to block them. BTW, you got volunteered for a difficult job. If you take it, good luck. I have faith that you can call it fairly and correctly, and I'm glad no one volunteered me--not because I don't trust my objectivity, but because it's a really difficult task. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, now I get it a little bit. But I don't see where Ihardlythinkso has ever done any polishing outside of chess articles, and I don't think they want to drive anyone else's Jag, or their own, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By "that user" do you mean me, Drmies? --Epipelagic (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding pedantic, Epipelagic, it wasn't me who first uttered that phrase, but I'm pretty sure Kudpung was talking about Ihardlythinkso. As for me, that I mentioned Ihardlythinkso should be enough of an indication that I'm talking about not you. I actually have a measure of respect for you, though again I don't understand all this abuse admin shit--the amount of it, I mean, and I don't see Kumioko's supposed legitimate criticism etc. Don't go post a laundry list here, please: I've seen and heard so much trolling from Kumioko that anything positive on the topic is washed away by dirty sock water.

No, I don't mean you, if only because of that beautiful photo on your user page. But what I never hear from your side (the help abusive admins are oppressing me as an editor site) is that the other side, the "help abusive admins are enabling supposed content editors who have carte blanche to insult everyone" side, usually paints me as one of those enablers. You may know that Ihardlythinkso is fond of invoking Eric Corbett every step of the way, as if they are in the same league as Eric is, whereas Eric's block log contains me as well, and not as a blocker (Ihardlythinkso doesn't seem to think that's worth mentioning). Consider that when you're looking at your "Admin views on their power to block long term productive content builders" box on your user page--and please consider hyphenating a couple of things in there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Kudpung invoked you elsewhere in a somewhat paranoid inducing post. I get a bit sensitive at times, and it seems admins do too. That box is getting out of date. I'll change "Admin views" to "Some admin views" and round up the hyphens that must have escaped when my back was turned. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing Epipelagic--glad to set the record straight and sorry for any confusion. As for the box, well, it's not really a big deal to me, though I will gladly admit that I can get sensitive as well. And if I'd been been blocked in the ways that Eric has been, I mean blocked as often, I'd be even more sensitive. Listen, I don't know if your block log is still clean, but if you like I can take care of that and then we can really have it out. Best, Drmies (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)*Sorry, got wrong end of stick. As regards "user" Ihardlythinkso, I know nothing. The organisation I work for part-time, the office staff don't come into contact with their customers- the decisions they make tend to be in the interests of the organisation rather than the customers. Which I can see, as I meet the customers. In the case of Wikipedia, nobody meets the customers, and everybody becomes suspicious that the organisation's interests have become paramount. An imprecise analogy, just trying to articulate where I think some of the angst comes from. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's angst--it's just anger. They have a pretty combative personality and got blocked for it. That blocking admin later made a mistake in another unrelated block and left while ArbCom was looking into it. So Ihardlythinkso now has a stick to swing around--"see, that was an abusive admin", when their own block was two years earlier and the wrongness of one block does not, of course, make all that admin's blocks invalid. Epipelagic, I really have no interest in getting into a pissing contest with you; I have too much respect for you as an editor. I can recognize, as I said, valid criticism of the system and certainly of individual admins: there are a few for whom I have very little respect. But I do not think that Kumioko should be the reason or the occasion for us to discuss this, nor should it be done in that particular forum. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd have assumed that Kudpung was referring to me, as he and I have long disagreed about what's wrong with RfA and how best to fix it. And as for his "anti-admin brigade" appellation I think that's rather silly. I don't know any sensible person who's anti all admins, as opposed to some individual admins and the process by which they're chosen. But I'm not at liberty to say more about that for fear of ArbCom enforcement; as with so many other things here the way dissent is dealt with is to suppress the voice of the dissenters. Eric Corbett 14:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--so I could ask you what you think is wrong with RfA but you wouldn't be allowed to answer? I don't mind if you left a comment or two and I don't think an ArbCom member will block you over that. I think you think that RfA is a type of popularity contest. I think I probably agree with that, although I don't think I think that's as bad as you think it is. The measuring of "judgment" is always going to be done by way of having convinced others that you have sense, and someone who hates you isn't going to say that about you. Anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I mean:
"Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary."
Eric Corbett 16:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to deflate your ego Eric, but you were the last person I had in mind for the last couple of years I'd almost forgotten you exist - I thought you had been permabanned or something. I don't watch Coronation Street either.

But IhardlyThinkSo, Eric, and Epipelagic all on one page? Is that a brigade cabal? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't been thinking at all in that case, but no change there. Eric Corbett 17:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, they're not all in the same category, haha! And some of them are not welcome here anyway. Others are, always, and so are you, my old friend. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three mentioned, two conversing here, at least one unwelcome here. Even a dummy like me can do the math. Why oh why is everyone ganging up on the kindest, sweetest, most helpful editor one could imagine? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR clarification

[edit]

Letting you know I opened a clarification request here on excluding your talk page from the topic ban. Protonk (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry. Let me do the talking. And I promise you that if you are granted to speak of The Dreaded RfA Process here, I will listen. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind: I saw your note there and have asked for it to be filed. See, that's one thing I so eminently dislike here: this kind of bureaucracy. A simple question, for a simple, little request, and people feel the need to start butting in at AN, and before you know we have to go up before ArbCom in order to have a little chat on someone's talk page. My apologies Eric--I guess I didn't know what I started. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom is a bit like credit checks in a way. The more frequently someone does a credit check on you the lower your credit score becomes. No smoke without fire I suppose. Eric Corbett 21:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repeating myself: meta:User talk:Eric Corbett. NE Ent 21:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it Ent--thanks. I don't know, though, if I like that venue, and I don't know if Eric does. We'll try WhatsApp and Instagram and Twitter and Facebook and MySpace and VK and WhatNot. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Email? Perhaps even FIDO, which Eric will probably remember but Drmies, a relative internet tyro at 21 years of age, will not ;) Then, Eric, there is always the (nno-smoking) pub. What I would take from this, even in this brave new morally ambitious world of Jimbo, is that Protonk meant well and put their face above the parapet. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compuserve forum? NE Ent 00:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I appreciate Protonk's effort. Fido, that's a dog, everyone knows that. Sitush, the word is "ambitiousness" and you should adjust your sentence accordingly. As for this non-smoking bit, I always felt that Eric should be a smoker. Een tevreden roker is geen onruststoker, as a wise man once said. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I used Compuserve. I'd have to check whether that happened before or after FIDO but my gut feeling is after and I'm not relying on anything that our articles say so, na-na-na-na-nah. Non-smoking was a subtle pun on the "no smoke without fire" but, being intelligent people, y'all would have got that. Ambitiousness, yep: I just cannot bring myself to commit such a mangling of the language - moral ambitiousness. I mangle stuff anyway but some things, like this, well, they're just so bloody American, sorry. Turning nouns into verbs and that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured it might be simple to have the ban amended to have eric talk about RFA here. As it turns out, little about arbcom is simple. ;) Either way, glad to see it resolved in some fashion. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your help determining a pattern of disruptive behavior from a POV editor on a large number of LGBT related articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks--but really much of the legwork was done by Fae, and the quick resolution was courtesy of the kind people at AN. Still, thanks--that's one less POV editor we have to with. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the "Enough is enough"-thread from AN/I

[edit]

Definitely, the guy is back with a new IP and he is pissed off.

