User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:30, 24 April 2016

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, 149

Blatantly self-promotional userpage

I'm spacing on where to report this; can someone simply deal with it? → User talk:Aronkamal. Thanks. (By the way, the user is the co-founder of that company.) Softlavender (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a user talk page, I usually just replace the whole content with {{welcome}}. Often the user does not return and the problem is resolved. I have replaced a couple of user pages with a link to WP:User pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that will work. The link on their user page isn't a spam link (and thus the page isn't promotional); the soap bit may just be what we usually put in a sandbox. Apparently the editor has a Royal Enfield, which is pretty cool. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama says he would "not drive" an Enfield. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He watched an Indian team ride their bikes while doing headstands- kind of put him off the idea. In other news Jacqueline Trimble has produced Wiki-farce. One editor believes the article contains "lots of WP:OR". Much as I would like to live in a hot and sweaty land where the beer's cheap and the hogs are purty I don't have the opportunity for OR- must have been you , and now the poet herself has weighed in. I live in a Deobandi village according to the BBC- the beer's cheap and good (Polish brands) but the hogs aren't purty- they come bisected à la Damien Hirst. Shouldn't that user page be put in a soapbox? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the AfD page, I think there's something fishy about the nomination. [User:NotAJF] made eleven edits- and reached Autoconfirmed status in doing so- which I assume you need to have before launching an AfD? And hasn't edited since. An SPA created purely in order to delete an article! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, it's not "what we usually put in a sandbox"; it's his own company (see the owners' names), and that is an advertisement for it. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I hadn't even seen that name. Thanks for removing it. You gotta admit, it was a pretty lousy ad. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caps for role descriptions?

Hi D, needed a second opinion re: this. Should School Principal, Police Inspector, and Forensic Examiner be capitalized in these instances? It looks really weird to me. I know you might find roles listed like that in the credits -- "Man #1" and such, but it seems weird to cap something that isn't typically a proper noun. Your feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not an MOS expert; the only titles I deal with professionally are religious ones. :) Maybe RGloucester can cite chapter and verse. In the meantime, I can tell you that in lists of roles I see them with caps all the time. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I have been summoned. They should not be capitalised if one wants to be in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned? Only accidentally, RGloucester. Oops I did it again! BTW, I love your old-fashioned phone. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So ...

I noticed that when you actually got that Arb label that you doubled up on your efforts to keep the ship upright and on an even keel. Now that you (and others) are finally getting into the meat and potatoes of arbitration - what do you think? You can email if you'd rather not say in public. — Ched : ? 01:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's a bunch of things I can't say. I'll tell you one thing: I have learned a new lesson about how low human beings can go--and I'm not even talking about a Wikipedia editor, haha. I'm also surprised at the animosity toward ArbCom. I mean, I had problems with ArbCom beforehand, which is why I ran (in part), but the metaphors one sees being flung around...sheesh. Moreover, I'm surprised by how picky people get in their wikilawyering, and how much value they attach (I think mostly Americans) to paperwork. Like, I was the first or second to accept the case against Gamaliel, and I stick that apologetic note of his at the bottom, and the whole world explodes. I'm reminded of those little frat boys and girls in the University of Alabama's SGA, who have all taken their class on Robert's Rules of Order and now it's more important than the bible--not important in guiding discussions, but in stifling the spirit. We do that by ourselves often enough already.
Hey, I don't know that I'm doing anything to keep the ship upright. I did my first bit of paperwork today (two bits--an email following up on an old report and Ottava Rima's unblock) and man is it complicated, and so easy to make a mistake. The old hands are much better at it than I am--and Keilana and Opabinia regalis are champs, and GorillaWarfare should be on payroll. Kelapstick was probably born to be manager material too. I feel like I'm barely hanging on, and that others are pulling the weight for me. Thanks for asking, Ched, and for keeping it 100%, haha. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how hard you're trying. Take a step back, step OUT of the bubble. Think what is best for the future of all. Look at it like you do your own life. You are a parent to the project in this role. Be fair. Be firm. Be glad for your support group. Never go to bed worried, and accept that you did the best you could on any given day. We chose you because we believe in you. We're not asking you to be perfect. We ask that you do the best that you can. Don't sweat the petty stuff .... (you know it's coming ... lol) ... but don't pet the sweaty stuff. :-) — Ched : ? 10:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can stay sane on ArbCom. Reading through the case pages for Gamaliel, the profusion of weapons-grade stupidity is almost physically painful. There are entire sections that are devoid of any evidence of rational thought, and which seem to consist mostly of free-floating bile and overwrought allusions to literary and historical totalitarian regimes. The few people who have something genuinely thoughtful and decent to say, like Andreas, are drowned out. Good luck with that... MastCell ^Talk 04:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am supposed to disagree with Andreas on principle since he's a rebel and I'm the man now (one of them anyway). Secretly, while I don't always agree with him, I'm glad we have him around and I usually read what he has to say. Don't tell him I said so. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When the bile floats towards you get cooking! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your purging of the grossly offensive material on the Gamaliel arb page. Not sure what the hell happened there, but I have to say it isn't really a surprise that something did. Otherwise, more or less agree with Ched above, particularly about not trying to be perfect. There are enough other arbs who will probably point out any mistakes you might make, hopefully politely of course. And most of them, including the more senior ones, have themselves probably made at least as big of mistakes themselves. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy yesterday; I should have followed up on it already. I think this is the first time I looked at something Reddit. I've just been teaching Paradise Lost and An Essay on Man; if Milton and Pope knew that this was where creation was going they wouldn't have written such optimistic poems. Really, words fail me. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query

