User talk:Drmies/Archive 83

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

.[edit]

[1] Drmies you are in childcare and stuff. Hafspajen (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BPL mess.[edit]

Check yourself Hafspajen (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajid_Nadiadwala and more. To much private life, I say, hat do you say? --Hafspajen (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let the good people at BLPN figure it out...

Criticism of Wikipedia[edit]

I'm not sure I understand your revert. Inaccurate information that IS obviously false may also persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged...because of a lack of methodical fact-checking. I believe my simplified wording also makes for a more accurate statement. What 'appearances' is this about? --Onorem (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? Information that is false but doesn't appear to be frequently remains for a long time because it doesn't appear to be obviously false. This is about the appearance of falsehood, or rather the lack thereof, which I believe was the brunt of this criticism. By all means, take it up on the talk page; it is not a simplification that I believe is helpful. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EXTRA[edit]

To get the most from the experience you need to be as naked as possible. Check the local customs Hafspajen (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will keep that in mind. Thanks! 206.169.53.22 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to leave you a note on your talkpage but it's too big for my smartphone... Greetings from Albuquerque! 206.169.53.22 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in![edit]

Hey Drmies! Hopefully I'm not bothering you by checking in like this, but it's been nearly a month since I e-mailed you and I haven't heard anything back yet. I completely understand that you have a life outside of here, I just wanted to touch base! Have a great day! Sock (tock talk) 22:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dog House luxury model[edit]

Still no article... Pack + add gallery. Hafspajen (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Adolf Schmidt (painter). Hafspajen (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Briar College POV[edit]

Hi,

Could you please remove the alumni without Wikipedia articles from Sweet Briar College. Thank you--Cantucove (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This college is closing down due to financial problems, and certain editors are desperately try to boost this college's image by adding puffery to this college's Wikipedia article. One such editor just now created an article for Polly Sowell, so that you can't remove it from Sweet Briar College.--Cantucove (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see much puffery. I see a few names without articles but those names appear to be referenced, and these people that could be notable; they have claims and references. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While not accurate at the time, Cantucove's post was Cassandra-like in its prescience. It's become exhausting keeping up with the SPA newbs making clueless and promotional edits. Any assistance would be gratefully accepted. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any talk page[edit]

William Tylee Ranney
The mayor's daughter
All is left of Wiki. Hafspajen (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Anne Rudloe[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Als het dierendag is[edit]

Bioscoopjournaals waarin Nederlandse onderwerpen van een bepaalde week worden gepresenteerd.; Dierendag op allerlei verschillende plaatsen in Nederland. Shots: - winkelmeisje voert een paard op straat, een accordeonist geeft zijn hond te eten, een dame geeft haar papegaai een koekje en een man voert de vogeltjes. Een hondje apporteert een speeltje en wordt beloond; - man op een bankje imiteert dier en kijkt naar een bord waarop de aankondiging van dierendag staat; - het voeren van een giraf, een aap, pinguïns en een jonge beer; - een tijger, een leeuwenfamilie, mensen bij een giraf, olifanten, pinguïns, ganzen en een zeehond. Hafspajen (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, maar wie het boren van het gat? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed badly[edit]

Hi there MIES, all well? Hopefully so,

I'm sure that with your massive experience you will be able to assist me on this one, if you please: for the second time, I posted a banner on my talkpage that read "semi-retired". This time not on a wiki-tantrum after being hounded by a troll, but due to real life commitments (doing a paid translation, again a music bio). I inserted it because I really thought I would be able to decrease my workload due to my deadline et al, but found out I am wiki-hooked and yes, even though I edit much less am still pretty active...

For the second time as well, User:Tide rolls has told me like it is and removed the banner from my page. This time, he took it up a notch and made this change (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:84.90.219.128&diff=652891111&oldid=652841144). I really don't know what to make of this part on the new banner ("In the event of persistent vandalism from this address..."), am I being accused of vandalism, potentially or otherwise?

I tried to contact this user so that he could enlighten me on this doubt I have, then after this change by another user (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:84.90.219.128&diff=next&oldid=652891111, I was hoping Mr. Hiccup would know some of the guidelines since he altered the banner) I did the same, only to be met with utter silence in response.

Do you have anything extra to add, my longtime wikifriend? Please keep in mind this, out of respect for everybody's work (don't count the vandals there, they don't work, they "unwork"!) I have not removed the banner until this situation is cleared, I know the two aforementioned users are working for the good of the project.

Kind regards, from Portugal --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Situation solved. Again took a scolding of "interesting" proportions for no reason whatsoever, but Mr. Rolls at least answered that there are no accusations of vandalism implied. All I wanted to know, sorry for bothering you both. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • AL, I think TideRolls's point is more that your IP address, since it's a dynamic IP address, is yours only temporarily; putting any variety of "retired" banner on it is a bit silly, because that IP address and talk page could be reassigned tomorrow to someone else who isn't in any state of wikiretirement. Your usage of a "semi-retired" banner while still editing is only a minor side issue (there are no rules or guidelines of any kind about what counts as semi-retired and what doesn't); the real point is that you're using it on a talk page that can't truly be said to be yours. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally (and nice to hear from you by the way)! That reply could not have been more accurate, step by step, just wished (as much as like to "hear" your "voice") Mr. Rolls would have delivered it instead, but he was more focused on my "incessant bitching". Never thought of it, but as much as I have had this IP for almost three years now, yes it could be reassigned, and then the banner(s) would not make any sense whatsoever.

Case closed, best regards. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks WK. VASCO, figure out what "Tide rolls" stands for and you'll know why I automatically have to agree with him. Hope you're doing well. (Yeah, the IP is not yours...) Drmies (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very good at riddles, especially at nearly 3 AM. All I know is that I posed a question (a dumb one? Yes, i'll grant him that, and you also if need be) politely and he was extremely discourteous (of course, if he reads this, he'll say "there he goes again with the crying"). Please, pray do tell, why do you have to automatically agree with him (and please note, I don't have a problem with you doing so)?

Cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, he's kind of got a point--you can't be retired and editing at the same time. Tide rolls, this is a now-vanished user (former user names available upon request and promise of secrecy) who just can't stop the madness, which for him consists of editing soccer articles (and doing a pretty good job). VASCO, I don't see any discourtesy except that, like our coach, he calls em as he sees em. There, I gave you another piece of the puzzle--but you Europeans will NEVER figure out the beauty of REAL football. Am I right, Tide? (And Volunteer Marek, you stay out of this, boy.) Drmies (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop crying", "I have never accused you of vandalism" when I NEVER said he had, I was just asking if it was the case, "slight" difference no? Like I said to Mr. Rolls in his page, case closed, I know he is working for the good of the project and I don't wish for no bad blood to arise from this (and he does have a point, since I am editing less but in no way semi-retired or what not), no siree. I am not being a worthy successor of Brian Blessed, that's a given! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography article purpose?[edit]

Hello, dear Drmies! I wanted your (or any talk page stalker's) opinion on filmography articles for people who are not primarily actors. I'm talking, of course (ha ha), about the variety of kpop group filmography articles on Wikipedia. They mostly have lists of 1) TV/film roles for group members (which is legit info, but doesn't belong on a group filmography, I'd think) and 2) variety show appearances, which I thought had already been established as not appropriate for Wikipedia. I've AFD'd a handful of these filmographies at WP:KO-DEL, but I wanted to get your opinion to see if I'm off base here or if I'm thinking in the right direction. There are another handful that I haven't AFDd yet, thought I'd see how this first batch goes. Thanks for any guidance or suggestions! Shinyang-i (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I hadn't gone off in left field somewhere. I'm hard at work on other Shinhwa articles and when I looked at the filmography I was like "uhhhh....", and that kicked off this review of kpop "filmographies". There aren't as many as one might think, thank goodness. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs[edit]

The aircraft flies low…
to avoid detection by radar

Do you care or want to semi the talk at Dog a while. Major vandalism. Hafspajen (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry Hafspajen, I don't see any. What am I missing? Drmies (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


You probably might be looking at the article. Check talk page history. Hafspajen (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hippos and dogs'r'grate and sectionblanking and stuff. Three IPs, one shared braincell. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, yeah, well, that's not enough to semi-protect a talk page for. Hit rollback, warn, and report. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you said you can semi dog articles. Hafspajen (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Awuah[edit]

Hi Drmies,

The article below was deleted a couple of weeks ago on the basis of copyvio. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Awuah,_Jr.&action=edit&redlink=1

The article is being rewritten to eliminate the copyvios as much as possible. Kindly compare the current rewritten state against the copyvio terms to see if there's been any improvement. The goal is to improve and maintain the article, and not to violate any rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CopyvioAndSoWhat/sandbox?venotify=created

Will it be possible to have an article with not one word or character match with a referenced article?