  1. User talk:The Banner
  2. Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people
  3. User talk:Francis Schonken
  4. Talk:Ascension Parish Burial Ground
  5. Talk:Cambridge Apostles
  6. Talk:Bloomsbury Group
  7. User talk:Jimbo Wales
  8. Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

You said I could report more offensive behaviour directly to you... The Banner talk 12:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, and here he gives proof that user:Nitramrekcap and the IP are identical: User:Nitramrekcap The Banner talk 12:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuit

[edit]

I've just remembered you said this in June, so I thought I'd mention that the user is back after a couple of months' unheralded disappearance, and I'm … pursuing it. It's like wrestling with wather, and unfortunately ArbCom wrongfooted me by mislaying an e-mail the user sent them. Hardly central to the issue, but it would have been neater without that, and neatness is something the thing needs. Do you remember the arb that Bishzilla blocked in January 2009? (Stout old girl!) Don't know if you followed the drama at the time, but it was colourful and took a lot of popcorn. Anyway, this user reminds me that arb. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

CLAIM TODAY, you may be entitled to £3.50 for the accident what you had

[edit]

Nexus Solicitors. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh dear. That's my attempt at writing... In retrospect I was a little caught up in thinking that there was a new messiah at the time. How wrong I was. Please feel free to use your hedgetrimmer on it and I promise to stick to removing crap rather than adding crap in the future ;) SmartSE (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear SmartSE, I didn't read the whole thing, and I certainly wasn't trying to criticize--it's more that I thought it was a funny phrase. I could see the lawyers already pleasuring their clients with full service. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: whose sock?

[edit]

User: Mrwallace05 - see WP: Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05/Archive, plus Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mrwallace05 for more names and IPs. This one is hard to keep up with - I believe he's using ExpatShield or something which allows him to appear to be in several counties in southeast England, and I suspect he's also the genre warrior whose IPs resolve to Zagreb. One of the comments at SPI is that a range block would be impractical; all we can do is revert and tag the new IPs/user names. Radiopathy •talk• 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smartsé

[edit]

Hey now: check out the unsourced, undiscussed genre change. When I revert a sock, I revert everything. Radiopathy •talk• 01:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration amendment request closed

[edit]

Hi Drmies, I've closed and archived the amendment request regarding Eric. The Committee took no action regarding the request. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betafive

[edit]

You're welcome. As you noticed, I was no longer assuming good faith because I referred to some of his or her activities as malicious. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark of Quality

[edit]

The entire catalog(ue). Stick of dynamite? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (advance apologies for clunky English- just been reading the sections below and it done my head in) I've been reading Great White Wonders about the bootleg industry. These records were issued in low volumes- about 1,000-2,500. The music on them is going to be still available elsewhere (as they were re-bootlegged at the time, and also the music is from live performances- therefore no major creative input by the bootleggers into the record). The lists were probably copied from Hot Wacks. There's some notable releases that could be listed (like the Little Feat ones). Think I only had one Pig record, but I had a few TAKRL ones- didn't realise they were uncommon. Recommend GWW as a read. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a sec...

[edit]

Could you take a look at this situation to make sure the offending editor should not be intervened upon. A request was made but after I commented they removed it from ANI believing it was my suggestion. Now, there does not appear a 3 revert violation but...they were re-adding BLP violations and were warned to stop by an editor and they have, so far refused to engage. While we can't force them, that on top of the BLP violations may be worth a block...depending...or not. I am not quite sure here. Perhaps at least a stern warning from an actual admin and not some smartypants like me?;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucio Dalla (again, sigh)

[edit]

Someone came and added the category "LGBT people from Italy" to this article. This seems fair enough. Guido Lonchile pops up, reverting to his preferred in-the-closet version from before the discussion in January. I revert that, but now he's removing the category, which seems to me to be the same denial of sources revisited. Could you take a look, please? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre tool

[edit]

? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Betty Logan and Bongwarrior‎ "write some great content". Wikipedia: I'm doing it wrong. Incidentally, is this a reliable source for a BLP? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what the tool bases the result on, but claiming that I "write some great content" seems a bit odd since I, in spite of having made ~20,000 edits, have only made major contributions to two articles. Both of them ended up as DYK, though, so if that's what the tool looks at I can be said to have a 100% success rate. Thomas.W talk 18:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is that the tool looks at pages created compared to total number of unique pages edited, which for me would be 2,110 pages created compared to 7,404 unique pages edited. Of the total number of pages created 1,997 are user talk pages, though, created when issuing warnings; which of course has very little to do with actual content creation. Thomas.W talk 18:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most bizarre thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia! It seems pretty random though. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not random at all! Darwinbish writes some great content and Darwinfish is a terrible footfish. 110% success rate. darwinbish BITE ☠ 19:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
:-D Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a namespace percentage thing. The tool likes me because almost all of my edits are in main space, but I clearly don't write much content... -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 22:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't mean to brag, but I wrote 932 articles, apparently, and that's only 94102 less than that notorious no-goodnik Dr. Blofeld. And some of the names I plugged in belong to indef-blocked accounts, some of whom have pretty close to zero article edits. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but how many of that inflated figure have I actually written...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! Always exciting to find out people have discovered a tool you wrote and subsequently forgot about months ago. The tool currently uses some complicated algorithms which analyzes various data available on labs. There are definitely some edge cases the tool doesn't handle well (usually users with very few article-related contributions), I haven't had much time to fix those bugs. And nothing personal to people labeled as terrible people, maybe you just need to write some more content ;) Legoktm (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DEAR DRMIES

[edit]

I don't know who are you, but please, stop editing my article, I'm doing it in the most neutral way I can and I'm just adding information that can be interesting for people. If you continue changing my article I'll talk with Wikipedia managers, as the accepted my article before some people had changed it. My article is just for information, no advertising. Look at ��Harmonic Inc. and Ericsson pages and let me know why my article is advertising and theirs not. I didn't wrote anything about the products of the company. I'm not selling anything! Ok? August 27th, 21:51 h. ≈Marcalsig≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcalsig (talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how I can talk with "Wikipedia managers". Five years of editing, and I still haven't figured that out. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a fan of Indian English, my favorite phrase was the closer: "it is a worrying time for the inquisitive, as their source of solace seems to be faltering." That's scary stuff. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a better reference than the NY times for gender inequality in pharmacutical testing, or changing the standards of wikipedia medical articles.

[edit]

You seem interested in at all mentioning gender inequality in drug testing. Please review my short list of contributions and tell me if you can find an acceptable source for the claims made by the notoriously unreliable New York Times. It's rather sad I'm the one failing to add this. You also seem capable of detecting easily recognizable patterns like making at least one edit to a non fiction topic, but that's besides the point. Call Jimbo you can win this one because he legitimately cares about making wikipedia less sexist and this was recently in the news. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

[edit]

I hereby inform you that you are mentioned in a discussion at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Enough_is_enough. The Banner talk 20:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked this account indefinitely for longterm disruption and edit warring, under this account and dozens of IP addresses. This means also that those IP edits can be summarily reverted since they count as block evasion. That's a shame: you could have contributed, but you should have done so according to our guidelines. Now you cannot contribute at all--not until you agree to abide by our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

and dozens of IP addresses

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED BY WIKIPEDIA! "goodbye Wikipedia, and thank you for the fish"; 'Wikipedia is a LUNATIC ASYLUM' = discuss Jimbo!

