User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:23, 18 December 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148

Good work

...caretaking the news of the day. Agreed that such articles need to be locked down early. Congratulations to you and other responsible editors. Of the events, words do little justice. Just sadness. Have a good evening, 99.153.143.227 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, 99, and I appreciate it. Yes, words. Our president was most eloquent, especially in his silences. I told my oldest and she cried in the car; right now, though, they're peacefully watching Lorax under a blanket with bellies full of ramen noodles. Friday night is easy dinner night. Mrs. Drmies and I are drinking beers, also with very few words. All the best, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a message

From Cjr100B, on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dennis. Hey, your talk page is more popular than mine. I may have to block you. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you would quit deleting everyone's perfectly good articles, maybe more people would like you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drmies, I came across the same thing you did recently while patroling the backlog at newpages. I posted on Dennis's talk page about it and he suggested batphoning you in as you know more about the situtation. So... you know... ring ring Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for edit

Hi there, please reconsider the semiprotection. People making sourcing mistakes is not good enough a reason to semiprotect according to the policy. It's not even a BLP. 219.78.115.184 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a multiple BLP. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection will expire in a few hours. How long the article will remain unprotected is an open question.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 minutes? I'm nipping to the bookies now. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That was very funny!!1!

Please operate within policy. Thanks. 219.78.115.184 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are operating within policy. Considering what I saw yesterday I agree completely with in(de)finite protection. If you think living people aren't involved, you're even less smart than I think you are. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly extended protection one week via WP:COMMONSENSE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense was recently banned by ArbCom.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only for their own use. We mere mortals are still free to use it. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, could you indef (not permanent) the protection? I don't want us to have to scramble with edits from IPs that aren't sourced and are speculation (Jewish perpetrator, the principal let him in and shot people herself, etc.), or edit conflicts from those edits and having good edits being erased by IPs copying to resolve an edit conflict. If any of that make sense. Thanks gwickwire^talk_edits 18:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as indefinite or permanent page protection; it's called "infinite"; don't ask me why. In any event, it stays in place unless it's lifted - no meaningful distinction. I see no justification for it at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indef semi-protection (which does show as infinite in some areas) is reserved only for articles that are proven targets for vandalism, and no passage of time will cure the issue. A good example of candidates articles include Fuck and Nigger, which attract a lot of lolz and more vandalism than good edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all who responded to this request. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Been having lots of fun there, with one IP in particular. Articles like this bring out the worst in some, and bring in self appointed experts on Wikipedia, who are usually clueless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Self-appointed experts? That would be me, then. Ha ha! More seriously, as per the thread on DB's page, we may need to sort out some guidelines for issues such as this. Yes, in theory, they are covered by policies and guidelines that already exist but maybe it is time to coalesce the things for this specific purpose? - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I get a kick out of IPs who link WP:HUMAN and preach to me about how I'm violating that policy. Then I link WP:NOTPEOPLE just so they can tell me that is is just an essay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, I can feel a neologism coming on: has no-one heard of "wikilawyering" before (sic)? Keep doing what you are doing, guys. Dennis, yesterday (depends where you are) you applied WP:COMMONSENSE and that one will do for me. But the generalities raised by this issue do need some sort of overarching community decision because they waste a phenomenal amount of time and cause a lot of potential legal problems etc. And if someone wants to delete the {{Timeline}} template, which causes a huge amount of grief with Indian news stories, well, I likely wouldn't say no. - Sitush (talk)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive83#Virginia Tech massacre subarticles for my experience with the London bombings. I've been WikiGnoming the talk page for several hours, fixing up edits by people who seemingly just hit "create new section" when they want to reply to things, or discuss something already being discussed. Tag! You're it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a request to unprotect on my talk page, same geolocation as this IP, Hong Kong. I get the feeling this will need to be protected for more than one week, however. The event is bad enough, we don't need more dramah to go with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And there's some stuff outstanding at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Do we really need a table to list the victims?. The markup for the multicolumnar layout is there. People just need to sort out their tastes in colours, title, and headings. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjust to taste. ;) Your little green box now requires fewer characters to reach. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think an editor should be notified everytime their name is mentioned, regardless of how unimportant the mention is? If so, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#protector. If not, please delete this message before reading it. NE Ent 13:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Interesting question. Thanks for the update, though--I don't patrol those boards very well. Can I keep this message after having read it? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beware self-destructing messages. JFHJr (㊟) 18:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The general case