Hope to hearing from you soon.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CopyvioAndSoWhat (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this vandalism?[edit]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Barnstars. It's really hard for me to see how "Java Techies" really relates to the generally understood content of that page, but I can be kind of stupid sometimes. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page bystander) If not, it was spam. Removed now. Sorry if this spoiled the effect, but it was a template spamming a lot of pages. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilki napadające na sanie[edit]

File:New-Wikipedia-explode.gif
The explodopedia effect often observable after careless button-pressing.

--Hafspajen (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EH. Hafspajen (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page - Andy Michael[edit]

I would really like some guidance on a page you deleted - Andy Michael

I put a lot of work into the page six years ago and was not aware I needed to do anything additional. Further, I had no idea the page was up for discussion for deletion. Had I known, I would have been more than happy to do anything necessary. Andy Michael is certainly notable, and if some links went dead in the last six year I wasn't aware. His notability was verified in 2009, and that shouldn't go away. Let me know if there is anything I can do. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap3253 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Michael (2nd nomination). The problem isn't that the links are dead but that the references are deemed to be run of the mill kinds of mentions; BRMo makes a fair argument, which wasn't disputed. That the first deletion nomination ended in keep doesn't mean consensus can't change--clearly it did in this case, and it's a lack of significant discussion in reliable sources that led to deletion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todar Mal - Requesting action against sock puppetry[edit]

The article on Todar Mal has been a subject of puffery; and there are people who claim to be descendants, which is perfectly ok as long as it is backed by sources. A particular user Sanjay mandal has been actively adding unsourced content, which I have removed twice. I had left a message on the user's talk page, after which a possible sock has turned up. It cannot be mere coincidence that the same objective of adding the name Mandal and Sood is being pursued by the user Todarmalfamily on that very day; and that too by replacing sourced content selectively. The contributions of these two users clearly show that they have a single point agenda. I would like to request you to review this and take appropriate action. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in two new articles - can you (or a talk page stalker) eyeball them?[edit]

Hello, Drmies. These two articles popped up in the "new Korea articles" list, and I thought they could use perusal by a set of more experienced eyes. One article, Government competitiveness, is about an economic concept recently created by a single professor, and though the article has secondary sources, the sources seem to function to help the article explain the concept, not be sources about said concept. The second article is a biography of the professor in question, Tobin Im. It just seemed there might be a lack of evidence establishing notability for either article's subject, but I have no experience in this area so thought I'd shoot it over to you. Thank you. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Government competitiveness" lead to a page on a site ostensibly under development for the "Welcome Center for Government Competitiveness". It was 404'd, so I looked at a cached version, which stated that the concept had been developed by Ho and Im in 2012. The page gave rankings, but no indication of the methodology used.

"In education field, the United States placed 1st...It is also interesting to see the United States on the 1st place, since the problems with its public educations very well known and studied. The US placed in such high rank because of index scores of the number of teachers, duration of compulsory education, average education period for adults were higher than many other countries. However, education competitiveness score does not justify its problems with public education. The number of teachers do not necessarily reflects the quality of teachers, and compulsory education period is longer, but not all parents choose public schools to send their children."

To me the concept doesn't seem notable at all, and there's also a question as to who Ho is. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xanthomelanoussprog. Sometimes I see stuff like this get speedy deleted or ... ? I don't know, I've never AFD'd something like this. Help? Anyone? Sorry to be lame. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shinyang-i, I agree with Xanthomelanoussprog. This is seriously questionable, and if you AfD this you want to point out the concept is new, not well/widely established, etc., and that many of the references in the article are actually not about the ostensible subject. You might also point at Tobin Im, which seems to be a very puffy piece, and possibly investigate who created what. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to kick this party up a notch[edit]

[2] Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your amusement[edit]

"Ed is, of course, a virgin. Which is surprising, given the size of his model airplane collection, or not." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you collected model battleships and destroyers, The ed17. Oh, and I could introduce you to a nice young lady. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there's really no need. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know. At least no one called you fat! Also, that whole "or not"--I hate that kind of uncommitted commentary: it's off to the Ante-Inferno for this one. Fuck on, Ed! Drmies (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hows the crack?[edit]

Obviously neither of these ought to have been deleted, would you be so kind as to restore them. Summa de casibus poenitentiae Draco Normannicus Thanks/ Darkness Shines (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DS, if you want these restored, you should have contacted me, as the deleting administrator. Now, I guess since you're back the G5 speedy no longer formally applies; however, I deleted these two back at the time because I found the content too poor to be salvaged without an extensive rewrite. As you may have seen, I had been going through several others of your recent medieval-topic articles and fixed what I could, but these two were simply too bad to be fixed with the limited amount of energy I could put into it then. I'll be happy to restore them to your user space, but I'd strongly advise against moving them back into mainspace unless you're willing to rework them and accept critical advice about the contents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you are well aware I want nothing to do with you at all. Which is why I asked Drmies to restore them. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! It's Darkness Shines! They said you was hung! Fut.Perf., I don't see what is so problematic with Draco Normannicus; I know it would have been better if I had made more edits to it, but you know, you can't have it all. I haven't yet looked at the other one. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Draco Normannicus? Pretty much everything, starting from the definition of the topic. It's not a "chronicle of the Arthurian legends" for starters (a contradiction in terms, actually). The whole second paragraph, about one editor "mistranslating" the title, is equally wrong. Likewise, in the other case, the Summa de casibus is not an "illuminated manuscript" (that's about as logical as saying Harry Potter is a pocket book on my bookshelf; DS was ignoring the difference between a work and an individual copy of it.) This is what you get when people write articles about topic areas they don't understand the basics of, from misunderstood google snippets ripped out of context. Of course I'm not saying that these pages couldn't be salvaged, or wouldn't be worth salvaging; it's just that salvaging them will require some actual, substantial reading-up on things in order to figure out what the topics actually are; more work than I could invest in them at the time I went through DS's recent medieval article series to fix the worst blunders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I've restored and re-userfied them, now at User:Darkness Shines/Draco Normannicus and User:Darkness Shines/Summa de casibus poenitentiae. If DS wants to know what's wrong with them in their present state, I'm happy to help; I'm just not very optimistic that he'll be willing and able to accept corrections, based on prior interactions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gods. What a mess those are. Ugh. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear I'm not the only one noticing it. Ealdgyth, if you would like to help clean up, there was a whole string of articles on related topics: William of Rennes, John of Glastonbury, Simon Chèvre d'Or, Paulus Hungarus, Monastery Church, Sighișoara. All of them with similar howlers in them, though in some cases a bit easier to fix. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, if you have a moment to spare would you be good enough to comment on a discussion here, I believe I have summarized the source correctly but FPaS seems to think me wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may be a day or two before I can do that, DS. In the meantime, I'd defer to Ealdgyth. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love this one[edit]