2.27.132.34 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

2.27.132.34 (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.132.34 (talk)

Isn't it a lovely guy? The Banner talk 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brown

[edit]

Hi and thanks! Yes you are right - 1000%! I am very concerned about how that article is having neutrality, POV, and soapbox problems, and wanted to shake the tree a bit. I have no interest in the subject other than dropping-in for some information. But my shaking got to the root of the structure there. I think that there are some fine editors working there, but there are challenges from some SPAs, new SPAs attracted to the specific topic, and a number of editors that seem to follow current event controversies.

I've been away form WP for awhile, and do most of my editing (cleanup etc.) as an IP, mainly too lazy to log in. Haven't had a controversy here for years. Long ago I worked on policy pages AfDs, dispute resolution etc.

My question is whether there is a formal oversight team looking at these volatile current events pages? My experience is (was) that special interest groups can overwhelm and wear down the average wikipedians, and manipulate with sockpuppets, SPAs, and wiki-laywers.

Anyway, I thought I'd ask and hope that maybe this article could get some higher level guidance toward neutrality.

Bless all of you Admins who keep the project running smoothly.

Best regards,

Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kevin, I have no doubt that we have a collection of "current events" editors, some of whom are sometimes too eager to get the news in here, with a host of attendant problems. To answer one of your questions, no, there is no "formal oversight team" for all articles, although there are areas where edits are more closely scrutinized and administrators have more leeway in applying sanctions for problematic edits. In some areas (think Arab-Israeli conflict, Men's Rights Movement, Mixed Martial Arts (!)), on some pages, there are greater restrictions--for instance 1R restrictions, which basically means that editors can revert an edit (or revert edits in general) only once. If that had been the case here, you'd have gotten a warning of sorts after your first revert, and might have been blocked if you had continued. The Trayvon Martin article, for instance, was closely scrutinized, as was the article for the Singapore Airlines plane that was shot down. With this particular article, there wasn't that much disruption (relatively speaking)--problems with the lead were not so serious (in terms of POV or other violations) that they can't be handled on the talk page. I hope that answers your question. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I mentioned the Trayvon Martin article to the editors at Michael Brown as an example of a more neutral Lede, but I imagine it ook a while to calm that one down. Take care. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bother you again, but....

[edit]

I'm trying to make some pretty straightforward edits to Murder of Ross Parker (an article I have mentioned here before). One of your fellow admins has made a bunch of accusations about my "agenda" and is generally being very obstructive. I thought we had worked things out, but he is now requesting that I get his approval over a very simple change. If you have a chance, can you read over [16] and tell me if I'm doing something wrong? Nigel Pap (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's content matter in which I don't really want to get involved because I don't really know the subject. I am not familiar with GrahamColm (never heard of 'em before), but their admin status, given that they have a content dispute with you, isn't really relevant. Their claim that you have an agenda requires some substantiation; barring that they should assume good faith. (That substantiation, if it can be provided is probably not a matter for that article talk page--but without a case having been made that accusation really should be struck.) Now, that they suggest you propose your edits on the talk page for discussion, that's fair enough--mandating it wouldn't be OK. Then again, for you to edit while a dispute is going on is also not OK.

    I see that you're saying something is a minor change and it seems obvious to me that they disagree, in which case you have no choice (for now) but to play it that way: propose changes on the talk page, with arguments, links, and citations. Perhaps it is a good idea, in this case, to draw up a list of sources and what precisely they say. I see that Keri participated in that discussion as well, and I have faith in them. Look, apparently this is contentious subject matter, so talk page consensus is always going to be required since *gasp* it is possible that other people are right. If all else fails a Request for Comment is the way to go. Good luck, and keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like very sound advice except the content dispute has been about unsourced content which GrahamColm kept reinserting. I thought we had reached an agreement here and he made the change himself. I can accept that I might be wrong about matters of opinion but this was a disagreement about unsourced content. I have outlined the very minor change I propose to make and asked for comment. I am doing my best to get consensus on the talk page, but this didn't seem to be a contentious article until GrahamColm arrived and started throwing out bizarre accusations. I draw the line at having him approve a very small change which can easily be reverted. What's so special about this article all of a sudden? Nigel Pap (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen that he's made yet another accusation and threatened to have me banned. Nigel Pap (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the sources: refs 3, 6, 7 should verify either "a gang of up to ten Muslim youths of Pakistani background who were seeking a white male to attack" OR "a gang of Asian youths". It seems to me the court document verifies a number--6 people in all, one of whom was acquitted and two of whom were witnesses for the prosecution. It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is to tweak the phrasing to where "three people were convicted". Second, that these were "Three Asian youths hailing from Pakistan" is verified in ref 7, and that same article verifies "gang" as well. So, it seems to me that the facts aren't really in dispute, they really can't be, which leaves the question of whether, for instance, mentioning "Muslim" is warranted or not. That's the kind of thing you can take up, that's the kind of thing that may warrant a tag. The threat of a topic ban, well, that's just that. I haven't seen evidence that renders you incapable of working on that article, but I haven't looked for it either. I will grant Graham that they might feel some exasperation since it appears that you're arguing certain things aren't in the sources when, as far as I can tell, they are.

GrahamColm, I appreciate that you mentioned you're not acting as an admin here, but at the same time, an accusation of partiality (or the threat of seeking a topic ban) sounds even more serious when coming from an admin, since in many instances people have no choice but to listen to us, which rightly or wrongly can lend some weight to statements we make as editors. Surely, if you're right on the content, you don't have to go toward topic bans and stuff. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. There is a larger group who witnessed or participated in the assault and a smaller group who were involved in the court case. We have one source (The Guardian) which describes the first group as "a group of men, some wearing balaclavas". The Times describes the larger group as "about ten Asian youths". It is not clear to me that the court document is referring to all participants or just those involved at trial when it totals 7 people. Just because the 3 men who were convicted of murder are described as Pakistani does not mean that all of larger group were Pakistani. It seems likely but there simply isn't a source for it. My problem with the word "gang" is simply that it conjures up the idea of "a group of recurrently associating individuals or close friends or family with identifiable leadership and internal organization, identifying with or claiming control over territory in a community, and engaging either individually or collectively in violent or other forms of illegal behavior" (as the Wikipedia article says) and it is not clear that this is a "gang" in that sense or just a group of men. The word itself is fine but the reader may assume something other than intended. Nigel Pap (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have missed something, but one got married in Kashmir, and there were conversations in Punjabi- they could be Indian or Pakistani in origin. They'd also been drinking alcohol. Ref 7 is an Indian publication, plenty of articles on Narendra Modi, so maybe a bias in describing the murderers as Pakistani. Ref 6 is a "local rag"- might or might not be reliable. Ref 3 doesn't mention an origin. I haven't seen any photos, but I bet they were clean-shaven with short hair. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Gang: A group of young people involved in petty crime or violence" (OED). Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, the conjuring of ideas in your head is a purely subjective experience and the content of the Gang article is neither here nor there. Keri (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Xanthomelanoussprog, you may be right but I am simply trying to get unsourced material sourced or removed from the article. At this point there is no source that claims the larger group of attackers was of Pakistani origin. The three man convicted of the murder were identified as Pakistani by multiple sources. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens. "If it ain't on Google, it don't exist, mister!" I could pull half a dozen references from newspaper archives stating that he was attacked by a gang of Asians up to 10 strong. What's starting to emerge here is a pattern of disruption, pettifogging, chicanery and a fleet of unsinkable rubber ducks. Keri (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance template