I was thinking of throwing together a proposal for a generic editnotice to put up on any major in-progress news event; I feel like the "current event" ambox doesn't really cut it. My thinking is that, here, the vast majority of the problematic edits were indeed in good faith, but people weren't really thinking about the consequences - so create an editnotice for anything like this, that reminds people that the standards for sourcing are heightened, not lowered, that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and that verifiability and coherence is more important than reporting every latest detail. If you could get even 20% of people updating the article with the newest 50%-chance-of-being-false tidbit from CNN to stop and reconsider, it'd take quite a load off... which would be pretty helpful, considering the defamation risks in these areas - last I checked we were at 8 or 9 revdels and 2 Oversights. What do you guys think? I can draw up a sample, if people are interested in the idea. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Francophonie, I meant to leave you a response two nights ago but the internet broke. In summary: I think that would be a great idea. Look, if you like, what I said to Masem on ANI in the Sandy Hook thread (the second, I think) to see if those strengths can be blended. Thanks. Oh, maybe you're interested in a link to an NPR story I dropped on the Sandy Hook talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Old man, you have an email. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so--the mail lady comes by before 5 on a Saturday and it's already past 6. Are you sure? Drmies (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question

If I speedy delete an article that has an ongoing AfD, is there something I'm supposed to do with the AfD?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just close it, noting what you've done. I think most admins don't apply "speedy" close to it, but I suppose it doesn't matter. Or you can drop the link and I'll close it for you, so there is a bit of oversight/consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with all you deletionist admin? ;) Not sure oversight is that big of a deal here, since the close is just a procedural close, no real conflict. I usually close them, but I see a lot of NACs instead. Maybe some admin don't like closing after they speedy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey swag. Uncle G (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing I do differently is I try to remember to add "by me", for disclosure. I don't think it is required, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Uncle. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone. The editor who tagged the article for speedy deletion closed the AfD for me. Nice of him.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Amina Mama

On 16 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amina Mama, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after twice fleeing civil unrest in Nigeria, Amina Mama moved to South Africa, where she became director of the African Gender Institute and founding editor of its peer-reviewed journal, Feminist Africa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amina Mama. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for African Gender Institute

On 16 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article African Gender Institute, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after twice fleeing civil unrest in Nigeria, Amina Mama moved to South Africa, where she became director of the African Gender Institute and founding editor of its peer-reviewed journal, Feminist Africa? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Feminist Africa

On 16 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Feminist Africa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after twice fleeing civil unrest in Nigeria, Amina Mama moved to South Africa, where she became director of the African Gender Institute and founding editor of its peer-reviewed journal, Feminist Africa? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

I'm pretty sure that you watch the goings-on but in case you miss this one, I've mentioned you here and, well, I'm lost in a miasma of grammatical correctness. Your thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that's funny--this is like Ent's note in "Please unprotect Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for edit"! I'm being mentioned on ANI 3.0? Drmies (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies cannot even get the grammar right in xyr own username, and you ask for this? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to my edit notice, Uncle G? What's wrong with "xyr"? Drmies (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, your username. I have, as you know, diligently kept the secret of your ungrammatical user name. Do you really want me to get M. White Background and M. Chapstick all overexcited? You know what they'll say. M. Chapstick will start asking whether you are real, and M. White Background will start weeping over some dead soap opera character. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your blanking of my edit

I made myself a promise some years ago, when I was a new editor and saw that an admin was guarding her fringe POV in Animal rights and would never allow any compromise, that I would not engage in editing wars. So, rather than reposting the info and adding the Time Magazine link I was preparing I'll move away from the argument. There is nothing to talk about with people who have a social agenda. Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for your shift