Haven't shared a good one with you in a while. While trying to explain to an editor that he really needs to read RS and improve on the quality of his articles, his response was "I create so others can work."" I will continue making articles so others can improve on them. 80 this year so far.". Love the dedication to quality. :) Niteshift36 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm on the stupid mobile editor--get this, I can't scroll to the bottom. Anyway, editors have been blocked for creating crap. Let me know if you want me to look into it and I will, as soon as my vacation is officially over. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! Well, you know, there is something of a point there. I'm not good at categories and boring stuff like that--frequently kind souls like LadyofShalott and Ser Amantio di Nicolao clean up after me, but in my defense, every time I see they did that I feel a bit of Calvinist guilt. Niteshift, you're still here... I thought they killed all the dinosaurs but me and Mandarax. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We herbivorous dinosaurs are just counting the days til we're done in by carnivores. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still here, just not quite as active. Some of us are trying to convince the youngster that he has a responsibility to at least try to use reliable sources. I'm about to give up on him. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • <Grin> Hey, I got my Wikipedia shirt in the mail today! LadyofShalott 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow--nice. I got one at Wikimania? at the Boston conference? and it makes me look fat. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wearing mine today. It's on the large size - unisex sizing, and I ordered as if it were women's sizing. Oh well... LadyofShalott 16:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all Dutch speaking art lovers[edit]

Hello Drmies and Dutch speaking talk page stalkers. I ran across an article about a Dutch artist Carolein Smit at AfD and have expanded it and added some references. If anyone is interested, I would be grateful for any help expanding and adding Dutch sources. Thank you very much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking art? Is that like the Mona Lisa paintings that talk, in Bugs Bunny–type cartoons? Sorry, I couldn't resist. Plus what is "speaking talk"? or a "speaking talk page"? I'll leave now. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My my. Dutch speakers would say "Nederlands-sprekende discussie-pagina volgers". I hope this helps? Hoewel? Now that you got it started: a talkpage thta speaks Dutch would be nice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is serious art... Hafspajen (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, changed my mind, this is good art. First class, very good. There is nothing unserious about Carolein Smit. Hafspajen (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That is one hell of a crying dog. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging one article to two different target articles?[edit]

Hola again! I wanted to propose merging Juliette (Shinee song) into its respective album, but half the article is about the Korean version of the song and half is about the Japanese version. None of the discussion is about the song as an actual piece of music (it's all info about the release and promotion and charting) so I feel comfortable splitting the two versions into different articles without fear of losing any value from being able to compare the two together. For all intents and purposes, from the standpoint of how this article is written (and will likely stay written), they might as well be two different songs. So, my question is, when going through the formal merge process, can a single article's contents be merged to two different articles? This song is best known as a Korean song, so the resulting redirect would go to the Korean album's article, but can I actually set the merge proposal up with both the Korean and Japanese albums as proposed targets? There are a ton of kpop song articles in this same situation, so knowing the answer would benefit me many times in the future as well. Thanks if you, or any talk page stalkers, know the answer. :D Shinyang-i (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, Shinyang-i--you're proposing splitting, not merging? Wait--you're proposing splitting one article and merging its contents to two different places, like a J album and a K album? I say just go for it: be bold and see what happens. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Juliette article is shit. Merge it. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Notwithstanding any article quality issues) If you want to take the information from one article and use it in two target articles, you can use the {{copied}} template on the talk pages of all three (or however many) articles, something like this is required for attribution. A good example is its use at Talk:Mining in Mongolia. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Drmies, that's exactly what I needed to know. I knew attribution had to be done, but wasn't sure how to do it under the merge process. This is going to be useful for a whole lotta kpop song articles! :D Thanks again! Shinyang-i (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a situation here[edit]

large and small
a poor sock
  • (Mobile editor, can't scroll down.) of course you can go to ANI. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't discuss things with this accept ex-IP-editor. Some edits are OK, some not, the usual mess. He has two accounts now. [4]. [5] I need a shrink. I don't think this person is a grown up guy, I really don't. Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Groan, now he-she puts sections in the articles that look like this **Size** Can't anyone learn this guy to edit? Hafspajen (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies is out with the medium sized dog. Hafspajen (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am on vacation. You can always post this on ANI or on AIV, and point them at earlier discussions. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Three blocks, a bunch of pages semi-protected. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I can't go to ANI. Always when there is an old problem, that people don't know about, than people will start whining - but where is the AGF, why didn't you gave them a Welcome template, why this why that .. like at FP, some who still hating me because in his opinion I was not nice enough with Coat's socks. He never votes for any of my noms just tries to sink them all the time. All this because of the - you were so nasty to a poor sock, no thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winner, winner, chicken dinner...[edit]

Oh boy, another fun one... [6]. Then apparently there was an edit to a BLP article making an unsourced claim about someone's sexuality and then discussing on a Talk page. Maybe not a block, but a stern warning from an Admin might be appropriate? Interesting record for a weeks worth of editing. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

![edit]

Eh, a dunno
A cow. Kelapstick‎ got one so I though maybe it is the last cry... Hafspajen (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cry for help. Indeed. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh[edit]

Je suis Hafspajen
Charlie, Archangel Michael, Gabriel, Raphael,
and Swedish. But that's not my fault, though taking refuge at the English Wikipedia, where I'm surrounded by warm and supportive friends, surely helps a lot.

I need a Je suis Hafspajen userbox box. You might want to know that a new circus happened at Sw.Wiki. Gerda Arendt insisted that I should translate the Easter egg tree. So I said, OK, I will do that. The first thing I put the article name as a red-link on my own talk page, to have to start form somewhere to create it, right, and I got reverted in two minutes - with a cry vandalism. My own page - my own talk. As usual, if I may say. I said it is a new article, he goes, you are NOT supposed to use your TALK PAGE to put redlinks on...


  • And stupid me, I was used to that if you put an article you created on you page soon a bunch of helpful editors will appear out of nowhere to start helping out... as they do it here. Bad mistake. Should have known it will not work...

OK, I still went on and created the article, and added it to DYKS - no DYK process needed, you just do add it yourself. It was not the thing that DYKs need to be perfect, there is no such process on Sw Wiki. Mark, the article was in mainspace, but unfinished. Than the guy went on, removed the article from DYK, deleted it and said that I am not allowed to create such a crap with old links, probably unchecked and all wrong by know, and it is not up to their standard. Sure, instead of fixing the article, (minor problems with the references, or other minor issues)