[edit]

You removed my {{POV}} tag in declining speedy. Elizium23 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • And you restored it. Thanks. Really, that speedy nomination was way over the top; you've been around here long enough to know that no admin will delete that article for that reason, for those edits. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Torri

[edit]

The things you see at CSD. I declined a hoax tag as the person exists and might even be notable enough to survive AfD, let alone a speedy. Of course, as you can see, the writing is atrocious, but there's no speedy delete for crappy writing unless it descends into nonsense. I think the PROD is amusing. I suppose I could clean up the article a bit, but I wouldn't do that until I was satisfied that the subject merited an article, and I'm too lazy to research that properly.

I hope you got a good rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, yes, it's not complete gibberish. As for last night: thanks for taking over the graveyard shift; unfortunately I read too much Percy Jackson and did too little sleeping. But today was better, since I got paid and finally got to buy a few beers again. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IF it's the same person, he's a tattoo artist based at Camden, London, born 1981, studied fine art at Bergamo and Milan, graduated circa 2003 and was for a time "manager in a private TV" (sic). My opinion (worth a penny) is that he doesn't merit an article because there's no secondary evaluation of his art (i.e. galleries, critics). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two accounts are probably the same person or meat puppets. One could be the artist, and the other someone who publicizes him. But rather than put up with all this, why doesn't someone take it to AfD if he's not notable?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This website says his name is Simone Torri Jabba. Note that the other account is User:Jaba1313.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I took a quick look at the article, and then did this. Thomas.W talk 12:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Thomas, you have some nerve, after Drmies lent his imprimatur of approval by rewriting it, I went on and on about socking, Xanthomelanoussprog has their usual fun with pithy comments, and Yngvadottir censored the article? What is the world coming to?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an easy decision to make, being up against all of that, it's just that I got a funny feeling of most of the article being a hoax after having made a few quick searches on Google. According to the article Torri was commissioned to paint a portrait of a well known bishop, and also commissioned to paint a portrait of Gabriele d'Annunzio that is supposed to hang in Brescia Airport, yet searches on Google for Simone Torri plus the name of the bishop, and Simone Torri plus the Italian name of Brescia Airport, returned absolutely nothing, except for the article here on en-WP. Which seems a bit odd to me. Thomas.W talk 14:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An artist worthy of having an article on en-WP ought also to be worthy of having an article on the Italian WP, but no, an article about Simone Torri was speedily deleted on the Italian WP four years ago for being "unencyclopedic promotion, CV" (searches for all other imaginable combinations of "Simone", "Gerardo", "Torri" and "Jabba" returned nothing on it-WP, so there's no article about him there...). Thomas.W talk 14:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

[edit]

Would you like to close this merge discussion? Radiopathy •talk• 16:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not today, Radiopathy--sorry, but there's naps and Alabama football on the menu, plus a family visit. I'll try and have a look later tonight. Have you ever thought about reverting your colors just to mess with people? Or you could do them in mirror-image, like Mandarax does. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not rolling yet, Mandarax. I managed to snooze through one WVa touchdown. And we made a beet/spice cake! Drmies (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you do some very interesting things in the kitchen. I never heard of a beet/spice cake, but I love sweet and spicy pickled beets, so I bet the cake would be wonderful. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rosie found the recipe on the beet jar. Yes, sweet/pickled, "Harvard" style (Aunt Nellie's). The top of the turband got stuck a bit, but it's very tasty. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voila! Drmies (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I might need to try that. Beets are so sweet, I figured it would need less sugar, but maybe you need to counteract the vinegar of the pickles. LadyofShalott 00:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pretty foolproof recipe, and the cake is not too sweet. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiopathy, that is a crappy discussion, and after a quick read I'm somewhat included to go with the Moustache--but that first read was also complicated by this Burkeophile character whose unsigned comments are all over the place. I'll get back to you. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Grice

[edit]

Fair enoughHoldenV8 (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sometimes there is a point where some things are a bit much, I can appreciate that.HoldenV8 (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another self-promoting artist

[edit]

Yankel Feather. Unfortunately this one's been dead for 5 years and is starting to forget how to write decent English. I was going to have a go, but I gotta run, and thought someone else might like some fun. (He is notable- I'd never heard of him, but Ringo Starr and Cilla Black have, and their taste in art is exemplary). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that article has problems but so do lots of our articles, and we have over "four million and a half" articles. Notable does not mean that habitues of the Drmies talk page think his work is exemplary, but the couple of references in the article demonstrate that he was some kind of of minor league Liverpool Chagall. So, let's clean it up a bit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any update?

[edit]

Hello @Drmies:, I know you're busy but when you have time, can you let me know if there is any update with ugurcanacar situation? Thanks in advance for your time.Rivaner (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issue is addressed. Sorry I may have missed a ping. If they're at it again (making poorly verified or otherwise unacceptable edits) please let me know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: Rivaner, I am not happy how you treated my entries. I will take this situation to wikipedia board as i am not sure what your role is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugurcanacar (talk • contribs)
    • Ugurcanacar, Rivaner's "role" is to improve articles, but that's everyone's role here. You are not improving articles, and for them to point this out to me (an administrator and well-known know-it-all) is perfectly alright. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice artwork on your "new section" page (good taste)

[edit]

I know you & I have been rocky. You granted me roll-back right. (Thank you again.) How w/ you feel re also granting WP:Reviewer right? (Am very interested in article integrity in my areas [board games, chess variants]. I'm conservative editor you can depend on it.) Thx for consider. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Comment

[edit]

@Drmies as far as Martin goes, I wasn't looking for any action but what I was referring to was this posting, where its plain he was editing by proxy through emails to another editor. That is a pretty blatant topic ban violation but I saw little point in pursuing it while the topic ban and indefinite block was in place. Its of relevance to any appeal as are the contents of the drafts he produced, charitably you might write them off as spleen venting but given he was also claiming to have been wronged on simple wikipedia simply reinforces the view he sees everyone but himself as in the wrong.

I'm going to be away for a few weeks, with intermittent web access and just wanted to put forward my views on the matter. For the record, if I want admin action like blocks or bans I will ask for them outright, if I don't I'm simply asking for an intervention to ensure things reach a smooth conclusion. WCMemail 15:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, that's interesting. You and I differ in our interpretation, though; I don't see this as evidence of editing through proxy. For all we know they're talking about the person, as a matter of interest, or about some publication one of them is trying to get done completely unrelated to Wikipedia. I will say that Martin himself has brought up editing by proxy before. At any rate, the way I see it is that it's not all that appropriate to post on his talk page, and I encourage you to seek the better venue.