Bigh Whigh has been adequately warned about edit warring by me, fully explained on his talk page, but I get the feeling he doesn't get it. I've been sick all weekend but watching the article talk page closely. I gonna get some sleep, so it's your turn to babysit. Bring a stick. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I was just about to drop Masem a line. Sorry to hear you're sick. I just made a Rite-Aid run for Zantac, Benadryl, and Pepto-Bismal: everyone at my house is sick as well! Whigh's latest effort was not for the same thing so I don't have a good reason to block; I just hope it doesn't go any further. I'm wondering when it gets to be time to drop the hammer for full protection: it's Sunday night, and nothing real is happening--it's just reactions and hot air. I may place a note on AN proposing this; by now I've been so active that the POV warriors (see above) will have me before ArbCom by Monday morning if I lock it down. Hope you feel better soon, Dennis, and thanks again for your efforts. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted on Dennis's pagve. Thank you also for your efforts in the Sandy Hook article and talk pages. I appreciate seeing your oversight there. Well wishes all around, folks. LadyofShalott 03:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking out the backlog at RFPP. Honestly, I don't want to look at the article right now, but I will in a minute. I just blocked that edit-warrior, BTW. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can breathe! Spend all weekend with a sinus issues that made it feel like someone stuffed a tennis ball inside my head. My nose is so raw from blowing, it feels like someone took a belt sander to it. I was doubling up on Benedryl, Sudafed, Flonaise, aspirin and kleenex but much better now. Hope the wife and kiddopoos are feeling better. The article has been a trying affair, I've stayed away from direct editing and just stuck with traffic patrol on the talk page. I figure there is no shortage of people wanting to tweak it, so that was the best use of my time. I appreciate the help as well. Just knowing there are admin there actively patrolling has surely helped keep some of the disruption tamped down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm back in bed sick. :p Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I was snooping around your user page and wanted to commend you for your work on this very unusual article. Writing about George Washington or Helen Keller is all well and good, but it's articles like yours that keep me perpetually in love with Wikipedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar, that is very kind of you--but let me give credit where credit's due and point you to Malleus Fatuorum, who is responsible for most of the work on that article, including everything that's correct about it. Still, I appreciate it! Drmies (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They've got one headed their way as well, then. Enjoy your evening, Dr... -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're no slouch either, Khazar. I just read Murder of Udin. Have you met my pal Crisco 1492? I'm sure you have--he and I have done a few Indonesian and Dutch-Indies articles together. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Crisco actually co-wrote that one with me. One of my favorite Wikipedia collaborators--always kind, always skilled. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Westervelt

It appears that this page has not been locked after all, and user [Alan Stenberg], despite numerous warnings, continues to vandalize this page. Why can't his vandalizing be controlled?

Semperfly (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. I accidentally applied semi-protection, not full protection. That's rectified now, with my apologies. But that their edits are vandalism is not immediately obvious to me so I'm not going to block them: you all are having a content dispute and you should hammer out a consensus on the talk page of what the article should say. After that an editor can be warned and possibly blocked for disruption (edits against consensus)--but WP:VANDALISM is quite strict on the topic. Also, if you have suspicions of socking, start an WP:SPI so that can be looked into. Thank you, Drmies (talk)

Thanks- IF you read the talk pages for some of these sock puppets, esp. [Alan Stenberg], you will see recent warnings of suspension. Changing a caption from the subject's given, legal name to "dilletante" is not really a content dispute- it's outright vandalism.

I didn't see that one--thanks. That's reason enough for a block. Now, I still think you should get something going on the talk page if only for future reference: if there is socking, and if there are personal and business interests, it won't go away and future admins will have something on the talk page to fall back on. Now, I looked at Kimocarew and blocked it as a sock: the best thing for you to do is to start an SPI, even though this one is already blocked, and ask for a CU (Checkuser) so there is evidence for future investigations. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem...