They started criticizing me because they said the links were old and unchecked. I don't believe anything Gerda does is sloppy or shit. It was not quite finished, but I was thinking I will have more time to do something about it... But then they started the same old mess ... you are not using your talk page as you should, you are not behaving, so we are now going to tell you how to behave. Behave yourself. They started the same old circus all over again. So now is a new Hafspajen tread at Swedish ANI... sigh. And our IP editor (the one we suspect is a celebrity, the king or a writer) jokingly suggested he/she will start the Je suis Hafspajen movement. Does anyone know how do you make Je suis Hafspajen sign? Peter Isotalo would appreciate this, I think. Hafspajen (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And think, we who on En Wiki have even a Category:Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen ... by Joshua Jonathan‎ ... Hafspajen (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also asked that my user page and talk page should be deleted on Sw Wiki. They did deleted the userpage, but they added a link copied from the meta-wiki (like a redirect) - that looked rather harmless, with a single mulberry pic on. I guess they thought the one from En Wiki was way to exaggerated. ... Well, it is not looking like that any more. This is how it looks now.... Just wonder how long they will keep that redirect. Hafspajen (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just stuck it on mine. No doubt someone will come along to give me a reprimand I won't understand . Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
…and here it is- "Den här användaren är blockerad från redigering på Wikipedia". Seems to be calling me a "Trollkonto". Are they all anally retentive? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Haffy, you know by default if you don't have a user page on another language Wikipedia, it just copies yours from Meta right? Does that by default. It's been like that for about a month now. --kelapstick(on the run) 22:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the better and for the worse. No. I didn't. So now I can use my Meta page to do that.... Hafspajen (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Just done that- it works. I now have a Swedish user page. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An article stranded on Swedish Wikipedia, sucked dry of all its vitality and left to linger in encyclopaedic malaise
Stay off sv.wp altogether is my advice. The community is dominated by people whose circles are too easily disturbed. Except in this version, you're the one who winds up headless. I mean, collectively, Swedish Wikipeda produces so little new content that they have a tendency to latch on to new articles like parched wanderers in the wilderness. "What is this", they cry. "New content we haven't already squabbled over and patrolled a dozen times?! I will protect it with my life, so that it is not corrupted!" In that intellectually blighted landscape, you almost can't blame them for being clingy.
But neither does one need to waste any time on trying to make such a bleak encyclopaedic desert bloom.
Peter Isotalo 23:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just put Je Suis Xanthomelanoussprog on my page - my USERPAGE to be all correct. Mies, will you please rev-del this edit from Grillo's talk - this is grossly insulting. Pete, what's with that carcass? Doesn't look very fresh, now does it... I don't know, I think some guys are nice at Sw-Wiki. Hafspajen (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They sailed without a ship's cat; now the mice have chewed the sails
  • Sv.wp doesn't tend to strive for freshness, Hafs, even if there are decent people over there. Peter Isotalo 00:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some nice, some not. The only thing I really don't get is how comes that people are freaking out for such harmless things. Hafspajen (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sv.wp enjoys a simpler way of life. Disturbing it with highfalutin shenanigans like over-decorating your user page or engaging in overtly non-janitorial acts of wanton originality is bound to make a lot of the natives restless. What choice do they have other than to assert simplicity once more? By force if necessary! Peter Isotalo 01:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave out an "i" and a space and we have Jesus Hafspajen. Jesus, that not so nice person who vandalized Grillo's article has been active for quite some time in many ways. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I will soon have two blocked users on my consistence-. more people getting accounts on Sw-Wiki. ... Jesus Hafspajen (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pete, wonder how they would manage a real craze like - let's say Martinevans123 or others like him... I am mellow beside those. A new born lamb. Hafspajen (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
".... 'ere mate, did I 'ear you mention me ol' mates the craze?? I 'ad that Diana Dors in the back of me cab, the uvver nite, an' all!" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least they unblocked Xanty. My uncontrolled originality, (according to Peter) is something that I am proud of and intend to cultivate even more. (Hopefully) Last comment. Hafspajen (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting me unblocked! Let a hundred uncontrolled originals bloom! ©Mao Zedong ..Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also hated mice, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion! I hve answered you here on svwp. You do not need to answer, but I addressed you as an explanation. (one of those who blocked a user on svwp) Best regards, Adville (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • LOL, I take Sunday off from Wikipedia, and come back to such drama! WTF is wrong with those peeps?? Haven't they ever heard of due process? Softlavender (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so when we complain that en.wiki has dysfunction, I guess we are lightweights compared to some places... oh dear! And, well, I couldn't resist! Montanabw(talk) 17:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Easter!
Je suis Påskäggsträd

Ghana circus[edit]

Hi, Dr M! I see that you were among those who helped to sort out this circus. I've just closed Rocky Dawuni, and after a quick look-aroud, listed Centre for Scientific Research into Plant Medicine at WP:CP, another massive copy-paste by the same editor, Nkansahrexford. It turns out there's a CCI request open for him. Given the extent of the problems, I'm a bit concerned to see that he is still at liberty to edit. Should we not ask for (and receive!) some assurance that he understands and will respect our copyright policy before he makes further edits? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but this isn't something I can delve into right now. I do want to thank you for spending so much time and energy on such unrewarding work, which too few people realize is essential to our project. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NP, Dr M. I'll mention it to MER-C, who has now opened the CCI. Best regards (oh, and thanks returned about tenfold!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HELP Deleted?[edit]

Hello This is regarding deletion of Coinsecure[7] page request you to please check the website[8] and press article facts... Can it be edited only by owners of the organization? Droidmaxxx (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No? In fact, it shouldn't be. The article was deleted because a. it made no reliable claim that the subject was important, and b. it was promotional in tone. I mean, "All the information needed to trade effectively is at your fingertips." Drmies (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hell o Drmoes, you've created 1060 articles. That's utterly incredible. What's your secret? How much time do you spend on Wikipedia? What (real-life) work do you do? (I hope I'm not prying). 220.134.657.23 30 March 2015

  • Thanks. My boss tells me I do my day job terribly, so there's one answer... Drmies (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Richard K. Diran for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard K. Diran is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard K. Diran until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Please comment[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Hafspajen (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1 ...[reply]

  • Ooh it's so late here...and I'm so sleepy...can't appreciate a good joke... Drmies (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Hafspajen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
  • I had this dream last night "Do taste this raspberry mousse- it's delicious- the dog made it" I look, and there's a dog standing at the stove. I spend the next ten minutes trying to work out whether I've got an irrational prejudice against food prepared by dogs. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa. Sounds delicious though. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably this that made you think of it. Hafspajen (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buckets containing live Abyssinians? I've got an Abyssinian Shotel- I could use it to shave them. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reading Seiobo There Below and I blame it for a weird dream I had last night, in which one could buy and manipulate dreams, but the dreams consisted of random motion and blurring (I blame Star Trek (2009) for that), of a swirl of rejection and attraction Democritus-style (Milton, PL Book 3) where the body disintegrated and reconnected with itself constantly. It was very disconcerting, and my wife chastised me for having spent $17.99 on Amazon for the dream (delivered in book format, with a purplish and swirly cover). Beat me to that. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't, I get my dreams from the magazines in the waiting room at "Sharky's Private Waxing Parlour". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure you couldn't throw a few more pop-culture and classic references in there to razzle-dazzle your audience into submission? Paradise Lost Book 3? Seriously? We're supposed to know that and the Democritus reference? In retaliation, I subject you this. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I assume everyone's read The Swerve... Also, I was so dazzled with math (and a bit tired after teaching PL 4-6) that I couldn't muster the energy to start laughing, though I have to admit, it gets funny pretty quickly. The italics are very, very well done, by the way.

    Maybe I should upload the PowerPoint presentations for 1-3 and 4-6. For the latter I chose the "celebration" theme, whose reddish purple on my PC turned into a garish, whorish, Satanic fuchsia when projected. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of The Swerve (no, haven't read it), the WP article quotes it as being "a full-throated Burckhardtian ... caricature of the Middle Ages". Which brings me to a question I've been meaning to ask you: I felt sure I had read a book called something like The Fall of the Middle Ages (probably Huizinga's The Autumn of the Middle Ages?) for a class at Duke. The prof kept saying that it postulated that any civilization or thought-system reaches its fullest and most emphatic flowering right before it dies. Is this correct? I've always remembered that bolded assertion, and would like to have confirmation of the book it's from and whether the book actually postulates that. In terms of the Luciferian fuschia, that's entirely up to you, though Hafs may have something to say about it or its curation. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that[edit]

Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)

Level 5
Level 5

Very low level of vandalism

[view • purge • update]

1.98 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 04:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OOPs, high level of vandalism, everybody OUT patrolling recent changes!!!--Hafspajen (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC) (new it would happen...) Hafspajen (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, level normal. Hafspajen (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 AFDs that may not have been "filed" properly - please help, anyone :)[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day & Night (EP) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Eyes (EP) have a weird format at WP:KO-DEL and I actually can't find them at all at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 27, so I think there may have been a mistake during the "filing" process. Can anyone smarter than me take a look and possibly fix whatever might be broken? Many thanks for any help! Shinyang-i (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to actually have a look at what was going on but got distracted by some idiotic edits. Glad it worked out. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha, no problem at all. Wikipedia's a big place. :) I thought you might be on Spring Break anyway! (Also, idiotic edits? Are you for real? No way.) BTW, did you see my query earlier on this page? (dunno how to point up to "Merging one article to two different target articles?" section, sorry) Any clue or someone to point me toward? Tons of kpop songs are released in Korean and in Japanese, but they are still sucky articles and should be merged. I just don't know procedurally how to do it. Muchas thankyous. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request deleted/last archived copy of Coinsecure[edit]