    I really have no comment/opinion right now on either the block or the topic ban, let alone on a possible unblock/unban request. I'm all for bringing banned editors back into the fold but this will, of course, be for the community to decide; I would like Martin to present his case in the best possible way, and that includes an insight into past mistakes and how they are to be remedied. Enjoy your time away from the wiki, and let's hope it won't break in the meantime. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well it wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed and I doubt it will be the last. FWIW I don't intend to make a habit of posting there, one of the lessons I did learn was not to keep on replying to those sort of allegations. Sláinte mhaith! WCMemail 18:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed I could have been more complete, above: for "I will say that Martin himself has brought up editing by proxy before", read something like "I will say that Martin himself has brought up editing by proxy before and has thus opened himself up to such charges". In other words, I certainly don't think it's a crazy suggestion, and frankly I don't quite understand why he would have such conversations on his talk page. But hey, to each his own. Het allerbeste, Drmies (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The post I felt clinched the point was actually the response, which you don't see in that diff. I called him on it, and got two responses (1 2). Is it really an obvious WP:BLP violaton per WP:BANEX to link from British Weights and Measures Association to a disambigutation page containing living people? It would be fairly typical of the sort of Wikilawyering he was blocked for.
For me, the case is obvious, but I've dealt with Martin for many years and would not by any stretch of the imagination claim to be "uninvolved" when dealing with him. Kahastok talk 19:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The owl and the whooooom

[edit]

I think this is wrong, despite the fancy language in the edit summary. I'm not perfect at this, though, so I'm seeking a third opinion. Unless it's obvious to me, I usually insert the pronoun, in this case "him", into the sentence. So, in this instance, "Matt LeBlanc hoped that by having his own show, Joey—whom he believed was probably the least evolved character on Friends—would become more developed" would be supported by LeBlanc believed him to be the least evolved. Regardless of which is correct, I believe the dashes should be commas.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) "Matt LeBlanc hoped that the character Joey, who he believed was the least evolved character on Friends, would become more developed if he got his own show". Thomas.W talk 19:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Whoms are over-rated, often hyper-corrected, and lack vitamins. Maybe the original could be reworked as 1. ...Joey (the character LeBlanc believed was "probably the least evolved" on Friends) would... or split it for clarity as, 2. Matt LeBlanc hoped that Joey would become more developed by having his own show; LeBlanc believed that Joey was "probably the least evolved character" on Friends. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always like avoiding the issue if possible. Doesn't LadyofShalott have a pet peeve about the use of who and whom?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Lady is quite conservative; it's part of her job and her upbringing, though she used to live in a much more progressive state. "Whom" is correct here, given that the rephrasing has the pronoun in the object position: "LeBlanc believed him to be the most etc." But Elaqueate is quite right in the overratedness of whom, which is a fossil we should do away with, though English might have to ban Eric Corbett in the process. I'd prefer Thomas's option, leaving out the first instance of "character" (redundant, since "Joey" = "the character Joey"; and redundant, since duplicate), or Elaqueate's second, replacing the second "LeBlanc" with "he".

A philosophical question needs to be asked as well, for which it is best to ask a veteran of virtual reality (NE Ent or Jimbo Wales, for instance): Let's take Thomas's sentence.

Matt LeBlanc hoped that the character Joey, who he believed was the least evolved character on Friends, would become more developed if he got his own show.

Now, what is the antecedent for the last "he"? LeBlanc getting his own show or, the horror!, Joey coming out of fiction and into reality to assume another identity (his own, but now re-fictionalized after passing through our world)? Since "Joey" of course can't "get" anything, including his own show, unless we let go of preconceived notions of reality. It seems to me that Seinfeld (or, "Seinfeld", or even Seinfeld) is better equipped to answer that question. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Matt LeBlanc and his stage persona Joey are seen as one and the same by most people it doesn't really matter if Matt LeBlanc or Joey Tribbiani gets a show. Matt LeBlanc is nothing without Joey Tribbiani, and Joey Tribbiani is nothing without Matt LeBlanc. Thomas.W talk 21:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joey is the antecedent of the second he.
Matt LeBlanc hoped that the character Joey, who LeBlanc believed was the least evolved character on Friends, would become more developed if Joey got his own show.
Matt LeBlanc hoped that the character Joey, who he believed was the least evolved character on Friends, would become more developed if a show was created that featured Joey as the main character. NE Ent 17:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything, it was a reference to The Owl and the Pussycat. It was also a play on the word hoot. Back to the subject: I'm lost. You say whom is correct and then you say Thomas's version (with who) is correct. This is all putting aside rewriting the whole sentence. BTW, as long as I'm disagreeing with Thomas, some may see LeBlanc as inexorably intertwined with his Friends character, but he has gone on to do other things that have received more critical acclaim than Joey. Isn't virtual reality just a euphemism for psychotic? Not that I'm accusing NE Ent or Jimbo of being psychotic, mind you, although many believe that Jimbo is out of touch. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb, "whom" here is correct according to ye olde-fashioned rules of grammar. However, "who" is correct according to many, many competent speakers of contemporary English. If it were up to me--well, I'd probably rephrase the sentence, which is what many competent speakers of contemporary English do, to avoid the problem altogether. My dear Bbb, I'll speak as a relatively modern descriptive grammarian here--the notion of "correct" is difficult, and highly dependent on your audience. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The literal-minded thank you for your clear explanation. I, too, agree that it would be better to reword the sentence, although I haven't bothered because the whole thing was/is a nit. I just wanted to know which was correct per the rules given that the editor who changed it didn't seem to be adopting who based on modern usage. I had the most wonderful dinner last night. Chicken breasts (avec bone) marinated in an Asian sauce served with brown Jasmine rice with two sauces, one a homemade barbecue sauce and the other a coconut milk-based Thai sauce. On the side fresh corn on the cob. And there are leftovers (yay).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds great. I have a chicken in the fridge, soaking up the flavors of pesto, garlic, and rosemary; she will be roasted with a few heads of garlic. One more time: "per the rules given" doesn't really exist. :) Drmies (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this edit summary supports what I said: "Fix erroneous ‘whom’ (word is subject in clausal object, not direct object". However, if it makes you happy, I'll change my statement to "per the olde rules". Your chicken, which sounds lovely, is western. Ours was essentially eastern with a touch of modified Americana.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That chicken recipe sounds great, Drmies, and happen I have a bird I can try it on. If you're a garlic fan then maybe sometimes try sticking a clove or two of smoked garlic in with potatoes just before you mash them. I doubt that is in any set of rules either but, hey, good cookery is essentially an artistic process unless you're Heston Blumenthal. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is essentially unsourced, totally WP:OR, and has not even come close to establishing its notability. The only "source" is a blog in the external links. People create these things and edit them for their amusement. We might as well be an extension of the website.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Afghans being taught "military English", it's a very logical thing to do since English is widely understood all over southern Asia, particularly in Pakistan and India, where it is now seen as a "neutral" language, and is actually gaining ground. English was to have been replaced by Hindi as the only official language on the national level in India, and there was even a time plan for it, but the decision stirred up so much resentment among speakers of other "local" languages, especially in southern India, that the process was put on hold. So rather than having Hindi as the lingua franca all over India, it's (still) English that is the language of choice. Including being the language of business (above the most basic level) all over India. Which in turn has created a class divide between those who speak English in India and those who don't, because not knowing English makes it virtually impossible to climb socially. Thomas.W talk 14:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being slandered above? LadyofShalott 00:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optional favour

[edit]

Hey

You can talk sense into folks sometimes.