A-one, a-two. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the SPI with the further information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, and warned for edit-warring. Report them to AIV next time if I'm not on call, and a block will be on the way. That's one way to tackle this...I saw the SPI was still not acted on, last time I looked. Patience, grasshopper! Thanks Homer, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have we gone a full set of warnings with this guy? Some admins are sticklers for doing a full set before any blocks are issued. SPIs are very slow, I know. Sometimes too slow for my liking. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but sometimes I'm a bit of a stickler, yes. But I don't believe in 1-2-3-4. Does that help? Don't worry, next time they're blocked. And if that other one returns, no matter where the SPI is at, they'll be blocked too. Domino theory, dear Homer. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think we have issued all the warnings we can, then that's good enough for me. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, that's the nice thing about the edit-warring notice: a revert after that is blockworthy. Wow, Tom Brady is fantastic, and I don't even like the Pats. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Now 38-31 San Francisco. I watched the Steelers game and they handed that thing to Dallas. Pittsburgh had a chance in the 4th to kick a field goal from their 39 to make it 27-24 and give them the win. They didn't! They punted back to Dallas! Dallas held them off, got into OT, intercepted, got within field goal range, kicked the field goal, Dallas won, score 27-24. Dammit! Pittsburgh got cocky and wanted a TD, it bit them in the ass. Steelers suck this year. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Fairbank

I've noted your comments, but the problem seems to be that IPs and, now, newly registered users - seemingly linked to the Exaro site or at least with non-public knowledge of the investigation - are repeatedly adding unsourced or very poorly sourced information, to an article about an ongoing police investigation which could potentially have significant political repercussions. The legal implications of WP repeatedly adding such allegations need to be addressed in the light of the McAlpine affair, and I would have thought that some form of page protection was the best solution. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Hopefully, more editors will take an interest in the article and help keep it on track. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question of sources

I have been lurking at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and its associated talk page and have a dumb question. I would rather appear dumb to you than appear dumb to the thousands of editors at those pages, so here goes: as a Wikipedia editor I am curious to learn why the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) has not been used in the article for fact reporting. Specifically, their press releases on this incident, which can be found here. I am particularly intrigued because during this incident, there has been proven misreporting by some of the sources currently still used in the article (CNN, Fox News and Huffington Post for example) --Senra (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the citation for you. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Newtown School Shooting investigation continues" (Press release). State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection. 2012-12-16. {{cite press release}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
While Drmies and friends are processing this conundrum, Senra, you could get your Local Historian bush telegraph out and try to find one of your colleagues who deals in places that aren't quite right next door to you, to see about the Thomond deeds (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking ... --Senra (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded --Senra (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question, Senra, and believe me, both at face value and in relation to some other comments on the talk page this is not a dumb question. Let me preface an answer with a disclaimer: I have been concerned with the various additions made to the article and their sourcing--I haven't been writing, just editing, and while I'm aware of some of the details that turned out to be utterly erroneous you likely know more, in detail, than I do.
I can give you a philosophical answer: in general we use secondary sources, not primary ones, so mistakes in reporting may seep into the article, yes. Personally, I don't think I would have a problem with citing reports such as the one you linked--I think you can make a case on the talk page that such reports ("According to the Connecticut State Police,...") are acceptable. Now, the reminder there that social media may not be used to harass people, I'm not sure if that could find a way into the article: we all know what it means, most likely--people have been harassed, but that's not a conclusion that we could write up. (I'm not saying you'd want to consider that; I'm sure you know better than I do what is and what isn't acceptable.) There may be a practical answer as well--editors just haven't looked at it; I'm sure those communications don't have the highest ranking among Google results...
The way to go about it is probably to identify one or more problematic statements in the article (I'm almost afraid to see what happened between 11 PM last night, when my internet connection gave up, and now) and bring them up on the talk page with the relevant links to the correct information. I hope you will engage this on the talk page: it needs cool heads, experienced Wikipedia editors. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware that primary sources are discouraged but not, I believe banned; especially were facts are concerned. Perhaps I should not have been afraid to raise this issue on the talk page. Still, you have answered my initial query, so thank you. I think that Uncle G jumped in here, in good faith, and may have partly destroyed my thesis by linking to only one DESPP press release when, in fact, I was talking more generally about all DESPP press releases on this incident—three at the time of writing. I have taken the liberty of re-factoring Uncle G's citation to make it clear that it was not part of my initial question --Senra (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I think WP:PRIMARY provides every opportunity to use these sources in this case. It's always a matter of editorial judgment--one exception (though I can't find a link to any policy or guideline) is that such documents as court transcripts are strongly discouraged. Someone can set me straight if I'm wrong, or point to the relevant guideline. Again, in this case, please go for it. I mean, it's easy to argue that one problem with primary sources, "They offer an insider's view of an event," is actually a strong point here: there can be no reporter who misunderstood. There was a clear case of inappropriate use of primary sources, currently at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#witness_states_saw_man_in_handcuffs_taken_out_of_woods (quick, before it's archived) where our primary source policy was used to remove the material for all the right reasons, but this is obviously a different case. After all, Pendle witches cites heavily from The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thorsø, Norway