Also please advice weather I should use references to articles with original authors or should I copy quotes from known news websites? Droidmaxxx (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Nitramrekcap and his IPs[edit]

Unless I am totally wrong, mr. Nitramrekcap is back and requesting a block for block evasion for 2.30.188.210 and he confirms that here. The Banner talk 16:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see how useful a block is, but there are a few more IPs to need at lest a view:
The Banner talk 16:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Banner, I have a challenge for you: look at this log, and see if you can follow all the threads and figure out what's going on. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, I had seen that and confused me up to the bone. The Banner talk 17:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me, it looks like a strange coincidence. Dweeby123 a.k.a. WJH1992 a.k.a. Dodgechris were all having fun with British soaps and actors in that. That looks miles away from the scientists that mr. Nitramrekcap is dealing with. By no means I dare to connect them. The Banner talk 18:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O that old rugged cross, so despised by the world[edit]

Loved these breakfasts. "Is that your Ayrshire bacon?" "No, I'm just warming my hands"

Irish doodle is not a breed but a random cross that is not even a usual dog crossbred, and the reference should listed as spam, because it is a self published and wholly unreliable "dogbreed info"... If I only would know how. Hafspajen (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socky[edit]

And Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Kwiecinski. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, WOW! That's LOVE-ly. Is this him using an IP address again so soon? Hafspajen (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gladly, the cross-eyed bear. "After two years of investigation, the FBI concluded that the lyrics were unintelligible." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After two years of investigation? Drmies could have told them right away. It would taken taken him only two seconds. Hafspajen (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Chandro Tomar[edit]

Hello! Your Review of Chandro Tomar at the Did You Know nominations page has some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your review's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Esemono (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

Have a Happy Easter and good cooking this weekend! I'm going to rotisserie a roast of some kind for Sunday. Not sure of the bacon content yet... :) Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easter UPDATE![edit]

8.5 pound Top Sirloin roast just placed on a BBQ rotisserie for cooking, Easter Sunday 2015, using Mountain Dew soda as a moisture source and for basting
8.5 pound Top Sirloin roast on a BBQ rotisserie for cooking, Easter Sunday 2015, 2 hours into cook at 275F-300F

--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!! That Mountain Dew baste was delicious, mixed with the juices it was almost intoxicating. Definitely doing that one again!! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cohn edits[edit]

Hi,

I noticed that you took down a section and some information that I put up on Gary Cohn (businessman). This is what I wrote on the talk page of the Gary Cohn article:

Cohn is involved in other organizations. I believe this is wiki-worthy and part of what an encyclopedia should be including in its articles. Please give guidance on the best way to include the information which can be sourced to the organizations themselves, and not necessarily to a third party source. I tried to add the following two bits of info: a)Mr. Cohn is a member of the International Advisory Panel of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, (MAS). b)Mr. Cohn serves as a trustee and chair of the NYU Langone Musculoskeletal Advisory Board. The references are to: http://www.mas.gov.sg/about-mas/overview/advisory-committees/international-advisory-panel and http://nyulangone.org/press-releases/over-62-million-raised-nyu-langone-medical-centers-2014-violet-ball

Instead of just taking down the information, which I believe is relevant, as explained above, perhaps we can find a way to include this information, perhaps re-wording, or finding other sources? Thanks for helping to improve this article.Factsonlyplease39 (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natter Social Network[edit]

Hi Drmies. I don't think there was sufficient discussion of the sources to determine whether Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline was met. I posted nine sources. One editor spoke negatively of two of the sources, said "I'll come back to this" to two of the sources, and did not respond to five other sources I posted at the end of the discussion. The other five "delete" editors did not comment about any of the nine sources.

Your assessment of the sources as "lacking in both breadth and depth" (which I disagree with) would be reasonable as a vote but not as a close that summarizes the discussion. I am discussing this with you per WP:DRVPURPOSE #2 ("Deletion Review should not be used when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first"). Cunard (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking)I can't remember why I came here this morning, but having seen Cunard's track record at saving articles per WP:HEY before (eg: this), I had a quick look around myself. As well as the sources already noted there's this this TechCrunch piece - though that dismisses Natter as yet another SFW Chatroulette clone and it's over four years old, so I'm suspicious of a "wait and see if it's notable" approach. Maybe there's enough in the sources for a short article, maybe there isn't. I'd personally close it as "No consensus", but then there's a reason why Drmies wields the mop and bucket and I don't, so I'll leave you all to have your easter eggs in peace now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Cunard, I was trying to assess the commentary. If you think I read too much into comments like "I see enough references to write a story in Wikinews about doesn't meet GNG for an article in wikipedia" (granted, the grammar's a bit crooked too), I can't fault you for that, and you are of course welcome to challenge the decision. On a personal note, I am sorry to disagree with you. Ritchie, "no consensus" is a possibility but the numbers (yeah yeah numbers aren't everything) are quite overwhelming, which makes Cunard's zeal even more admirable.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 10#Natter Social Network. Cunard (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Disclaimer: I generally don't like categories. There are some political categories, e.g., Category:Conservative Party (UK) people, that are being added to articles, e.g., Goldie Hawn, simply because the subject supported that party in an election. The category, not surprisingly, is ambiguous as to what it means, but to place subjects into the category who are not affiliated with the party, even remotely, seems wrong. There are other similar categories similarly being "abused". (Hi Drmies, long time ...) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