At User talk:Bryancyriel, I've been trying to deal with a user with language problems who blind reverts without discussion all over the place, opens bogus noticeboard reports and basically is just disruptive. I could raise it at ANI, but he'll probably just end up blocked, which doesn't help him. I'm all out of patience, and he's not listening to me. I'd rather see him listen to someone than be blocked.

I wondered if you might have any magic words for him - no problem if you don't - I wouldn't blame you. Cheers. Begoon talk 02:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm grateful. In situations like that, I do worry that, from his point of view, his talkpage had become a whole lot of me being Mr. Meanie, and "picking on him". I much prefer that he sees that is not the case, and what you said helps in that regard. Whether it will have the desired effect? Maybe not, he'll probably just decide the whole world is being mean, but there's no doubt, at least, that we tried now. Thanks. Begoon talk 03:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how it goes, though... I glanced at the reverts you did, and I thought "Oh, ok, the silly little episode description to the silly little list was probably ok - I should probably reinstate that" - until I remembered that he can't write English, and it was, kinda - so I googled to see where he got it from. Turns out the whole list was straight copypasta from the series website, so I've done all the COPYVIO template/blanking stuff (well, I think I did it all, the instructions are a little dense), and left him a note about that. Hey ho. Begoon talk 07:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, funny--I saw that note and am looking into the situation. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK Begoon, good call. First of all, sweet mother of god, this is what we invented the internet for? for some kids to copy-paste episode blurbs for a claymation TV series? Sheesh. Yes, it's a copyvio from the get-go, courtesy of Wikibirds11, and I'm deleting it instantly. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what they seem to do, is copypaste them to Wikia, then send out Twits about it to alert each other about who might have copypasted it too early or too late or out of turn, and to let each other know where the latest playground fight has erupted, so everyone can get there in time and fling mud (or clay, I suppose). At some point they have decided that just doing it at Wikia isn't entertaining the world enough, so best to do it here too. Google gifted me these insights when I was looking for the source of the material. I see you've been dealing with some related stuff. Mop is the right word today.
I'm mostly impressed with 2 things: firstly the fact that it would literally be impossible to find anything more trivial, more obscure, and less important to fight about - and secondly that they conduct all of these bunfights in (almost) English, when hardly any of them seem to speak it. A few of "them" seem to be the same "person", and lots from the same (school?) IPs.
But you're right - the internet is a marvellous thing - without it they'd all be listening to the teacher, or outside playing football or marbles or hiding from girls, or something... Thanks for the help. You're underpaid. Begoon talk 13:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

[edit]

It seems to be a bit stormy today. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great pic - and one would certainly not wish to navigate a Northeaster like that based on imperfect tests, intuition or guesswork. The weather is a great leveller. Begoon talk 16:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but I prefer The Cafe, if only because it turned out on the "same" show to be "worth" 1/4 of a million, though purchased for 11,000, and the other half of the pair (or part of the trio?) had been "sold by the previous owner on eBay". And it has "cafe", which implies food. I like food. Begoon talk 18:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, that was a bit memorable! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for De bono mortis

[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! See also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last word of "The Judgment", for a reason, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

I've dropped you an email and would appreciate it if you could respond at your earliest convenience. WormTT(talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the user Minioletroj

[edit]

Okay sorry but I was told to put a report on someone who kept on making unsourced BLP's so yeah I decided to put it there (I asked someone even a few days ago who then blocked some user for a day for doing that) But yeah sorry about that then if I did something wrong. Wgolf (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha okay welcome, so if someone does keep on doing that, what type of warning should we give? (I didn't do it to the last user who did get blocked though after I asked another admin) Well good luck and have fun editing and stuff. Wgolf (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It all depends on what they're doing. First of all, they probably need to be talked to (or, better yet, with). If someone keeps creating unsourced BLPs despite having been asked (or told) not to do so, they can be reported to the friendly neighborhood admin, or to WP:ANI. But it all depends on circumstances, and in many cases, if an editor is engaged on the talk page they'll improve their editing behavior. After all, we want their articles, but we want them in better shape. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread

[edit]

Yikes, it didn't occur to me until your response that my post may have sounded like I thought you were deficient. As I said to Martin when he emailed me, many editors act as if others have memorized the entire back-story. I found it quite frustrating to have to play detective to figure out what was going on. In fact, I spent close to an hour and gave up. My email to him made it clear he was responsible. I'll be happy to clarify on the AN thread if you care, but my guess is that you will not.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, no worries. It wasn't until I read your post that I realized that, well, ahem, there was a lot more to it, and that such background information was quite essential, so thanks. I'm going to have a look in a minute; honestly, I don't rightly know what to think of it. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Buckets

[edit]

The page "Kirby Buckets" isn't a fanmade thing...Maybe I shouldn't ues a same name as my username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilonieYoung (talk • contribs) 17:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article draft, or fan fiction

[edit]
Whoofta.

After this user left a bizarre message for me out of the blue, I noticed that he has created a draft article, User:Skylar3214/Chicken_Little_2, of what he claims to be an upcoming movie. The plot seemed a bit ridiculous (even by kids movie standards), so I did some searching and discovered that no such movie exists. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • expert on G-rated films... When you have "friends" like Drmies, who needs enemies. It is a hoax. I left a message for Jamie on my talk page, but "pixiepranks-panstinkerbell.blogspot.com" is the website with most Google hits for Check Little 2. The video game is being released for the playstation 2. The soundtrack was written with Abiword (Linux word processing program). My goto person for movies is MichaelQSchmidt. The only problem with Michael is he has a cat fetish, so the photo is totally appropriate. Bgwhite (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sent it through the MfD channel; that way they'll have time to copy it to their Snapchat account or whatever it is that kids use these days. (P.S. Don't forget to add that qualification to your LinkedIn account BGW!) OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Next time, keep your nose clean and stay out of other people's businesses. You have invaded my property for the first time! What if you get caught for invading other people's properties? And did they ever tell you to keep your nose clean and stay out of it? Apparently, you have not. Of course, it's a hoax! I did that just to only realize that I could possibly make it happen some other time in the future. Next time, once again, keep your nose clean and stay out of other people's businesses. Thank you. Skylar3214 2:53, 3 August 2014