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful amplification and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumping to conclusions, I don't suppose you'd be interested in making it a hat-trick of "articles expanded lots of by Uncle G and friends to make an AfD collapse" and early close this? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to accept any sort of blame for that article whatsoever. I was never there, and you never saw me. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Only because somebody else got to the sources first. We felt you were certainly there in spirit. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do like a good gerbil story. In this case, the earlier version is not a completely different article from the current one, though it is radically improved, so I'm hesitant to close this per SNOW, for instance, and it's way too early to close it normally. What I'd do is ask the nominator to have another look at the article, even invite them to help improve. There's a DYK in it, methinks. This is charming but unfortunately unacceptable; I haven't been able to find more. Of course, I do not have Uncle G's talents. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't you go mentioning snow, now. M. Chapstick and M. White Background are all quiet and calm. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You know, Uncle, I can't find your first mention of this mysterious error of mine. I do vaguely remember it, and I remember it going completely over my head--it's not that your incomprehensibly cryptic, but you do sometimes remind me of Borges, and combined with those Harvard references I reach brain overload quite easily. Moreover, you make me stray, since I'm now reading on Power and Society in the Lordship of Ireland 1272-1377 when I was already doing three other things. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You're lucky. I've only just today cleared the backlog of sources that I had to check through for Ramón Ortiz y Miera. Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you can see, Ritchie333, I have to endure the blame throwing of Aymatth2 and Drmies, who both think that it is exceedingly funny to get some some robot to come and post on my talk page asking me whether I know things. Fortunately, I now have the {{Drmies-user-talk-substub}} template for combatting this, used to great effect at /Archive 42#Asega. Thorsø, Norway (AfD discussion) required the abilities of an editor who could read Adûnaic. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's me...

Hi, Could you perhaps have a quick look at the discussion at Talk:Seminars of Jacques Lacan when you have a moment to see whether I really have gone totally bollocks? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

With this page we are moving previously used references to the bottom of the reference section and hiding them in a HTML comment section so that if they are reused we dont have to dig through 100's of revisions looking for the reference content. Thanks, Werieth (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what we're doing with this article. But if anyone restores deleted content, they should probably add that reference themselves. An article from the NY Post isn't worth saving anyway, nor is a Russian press release. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently removed a picture of a rifle from the article and said to see the edit summary of North8000. I looked at that edit summary and no factual sources were presented. I've started a section on the talk page regarding the picture. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean with "no factual sources were presented". The edit summary presented an argument, one which sounded acceptable to me. I saw the talk page entry; thanks for starting that. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name?

Since you mentioned Borges and confusion, I think that it has finally reached the time that we had a small walled garden of substub encyclopaedia articles.

M. White Background

An editor has suggested that this be merged into List of fictional characters who inhabit Drmies' user talk page (Discuss)

White Background has been a Hoovian ever since xe was a child. After watching a genericized trademark on television, xe has, ever since, conscientiously vacuumed behind the sofa, with xyr hands over xyr eyes. Following in the footsteps of Sylvester McCoy, xe introduces xyrself with a small white calling card which has a big blob of old chewing gum in the centre, and in the corner of which can be found the mysterious symbols \e[47m. Of course, as you are well aware, this is but a pale imitation of a pale imitation.