…and Tracy Emin -someone removed it. If you know the work of Tracy Emin, google Synyster Ink. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common enough problem, Bbb23. People use categories to make editorial statements, classifying people, which is not always supported by information in the article. This happens a lot with the "of descent" categories where someone is called an Irish American or Jewish or of Greek descent without that fact ever being mentioned in their biography. The problem with Category:Conservative Party (UK) people is the vague "people" part but that is the wording of the parent category, Category:British people by political party. In this instance, I'd post the question at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board since the WikiProject UK talk page doesn't seem to be very active. Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, Liz, but except in rare circumstances, I try to avoid category discussions like the plague.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, about a quarter of the work I do is in categories. It's just that part of me that likes organization, lumping and splitting, building on the hierarchies established over the past 14 years. For me, it's images/file rights & permissions area that is like a foreign language to me right now. Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Started a discussion on the article's Talk page. I agree that it is ludicrous, and indeed probably a BLP violation, to have this category on the article. Softlavender (talk)
    • Good move: absolutely right. Liz's point is well taken also; I think it was one of the Kardashians who had a dozen of those "descent" categories which, IMO, are meaningful only if reliable sources discuss them as meaningful, and/or if the subject makes that claim. Yes: OR, editorializing, etc. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. That's terrible. I've started cleaning up this editor's work but there is no way I can finish; y'all's help is appreciated. (Left a brief note at Talk:Goldie Hawn.) Drmies (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23, you might be interested in this edit and the other contributions by User:Huge456. I don't know if there is anything there and I have to prep for class, so I'm leaving it to you (and the other interested parties), and will offer you this as a parting gift. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the accounts you put into the 'intersect' tool:
Drmies, your point from the 'intersect' tool could be that User:SleepCovo is a successor account of User:Huge456. But until recently neither of them had ever been blocked. User:Huge456 has not edited since November 2014, so it's not socking. The recent edits of SleepCovo, adding so many category tags to famous people, do seem to be over the top. If this continues, a block for disruption might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to look at this right now, but there was a 7-minute difference between the last edit by Huge456 and the first edit by SleepCovo. I disagree that there has to be overlap for there to be socking. If a master account edits disruptively, even if they are never blocked, and the sock account edits disruptively as well, that is sufficient to block the puppet based on sock puppetry. It is a reasonable conclusion based on an attempt by the master to avoid scrutiny for his disruptive edits by creating another account so it appears that he's no longer doing it. It's clear that the puppet is disruptive, but I haven't looked at Huge456's edits to see if they are similarly disruptive or at least just plain disruptive. Finally, just to be clear, I haven't evaluated the behavior of the two accounts to determine whether they are behaviorally connected, although I assume others have.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I think Bbb is reading my mind--that's exactly what I was thinking. Granted, when I found the commonality my first thought was check whether the "first" account was blocked, and of course it wasn't--but yeah, an account is scrutinized, gets into hot water, is reverted frequently, and a name change may seem like a good plan. "Avoid scrutiny" is really the magic phrase here. But I have not yet looked closer since last time, and what I would prefer is that the matter with the current editor is handled positively, meaning that the editor understand what categories are and what they are for, and that the editor also honors our BLP: that's the best outcome (not a block or an SPI or whatever...). Thanks--I always appreciate your input, Ed. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just spent 20 minutes cleaning up the most easily spotted of the remaining SleepCovo edits. For efficiency, I only looked at the ones that were still the current edit(s) on the given articles. Most of them were utterly bone-headed and wrong, to the point of calling Labour politicians Conservative and vice versa, and other nonsense. I did not check the other user mentioned. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Now SleepCovo is edit-warring over his added categories. He is calling anyone who ever RAN for office a politician, and adding categories as such. Please help monitor this user and his additions and re-warn or block him as needed. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's a matter of, is anyone who even ran for office, even only once, a politician. I don't consider that they are, but Category:Politicians seems to indicate that they may be. So I may have erred in that respect. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Softlavender, I had a look at John Coventry (cricketer) and I don't see why that person should be listed as a politician. I think you should take this matter somewhere, to some project page, for broader discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree that a cricketer who unsuccessfully ran for election once in 1929 and never thenceforth should not be in a Politician category. I hope given the problematical nature of the majority of SleepCovo's category (and other) edits and such that he will cease adding categories to articles. It seems like a number of experienced editors agree on this point, and he has already been blocked three times in three months. It may be more of a case for ANI than for a WikiProject. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User Softlavender has now twice deleted without explanation, the category Liberal Party (UK) politicians from the article on Leon MacLaren despite the fact that the article clearly states, with references, that he twice ran as a candidate for said party at a national election. This was done despite another editor, User:SleepCovo specifically clarifying this was the case. Softlavender should display more care in future. Graemp (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not they ran for office once or numerous times, if they ran for political office and did it as a candidate for a political party then I do not see why I should not be allowed to add a category such as Liberal Party (UK) politicians to their page when it clearly states in their article that they stood for the Liberal Party. SleepCovo (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can invent the category "Aspiring politician" for that. Softlavender, there are two issues here: the user's behavior, which I'll look into when I can, and the more important issue of appropriate categorization. With a consensus from a project, or some other public forum (even an article talk page), it's easy to define "disruption". Drmies (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter[edit]

User:Hafspajen has given you a pretty stone to throw around. My servant is delivering it.
Happy Easter
Happy Easter.... Ja, hij is waarlijk opgestaan! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Hafspajen--I hope you had a nice Easter too. "Waarlijk" is a wonderful word--thanks for that. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Worldwide RfC[edit]

Hiya. You feel like closing the RfC on the talk page of the above article when the time comes? John Carter (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance[edit]

Hi there Mies,

don't know if you are still an administrator, to lend a hand in this situation (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Writ_Keeper). Our old wikifriend User:Writ Keeper seems to be quite busy with his real life at the moment. If you are not, could you please delegate to an admin of your trust?

Cheers, keep it up --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sometimes I don't know either, but today it seems I am. Done. BUT: you may not call anyone an idiot or whatever anymore, certainly not in edit summaries. And in case WK and I both give up the ghost, ALWAYS place a note on the talk page saying there's been this and that kind of disruption, and add the proper information with links to reliable sources. That way you can be LEARNING the next generation of admins what's right and what's wrong, lest you be just another IP editor using cuss words! Take it easy Vasco, Drmies (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should not call this or that editor this or that name. This or that (or these!) editor(s) should not play me for a fool (another example, Júlio Regufe Alves, I talk to him politely and calmely, helping a newbie like I should after I saw some wrong info being placed in the infobox, he said "talk to the hand" and pulled the same stunt until I lost it and the page was protected for more than two years) and leave me talking to myself after I reach out, it's really really frustrating you may agree, no?

Take it easy as well, thanks for the assistance (and for what it's worth, note that the Quim guy has always edited anon, so we must be safe in that case, but the Rubiales nuisance (OK, so maybe not an idiot, but a downright nuisance, no?) has already created accounts twice (to edit solely there, go figure...) --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Welcome to the modern world, VASCO. You can't speak your mind because it's a personal attack, but you can act like an asshole without immediate repercussion. :) Hope you're well. If you run into some old white people who don't even speak Spanish, let alone Portuguese, it may be my parents, on vacation in Portugal! Drmies (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will welcome them with open arms to my home should I ever see them, good people are never too many! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions[edit]

A have a few questions for you (or your talk page watchers), if you don't mind. As you know, Shinyang-i and I have been merging song/album articles. What do you do when merge discussions have few participants and no clear consensus? (See Talk:John Travolta Wannabe for an example). Secondly, is this message acceptable for a user page? I've gotten used to this user's hostile comments, but that message seems over the top. (I know there must be somewhere else I could ask these questions, but I thought I'd try here first!) Random86 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No names are mentioned so I suppose it's OK. And you know, I'll take criticism if it's well thought out and well written--that is not the case here, it's a rather juvenilish rant, certainly for someone who's been here so long. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that merge proposal. There clearly is no consensus to merge, so that leaves with you two options (at least--there may be more). One is to do nothing but holy moly this stuff is bad--nothing but a list of fairly trivial factoids. Another is to send it to AfD and offer "merge" as a possibly solution. Now, if it is true that this song was a #1 then you'll find that to be difficult as well; then again, I have no clue what "won three weekly #1 awards" means--is this an acceptable ranking per Wikipedia:Record charts? It reached #4 somewhere so I guess that's notable, but, as you know NSONGS dictates that there needs to be the potential for "a reasonably detailed article", and all we have right now is packaging details. Scrap what's sourced to allkpop etc. and you have even less. In other words, AfD might be successful, but it's highly dependent on the turnout, and how well those editors read NSONGS. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Women has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Thanks! I saw from "What links here" that I have been promising you this for years. There must be more on the literary side. Btw, I'm off to your native land for a week today. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have a great time, John--man, what I wouldn't give for a pound of jonge Goudse... Oh! I forgot! It's the time for graskaas! Enjoy, and thanks again. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..[edit]

Professional canine loses 25 kilos by following these 247,531 weird tips

Resignated- weight fascination back. Hafspajen (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]



100-watt head listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 100-watt head. Since you had some involvement with the 100-watt head redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is contagious[edit]

Thank you for finally blocking him. As someone who has been fending off the article for the past day or so, I am more than 100% convinced that this editor is NOT here to edit constructively. Here is the evolution of his trolling here:

  • He edit wars to keep his overly detailed summaries, ignoring everyone's good advice and hurling insults at everyone.
  • He fiercely defends those edits and dismisses all policies.
  • After getting reverted by at least three editors, he turns the tables 180 degrees and begins trimming everything unreasonably.
  • He edit wars again, either without any edit summaries or with ones mimicking what was told him earlier. A textbook example of WP:POINT: he keeps telling everyone to follow policies, completely contradicting his earlier behavior with the same amount of hostility and vigor.
  • For the entire time, he randomly manipulates his talk page, making it impossible to restore it for anyone but a rollbacker. Now it would take a great deal of effort for anyone to track down the history of his communication with the editing community.