@Skylar3214: Your userpages are not your property. While Wikipedia allows users some latitude in what they may put in their userspace, Wikipedia is not a free web host, and creating "fake" articles on nonexistent subjects is not an appropriate use of such latitude. This isn't just a few people that are out to get you; this is actually Wikipedia policy. There's nothing dirty about Drmies's nose here, nor those of any other poster in this thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame Drmies. I initiated the topic in the first place. I only happened to notice the page after you left me a note yesterday completely out of the blue regarding my decline of your unblock back in June. Like it or not, when you violate Wikipedia policies, other editors and admins can and will get involved. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That, I did. I apologize for the way I am acting right now. Guess I'll have to be blocked for more than 31 hours. And it's also my fault. Skylar3214 3:13, 3 August 2014
(talk page stalker) And you're also using a time machine it seems, Skylar3214. If you posted that on August 3, you'd better be blocked for one month plus 31 hours, until you catch up. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Drmies you're too bossy, stop taking things again and again and editing too much, i had enough, don't do this again, Promise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medjca53 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way Drmies, when you said "them" in Jamie's message I put on his talk page, then it's wrong. It's a "him", and "him" only. Unless if it's them, then it's more than just one person. Skylar3214 4:30, 3 September 2014
Actually, the singular they has been a thing for quite some time; it's admittedly not universally accepted, but that's hardly a reason to reject it outright as ungrammatical. As an aside, I suspect that you're not going to get very far trying to argue grammar with a person who actually is an English professor, nor with your general 'tude; you should lose it, dude. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skylar, I'm not going to block you, nor is anyone else here. (Funny: there's five admins in this thread--only five? Kelapstick must be having a good birthday.) Yes, there is no private property here, and admins do have a habit of sticking their noses in other people's business, but that's what they get paid for, and it doesn't automatically make them assholes.

    As for singular they, I've used that for so long it's second nature to me; I don't see how one could go without it. One of my students found an article that used a very uncommon name for it--like "enclitic they" or "encephalitic they" or something like that. I'll look it up and will make copies for our reading group next week. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was out to get something to eat. I do appreciate your concern about this discussion and me. Thank you all for telling me about this. I understand now. Guess I was out of my mind tonight. Skylar3214 7:51, 3 September 2014
Epicene? ---Sluzzelin talk 06:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense Bishonen, but that was very harsh of you, having me to be blocked for a month plus 31 hours. To me, everybody just needs to keep their noses clean and out of other people's businesses. To you, everybody always get involved and think that they can get away with it. Nobody will ever learn how to stay out of this, will they? Skylar3214 12:43, 4 September 2014

*facepalm* She wasn't serious, Skylar; after all, you're not blocked. There wasn't anything to stay out of any more until you commented again; we were all content to just leave things be and have a nice chat about the word "epicene" (I keep reading it and thinking "epicurean", for the record). Please, just quit while you're ahead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writ, if it was serious, then I would have known better than to keep commenting on things that I know nothing about. Skylar3214 9:22, 4 September 2014

Arithmetical Tricks and Mathematical Recreations.

[edit]

Mathematicians like nothing better than to deceive children and non-children for completely one-sided amusement. Look no further than the provocatively named tricksters W. W. Rouse Ball and Claude Gaspard Bachet de Méziriac. Commemorating their misdeeds only encourages more bad behavior. If they were alive today they would be producing flash games by the dozens.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on wp:civil issue

[edit]

Hi, I saw you were posting over at WP:ANI and I could do with some advice regariding a civility and tone issue. I'm not certain if it's severe enough to go to ANI with or if I'm over-reacting. IS it appropriate to ask you to look at it here or do I need to go to a formal location for it? SPACKlick (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ask away--but I gotta tell you, I'm no expert on anything, and I throw stones while living in a glass house. What's up? Drmies (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind: I see you've forumshopping this all over the place, and I also see what you've been doing on Talk:Zoe Quinn. I don't see where Tarc stepped over any line, but you're welcome to find a formal forum, and I'll be interested to see how that ends up for you. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • thanks for the reply and yes I did ask two administrators and you've seen the other response. sorry to havbe wasted any of your time. SPACKlick (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I especially like the User:SPACKlick/TARC Police Blotter...which I think is against policy unless one is preparing for an RfC/U, but whatever. My last comment at Talk:Zoe may have been a bit direct and someone already reverted it which i don't have much of a beef with. But there's quite an overlap of the 18-35 gamer and the 18-35 Wikipedian. The subject of that article is getting about as much <3 here as she doe sin the 4chan/reddit-verse. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tarc, as noted at the top of the "blotter" - it was to see if I still felt it was an issue after I'd spent some time away from wikipedia. I didn't, I felt it was likely you were just having an off day and some tone was slipping into your posts that you weren't intending. Then there was last night's posts and I decided to mention it to you in the location .You responded as you did the previous times I raised it by implications of misogyny and anger so I decided to seek admin advice. SPACKlick (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha, you have no choice but to be OK with it, since you've dished it out too. Yes, SPACKlick, that page better have a purpose, since if it doesn't it will have a limited shelf life. Tarc, think before you hit enter on that page: I can see how it is easy to respond with some zest. Thanks for dropping by, Drmies (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medies incident

[edit]

Thanks for dealing with my report [17]. Just to confirm, when this sort of thing happens again, RFC/U is the place to start official action? Tevildo (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep. There may be one already--check the archives.
  • Here's the thing. Medeis has gotten in hot water before for comments at the Reference Desk. I suspect Jayron32 knows more about this than I do: I don't know if ArbCom got involved or whether there was an AN(I) thread--you can browse through the archives. I have no doubt that Jayron's heading for the hatting (and their later comment) was inspired by past events; it is entirely possible that Jayron can make a case that Medeis's comments amount to trolling in light of past behavior--indeed I suspect that's what happened. Me, I don't have that experience, so from my point of view it seemed better to rephrase that heading (without prejudice either way), and if I had to guess I'd say that the trolling accusation is what prompted Medeis to engage in that brief edit war. (This is explanation, not justification on my part for anyone's edits.) Jayron is probably the better person to ask, but again, I think it's a good idea to browse around a little bit in various archives--wait, I'm looking at WP:Editing restrictions. I'll be back in a minute. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Strange. "Editing restrictions" has an interaction ban between The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis. The link to the ANI discussion is here, where a topic ban (that none of them should edit the Refdesk pages) was also enacted--this was January 2014. That ban was subsequently lifted after review by Writ Keeper, following some discussion where apparently this diff was important (see Medeis talk page, entries for January). There is more to unravel, but the upshot is that the topic ban was vacated--it would be nice if Writ Keeper (!) could add that as a note to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, which right now has a diff for the original sanctions but not for the removal of the topic ban--but I pinged him and no doubt he'll be here in a heartbeat.