Doctor Who? This article is a substub; you can help Wikipedia.

M. Chapstick

An editor has suggested that this be merged into List of fictional characters who inhabit Drmies' user talk page (Discuss)

Chapstick has lurked on the shelves of airport duty-free shops in Canada, the United States, Australia, Mongolia, and other places west of the Hudson. Xe has written several unused Wikipedia essays, including Evils of lip gloss, More evils of lip gloss, and Do you have shares in Revlon, or something?. After mind-melding with a tin of Spam, xe became a fan of Dr Glue, a children's television show starring Tim Allen about a supply teacher in Art who dashes from school to school in a Ford Ka that is even smaller on the inside than it looks from the outside, and is so obsessed with the show that xe is thinking of changing xyr name to Pritt Stick.

Doctor Who? This article is a substub; you can help Wikipedia.

This page has been proposed for deletion by Drmies, with the rationale: Oooh! Twinkle! What does this button do? It will be deleted on 2012-12-25.

Drmies (Drmies character)

An editor has suggested that this be moved to Drmies as a primary topic (Discuss)

The mysteriously grammatically incorrect Drmies can be found fighting, episode after episode, against Daleks, Cybermen, Ice Warriors, the Wraith, and Wikipedians. As of 2012, xe will close discussions citing the likelihood of snow. Although M. Chapstick and M. White Background have tried to out Drmies in the past, only one person has worked out the jealously guarded secret of xyr name. Like Mrs. Alice Beeblebrox of 108 Astral Crescent, that person is waiting for "the right price".

Doctor Who? This article is a substub; you can bribe Uncle G to kerrrzappp! it to reveal the truth.

Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5 users like this.

This Hoovian applauds the above post. I also remind everybody that the Dr. Who special is coming up on Christmas day. A new companion is to be reveled, of course she will pale in comparison to my beloved Amy. Bgwhite (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i have no idea where this came from. But I like it. Currently on time off, so perusing the Wikipedia tends to be via mobile Device (iPhone today), so I don't always "catch" everything. . We have a Marathon on Christmas Day BG, oceans of Pond. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

breast cancer awareness

Thanks for taking a look at Breast cancer awareness. I agree with you both about the fundamental POV issues and also about the toxicity of the talk page conversations. I'm hoping that the article will improve with the involvement of experienced outside editors. GabrielF (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it saddens me to see two editors who obviously know their stuff get at each other in such an unproductive manner. It's an odd situation, since I am quite sympathetic to the POV of the most blatant POV warrior and convinced of the (in my opinion misdirected) good faith and MO of the other party. I am not the one to improve the article by addition, though; it seems to me that you know more than I will ever learn. I am also hoping, indeed, for experienced outside editors--if nothing changes, an AN thread may bring attention to it. This has been going on for far too long. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notorious

In case you miss it blended with the other traffic, perhaps this is an essay you would be well suited to create. WP:BEANS and all that, but there appears to be a void. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I'm hoping Masem will come up with something. Ed has me writing already. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :*Well, if you would quit deleting everyone's perfectly good articles, maybe more people would like you.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]]  [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 17:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
+:::Hey Drmies, I came across the same thing you did recently while patroling the backlog at newpages. I posted on Dennis's talk page about it and he suggested batphoning you in as you know more about the situtation. So... you know... ring ring <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">[[User:Cabe6403|Cabe]]</font><font color="Green">[[User:Cabe6403/Gallery|6403]]</font> <sup>([[user_talk:Cabe6403|Talk]]•[[User:Cabe6403/Guest book|Sign]])</sup></font> 16:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 == Please unprotect [[Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting]] for edit ==
@@ Line 203: / Line 204: @@
 }}
 [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
-*{{like|num=6}}
+*{{like|num=5}}
 :*This Hoovian applauds the above post.  I also remind everybody that the Dr. Who special is coming up on Christmas day.  A new companion is to be reveled, of course she will pale in comparison to my beloved Amy.  [[User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite]] ([[User talk:Bgwhite|talk]]) 09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)