It is too obvious that we are dealing with a troll who came here purely for the trolling. Believe me, I tried reasoning with him, and exhibited an extensive amount of good faith. As I said earlier, it's hard to follow this communication because the user has been sabotaging his talk page this entire time. I have full confidence in the fact that once his block is expired he will be right back at it. It is just my opinion, but I believe an indefinite block should have been applied. Sorry for the long post, it's just frustrating. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's see how it goes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any techie talk page stalker.[edit]

Why the heck is the gallery showing up twice? It duplicates somehow. Can anyone solve this? Hafspajen (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voila!. Abecedare (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WOW-wow. A real Q - James Bond would have been much satisfied. What a weird behavior... wonder if it does this all the time ... can one duplicate galleries like this? Hafspajen (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New exiting article, posible DYK?[edit]

Whole infinity--Hafspajen (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not anymore, Hafs. Sorry: I'm sure you saw infinite possibilities. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Best known for" being fed up[edit]

The dramah is overwhelming....

I'm sorry to come onto your calm and peaceful talk page and grump, but it has got to the stage where I'm happy to copyedit the phrase "best known for" out of the leads of BLPs not so much for making the lead a bit more readable but to avoid Wikipedia's servers filling up with seemingly endless back and forth between the Best known for IP and everyone else. I honestly feel if more people did this, it would reduce the amount of drama on the encyclopedia, and that can only be a good thing. Now I'm going into the corner to sulk. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I remove it wherever I see it, if it appears to be inappropriately used. I'm in your posse, cowboy. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sad thing is, I reckon the non-Wikipedian off the street probably doesn't give a flying banana whether the lead has "best known for" in it provided they can find the facts they're looking for quickly and duck out again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm, what you are basically saying is: "I think if everyone did what the bully wants, there might be less bullying". I am not sure you have thought this through very well! I have discovered this whole situation in recent days and it boggled my mind at first that a single individual could cause so much trouble for so long, but your comment there pretty much explains how it works. Mezigue (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best known for a variety of reasons:

Well I don't think it's too much different to comprised of except I can't ever imagine Bryan Henderson yelling at me, saying I do "idiotic trolling" [10], and some of the time it does benefit to rewrite bits of the lead. I don't think the BKFIP has ever "attacked" a GA, FA or any article on my watchlist, so the avoidance of "best known for" is a drama-avoidance tactic for others ... but only when the article won't be made worse and I genuinely believe an alternative can be used. I know at some level it's standing up to bullies (though frankly I see what happened to Charlie Hebdo which had real bullies and think the silliness on-wiki is, relatively speaking, sad), Tom Baker is best known for being Doctor Who to a generation, but to youngsters, he's the big booming voice of Little Britain. And the talk page conversation was just nuts, frankly. There is no need to filibuster that much. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I live in a country where most people have not the faintest idea who Tom Baker is. Doctor Who is not a big thing here, Little Britain much less of a thing. Why should they care what you think he's best known for? You shouldn't avoid using "best known for" because you think it will avoid "drama"; you should avoid using it because it's subjective, unverifiable, verbose, and adds nothing of any value.
As for your concern trolling, probably this "comprised of" guy would feel the same as I do, if you set up a page dedicated to falsely accusing him of vandalism and pointlessly undid his work, but simultaneously posted messages asking people not to pointlessly undo his work. 186.9.131.144 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I live in a house where nobody else (being American-born) has never heard of Tom Baker ... still, I'd never heard of Hee Haw so I guess we're even. Now, I've just spent ten minutes explaining my other half what "keep out the black and in the red, nothing in this game for two in a bed" means as she doesn't have fond memories of watching Jim Bowen best known for presenting Bullseye back in the 1980s, and probably thinks the expression "bendy bully" is something perverse :-D Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has quite rigid ideas of what is or is not acceptable content for Wikipedia according to MOS and if it's not "best known for", it would be some other issue. I think he/she probably has a bottomless list of articles that need "correcting". Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
God, people who want to correct articles, what a pain they are! Really, why would such people even bother? Wouldn't it be so much easier if they'd just go away?
That term, "bullie", cuts both ways. None of us, as far as I know, have ever been blocked for getting into a fight with the IP--who has not always been wrong. The average reader may not care, but if we were writing for the average reader we wouldn't have FA and GA processes. That they've not appeared on your FA watchlist is telling: good articles typically don't have much bad writing...unless they're about Meghan Traynor, of course. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to know that I haven't always been wrong. I see it frequently claimed that I have made grievous errors in my edits, but despite repeated requests, these errors have never been specifically identified. I'd like to know what they were. A recent example was at The Night of the Doctor, where apparently moving a clause from the middle of the sentence to the end made it "plain wrong". Quite how it did so has not yet been made clear. 186.9.131.144 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I almost got blocked... and he has not much taste when it comes to pictures either. He is not quite an Eric. Hafspajen (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? As far as I could see, you faced no consequences for repeatedly undoing edits for no reason, trying to force unencyclopaedic text into an article, and then filing a false 3RR report. 186.9.131.144 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "best known for" IP may have a point, and certainly a generalist, otherwise productive editor making such an argument in moderation will find a receptive audience. But they are best known for tendentious editing and a battleground mentality. Hafspajen, on the other hand, is best known for love of art, sharing beautiful images, grace, elegance, good humor, and improving articles on notable paintings. OK, dog jokes too.
Personally, I despise the phrase "a million and a half". When applied to dollars, I can't help but think of that trivial fifty cents. When applied to people, I wonder if the half of the body has been severed horizontally at the waist, or vertically through the skull and down to the groin. But I am wiser than to spend my time trying to expunge that formulation from the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes User:Cullen328, noticed the battleground mentality. Even his warmest supporters can't exactly deny that. You, 186.9.131.144, kindly do not talk to me. Ever. Don't edit where I edit, don't leave messages and don't come near in any ways, sincerely. Just back away. I don't consider you being such a brilliant editor as some do. Making so much trouble for people editing doesn't weigh up. And that report was not false, it was correct, you were edit warring, kindly use your tendentious Gaslighting abilities somewhere else. Accusing someone for being false when it was clearly an edit war just sums it up how dealing with this editors is. I do not wish to hear from you ever again. Hafspajen (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Maybe I am missing the whole point, but can someone explain to me if there is any particular reason to avoid the phrase (except when it is factually wrong, of course)? Fwiw, NYT obits are pretty fond of it. Abecedare (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about the MOS, but maaaaaan it is a sign of poor article writing, at least on Wikipedia. And the factual wrongness is actually a big part of it, besides that usually it seems to be pretty randomly thrown in and is typically unverified. After all, "most notably" and "best known for" are statements that are either editorial (and thus unencyclopedic) or factual, in which case they need verification lest it's original research... Also, uuuuugggglllyyyy ! :)Drmies (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, opinions about what is "ugly" and "pretty" are fairly subjective, especially when applied to three word formulations commonly used by the New York Times and Encyclopaedia Brittanica. And others. I find it neither ugly nor pretty, but utilitarian. It is just a way to introduce, in three words, a summary of why a given topic is notable. I certainly don't advocate keeping it across the board, especially when the sort of brilliant prose I can't personally achieve (but many others on this page are capable of achieving) can convey the point in a more literary and encyclopedic fashion. So, if sources writing about Mark Hamill consistently emphasize his role in Star Wars, then either let "best known for" stand, or write something better and more sparkling which does not gut the content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is correct and verified, I don't have much of a problem with it. Mind you, my "uuuugggllyyy!" should be read in context--of the article. The context of "best known for" in Charles Darwin alleviates ugliness. In Herman Melville the same phrase is used quite elegantly in an introductory phrase. In Bill Clinton, an article on a person best known for having been president, the phrase is not used and doesn't need to be used because his his presidency is an integral part of the opening sentence. Tony Iommi presents a different kettle of fish: he's hardly "best known" as guitarist and founder of Sabbath, he is the guitarist and founder of Sabbath and the rest is really ancillary--the careers of Darwin, Melville, Clinton would have still made them notable even without evolution (he had plants and worms too), Typee and Moby-Dick (Bartleby alone is enough for sainthood), and a presidency (he was a governor too); such doesn't really apply to Iommi, unless you want to be really nice about Heaven & Hell (band). But these four articles don't compare to the frequently less-good articles I removed it from, where the articles as a whole evinced poor writing. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I'll grant you the unimaginative writing. And of course, when it is factually wrong or unsupported by citations, there is no argument for it. But don't see why it is necessarily POV. For example: NYT's obit for Upton Sinclair begins:

Upton Beall Sinclair Jr. (Sept. 20, 1878 – Nov. 25, 1968) was a writer of novels of social protest and political tracts; he is best known for his 1906 expose of the meatpacking industry, "The Jungle."

and wikipedia makes the same point:

Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr. (September 20, 1878 – November 25, 1968), was an American author who wrote nearly 100 books across a number of genres. He achieved popularity in the first half of the twentieth century, acquiring particular fame for his classic muckraking novel, The Jungle (1906),...