    In other words, there is precedent for some kind of disruption on the part of Medeis in relation to the two other editors. Whether that means that one could/should go to AN rightaway to ask for a topic ban, I can't tell, but I will say that typically RfC/Us are the first step. The various AN and ANI discussions indicate that we're already past that station--but again, those threads were in connection to the two other editors. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go to AN if you wanted to get something enacted, but it is to say that the previous (and now-vacated) topic ban didn't occur in a vacuum. Thanks, and good luck making sense of all of this. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Medeis doesn't need any sanctions. She has a poor understanding of how Poe's law works, and thinks she's funny. She doesn't often understand that people don't know the difference between sarcasm and seriousness without social context that in-person communication provides. For the most part, people at the Ref Desks have learned to ignore her antics. She's inconsequential background noise and ignoring her antics works best. The only reason I even bothered to hat the discussion is that she drew people in to her silliness (several of which should know better). But she's entirely not worth worrying over. --Jayron32 15:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I vacated the topic bans because, after review of the close of the AN thread where they were placed, there was never consensus for them to begin with. So they never should have been added to that list at all. It was a complicated chain of events. Not sure what note would be helpful there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll show you. Thanks WK, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Indian School of Mines

[edit]

Dear Drmies, thanks for your edit to Indian School of Mines and presenting the article in a much better look by removing the peacock words and other irrelevant information. However I'm reverting one of your edit regarding the notable alumni as the person listed in there are notable and qualify for having an individual Wikipedia page also. I have also added the red wiki link there to satisfy Wikipedia:Notable alumni and WP:Source list. Cheers, Mr RD 21:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

[edit]

I apologize for any edits that I have mistakenly made in the past, even being so negative about things that I know, or don't know, anything about. Perhaps we didn't start off with a proper introduction correctly. Allow me to introduce myself. I am Skylar, since everybody calls me that since I started Wikipedia in 2011. I, on the other hand, have been offended, rejected, ridiculed, name called, or other things like that too many times over online, and I have been extremely upset about this too many times over. It just bugs me continuously, and I still don't even know what to do about it. I didn't know who you are when I saw your message about hoaxes or fan fictional films until I removed it, taking it as offensive and inappropriate, which I've been mistaken to do so. Allow me to explain about Chicken Little 2, also to be honest about this. It was actually fan fiction, not an article's draft. I was still making a draft about it in an individual's working progress, until Jamie deleted them, especially other article drafts, such as the following:

  • The Great Amazon
  • Bolt 2
  • The Wild 2

I was not happy with the article drafts being deleted by Jamie at first. I was very upset about it, and nobody even understands what I'm going through in the present time right now. For what we both know as a fact, the fan fictional films Bolt 2, Chicken Little 2, and The Wild 2 will less likely be in production and it may not be revealed or to be made happen; maybe even The Great Amazon and other films I have came up with via Abiword, which you and Jamie already know that it's completely ridiculous. Unless if I can get the plots for all films I came up with being redone in better detail.
Remember, this is not a threat. It's an apologetic message for taking it out on you, even on other editors and administrators, for getting involved with this venomous nonsense. It is actually my fault, and my own blame to take. I'll never forgive myself for this mess. To me, everybody just needs to keep their noses clean and out of other people's businesses, unless if it's really necessary for you, or any others out there across the globe, to get involved. Thank you, and I hope you can forgive for being such a fool of myself. If you want to, please leave your message on my talk page, and keep it proper and appropriate from now on. I would also appreciate it. If I ever happen to have any or all resources for the ones that Jamie deleted, I will be sure to leave them on the drafts next time. ;) Skylar3214 11:06, 5 September 2014

  • Skylar, thank you for your message. You have nothing to worry about. However, I am puzzled by "keep it proper and appropriate from now on". Are you saying that my last (and only?) message to you was not proper and inappropriate? Even though you are now apologizing for past behavior, by which I think you also mean this edit summary, which was totally off the mark.

    Maybe we should get a few things straight. You wrote up something that shouldn't have been in Wikipedia space and it got deleted. Not a big deal. The stuff wasn't racist or deceptive or whatever, it was just a bit of fictional writing. Don't worry about it, no one is going to hold it against you. But then you're saying you apologize for it and for your responses, before you add that you insist on people being "appropriate" with you--when that's what they've been doing all along. That very first note you left on Ohnoitsjamie's page, the strange note out of the blue that started all this, I was thinking that was a fluke, but you're doing the same thing here. I have said nothing inappropriate to you, nor has Jamie, so please don't go and tell us stuff like "keep it proper and appropriate from now on", because if I say "sure", then I admit that I have not been proper with you, and I contest that: see Loaded question. I hope I'm making myself clear, and I hope that you will accept this in the spirit in which it was given. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And by the way, what I meant for "keep it proper and appropriate from now on" is that everybody needs to leave a message that should be in a civilized manner. We can always settle things anytime either on my talk page or on yours, as long as we make sure to stay positive and not to where things can get ugly. Know what I mean? Anyway Drmies, any time you want to leave a message on my talk page, please do so and keep it informative to where it doesn't get ugly, like it had in the past for other editors and administrators. It will bug me if they feel negative about things that they either know or don't know anything about. We can always collaborate on articles that needs to be expanded or something like that, say Razor Tag by Styles of Beyond, which really needs more expansion, even though this has nothing to do with what we're discussing right now. Remember to leave a message on my talk page anytime. You're always more welcome to do so. Thanks. Skylar3214 3:50, 6 September 2014
No problem, Drmies. Skylar3214 6:17, 6 September 2014

DYK for Troy Kastigar

[edit]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Douglas McCain

[edit]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Maup Caransa

[edit]

I would greatly appreciate it if, instead of reverting me, you would join me on the talk page per WP:BRD over at Talk:Maup_Caransa#Problematic wording. Your explanation, "this is what the sources say", is not exactly convincing. We aren't transcription monkeys, as I'm sure you've heard, and one of our roles as editors is to be able to evaluate sources. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I got one for you. Don't make up what the sources say, and don't do that shitty "oh it must be oversight on the editor's part" in an edit summary. So take your BRD and bring it back here after you learn Dutch--and after you see that you can't stick in "Nazi concentration camp" when it could have been an extermination camp as well, or even a transit camp. FYK, here is the original: "Caransa's ouders en zijn drie broers keerden niet terug uit de kampen". It does not say anything more than that, and what's good enough for Het Parool, a newspaper whose reputation was not built on euphemism (look it up), then it's good enough for us. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive behavior

[edit]

German concentration camps redirects to list of Nazi concentration camps. I can see you are on a bender and are not open to reason. Given your most spurious warning on my talk page, please look to ANI or ANI/3 for your next instructions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, where does "de kampen" redirect to? And I think you're either calling me gay or an alcoholic, given what Bender has to say. Want me to add an NPA template to your collection? See you at ANI, pal, and don't come back here no more. Nice way to say thank you, by the way, for that mess I got you out of a while ago. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Discretionary sanctions notification

[edit]
Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, Demiurge1000, whenever I post such a template it's for the well-known chilling effect, to scare obvious POV editors into towing the party line. What have I done and in which article that gave you concern, and what made you think that I needed to be informed of these restrictions, given that I've placed a few of these templates already?

    Xanthomelanoussprog, your comment is even funnier for a Dutch person who lived in Amsterdam in the 1980s, but it would take too long to explain ("liever een raket in de tuin dan een Rus in de keuken"). Or I could translate nl:Prosper Ego, but that guy is such a right-winger that Viriditas will have me up at ANI in no time again, since words are poison and life is literal. Drmies (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently you were too busy wasting time writing articles or something to follow arbcom's DS discussion. Because the template ends with This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date it magically has no chilling effect. NE Ent 13:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Wikipedia

[edit]

I've got a plan to make Wikipedia a reliable source. I'll be in the US at the end of October. Can I meet you to talk about it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_72&oldid=1185417460"