Sometimes, in fact, I see the opposite problem where editors "miss the lede" in trying to be completionist (or simply promotional). There are innumerable music/entertainment related BLPs on wikipedia that begin "... Is a singer, philanthropist, actor, model, businessman, producer, ..." that make we wish (as a reader) for a "best known for". :-) Abecedare (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare, your last paragraph reveals you've been looking at K-pop articles. Be careful: your soul is at stake. "Miss the lede"--sure, valid point. I'm a huge fan of lead improvement (I rewrote one a bit tonight, usually the article itself gives one plenty of material) and such improvement frequently alleviates the need for the awkward phrasing. Besides, I think that "notable for" is frequently seen as the kind of claim of importance that may stave off speedy deletion: the IP and I (and Ritchie) aren't the only ones who remove it, but it's commonplace in new articles. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed your point: I assume that the Sinclair article proves the truth of the statement--and in that case it is verifiably not POV. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't disagree with anything you say (except for the first sentence,which I'll deny to my dying breath). Had posed the original question mainly because I was wondering if there was a grammatical reason to avoid the phrase (as opposed to valid stylistic reasons) that I wasn't aware of. Btw, my pet peeve on wikipedia: "Controversy" sections. Discuss. :) Abecedare (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the point made by Abecedare can be dismissed so lightly by referring to K-pop articles or new articles in general. I purchased (for my birthday) four books having to do with a highly notable American rock climber and author of books related to mountaineering, who was prominent in the 1960s and 1970s. I hope to take the biography to Good Article status. He is still alive, and a Facebook friend of mine. He wants the article to emphasize his current poetry, pastel portraits and song writing. Local reliable sources mention his contemporary work in passing. High quality sources emphasize his mountaineering accomplishments of the past. How can I portray reality correctly without saying "best known for" rock climbing, or something similar? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"X was an accomplished mountaineer in the 1960s and 1970s, and author of a number of authoritative books on mountaineering in the Rocky Mountains/rock climbing on granite/bouldering in Death Valley/whatever; later in life he turned to painting and poetry and achieved some success as an artist and songwriter"? Drmies (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I have great respect for those guys (and gals) that did their climbing long before it got hip, and long before they had such good and safe equipment. Please tell your friend he has my admiration. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, I am reading Drmies' points to be that
  • the phrase is often misapplied on wikipedia, rather than that it cannot be properly used,
  • and, secondarily, that there are elegant variations to make the same point.
Hence my bringing up the "Controversy" section analogy, which again has its place in some articles but currently is used unthinkingly to segregate all negative information. Of course, the doctor can correct me if I misunderstood him. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Super, smashing, great, best known for"[citation needed]
Just curious if anyone is going to acknowledge that WP guideline actually encourages the use of a phrase like "best known for", grammatically imperfect as it may be, simply because of what WP:LEAD states...

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jimi Hendrix was the greatest guitarplayer of all time". There. Notability established! :) Drmies (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, even as a banjo player I'd agree with that... Clapton has some talent too. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.

Advice, please (again - and I really owe you)[edit]

If you would take a moment or two, could you please give me some advice on how to handle a situation? Earlier this evening, I made some very decent changes to the Taylor Swift article (links here: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]). They were summarily removed (without an edit summary) here [18]. The editor reverting me has been giving me grief all over Wikipedia for at least a week. I did revert his reversion here [19] and immediately went to the article talk page to start a discussion and pinged the editor here: [20]. He reverted everything back to his version, again without an edit summary here [21]. I then went to his talk page and left a message here: [22]. He has not responded, and at this point, I don't think he intends to. Additionally, I had made note regarding some of those edits on the article talk page so there would be no misunderstanding regarding the rationale behind them (see here [23]).

My bet? There is something else going on besides improving the encyclopedia. What it feels like is poking to get me to react in a fashion that will get me blocked. He's already worked on that elsewhere a few days ago (see here:[24]). What say you, o wise Drmies? I could really use your help. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: He's never edited the article until after I had edited it. I show his first edit of the article to be 2015-04-10 at 02:42. Never edited it before, but is suddenly interested in it after I edited it AND blanket reverting everything I edited? Yeah, that happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't surprise me that WordSeventeen is watching your edits given the history between the two of you. That said, I agree with you that WordSeventeen should respond to your requests for discussion. I also think it does you credit that you stopped reverting, are trying to work out the content issue, and are asking for help from wise Drmies (who is much wiser than I am and is probably moaning about my last convoluted sentence).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, not at all--not wise and not convoluted: you have a very decent periodic sentence with a good triplet of arguments: the perfect set-up for a decent five paragraph essay. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they followed you to the page to harrass you, that's wrong. That said, (each of) the individual edits have to be taken on their merits (and WordSeventeen's date and number changes were just plain wrong). WordSeventeen (and Winkelvi) needs to discuss any other contested edits on the Talk page and gain consensus or understanding before continuing to edit war. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I asked for discussion at two places and pinged him, he left a reply at his talk page wherein he accused me of violating AGF and threatened me with administrator involvement that would lead to "future consequences" [25]. He then left an AGF warning on my talk page [26]. As I expected him to do, he claims his edits at the Swift article were nothing more than "improving the encyclopedia". As I also expected, he didn't actually discuss the edit. He still hasn't discussed anything at the article talk page. His responses don't address why the blanket reversion took place and how his reversions benefited anything. Obviously, I can't force him to discuss anything, but I'm unsure how to proceed from here. Other editors have worked on the page since his reversions. Would it be seen as antagonistic at this point to replace anything I did before his reversions without anything having been discussed? Bbb23, if you have any advice to give, it would be welcomed as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. I can't dig too deeply into the particulars and I'm unfamiliar with the Kbabej (?) case, but I do suggest you follow Bbb's advice and stay way from those articles, watchlist or not. I have left a note on your opponent's talk page since I think their behavior was asinine (the warnings and the following/hounding), but I also think you could have handled that differently a few days ago. But that's water under the bridge. As long as you keep your nose clean, you have little to fear; if WordSeventeen continues down this avenue they will be blocked, but I expect they will not, though they might kick up a fuss about admin abuse etc. Well, I've heard that one before, WV. ;)

    Speaking of noses, all of you, esp. Bbb, will be pleased to know that my 2-yr old can now tell a joke. You all know it: it starts "my dog has no nose." Drmies (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for taking the time, Drmies. Advice well given, advice well received. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protect[edit]

Hey Drmies - think you could protect List of Sasuke stages? Edit war going on, same situation I brought up a couple days ago at ANI, with the false info regarding American Ninja Warrior. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you nominate it at AfD, sure! Drmies (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind. I did two for the price of one. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More?[edit]

Thanks for the clean up earlier! My senses may be going into overdrive but might this be young John again? I appreciate similarities are not obvious but it's again odd little edits predominantly to dog articles? I know it's not the same breeds, edit summaries etc but it just doesn't "feel right" - could you have a quick look and see what you think, please? Then, of course, you can tell me I'm chasing shadows! SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_83&oldid=1163105161"