"QuackGuru is topic banned from Vani Hari and its talk page, and is not to discuss the matter elsewhere on Wikipedia, for the next three months. [6] Drmies (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)"

Is it for the next three months at the Vani Hari and its talk page and not to discuss Vani Hari elsewhere? Or is it also all articles related to Pseudoscience? QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vana Hari. Don't discuss her elsewhere, in any way, please. "The matter" means the Vana Hari matter. For the rest, you can pseudo-science all you like, though I wouldn't advise it. Thanks, and again my apologies, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by it being dragged out over weeks what could have been resolved in days or less. QuackGuru (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this. That is a draconian number of edits to achieve very little; as someone said on the talk page, "It seems to me that this has been an awful lot of discussion over something that, frankly, is a rather small matter." Drmies (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. The proposal did not accurately represent any source which makes it a BLP violation. I asked for verification. No editor provided verification. QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't explain--it would be a topic ban violation. Besides, what you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense. You tried for almost two weeks to get something in the article, to no avail, and wouldn't give up. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. I was not thinking about my proposals when I commented here. That was not my concern. My concern was the BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern does not appear to be shared. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the sources or are your replies based on what others have said and done?
Editors did oppose the proposals I had concerns with on the talk page and editors reverted the concerns and editors supported one of my proposals. But there was no consensus for any of the proposals. QuackGuru (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time to worry, I guess...

Relevant link van Wikipedia aangeboden (Relevant link from Wikipedia on offer)
Wikipedia link | Extreem hoge SEO waarde (Wikipedia link |Extreme high SEO-value)

To me, this sounds like a nasty spammer who has to be stopped as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue if this guy is already active on Wikipedia.

Any ideas how to identify this guy (or where to go to with this info)? The Banner talk 20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ken die site niet; als er een mogelijkheid is om met de webredactie in contact te komen, kan je ze zeggen dat dit fraudulent is: die lul kan natuurlijk helemaal niks garanderen. Nee, wat we hier aan kunnen doen, niet zo veel. Ik weet niet wie het is, er zit geen account aan vast... When you start seeing articles that look suspicious, let me know and we'll figure it out. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For starters, I have informed the website about this - potential - fraud. The Banner talk 09:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's a great idea. I don't know if we have a Wikiproject or whatever for this, and this doesn't seem to rise to Orangemoody levels, but yeah, this kind of stuff needs to be stomped out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Karmasin has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Drmies. Franz Karmasin, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 00:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalism

You just deleted an entire article without argumenting. Stop it. It's called vandalism. I wrote an article about the subject MGM and well, I only used scientific papers (like the British Medical Journal). Only peer-reviewed sources. You don't like it? Well, start a deletion discussion then. --Momo Monitor (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Talk:Circumcision and stop reinstating that article before you get blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that circumcision is just ONE of many different arts of genital mutilation and modification. But you would know that if you had a) read my article and b) you had read the 10 articles and books all peer-reviewed. But you just don't like the topic, so you delete everything. Please stop it, or you will be banned. If you think that the page should be redirected, start a discussion on the topic. If you think what I wrote is purely, just improve it. --Momo Monitor (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This calls for a drink. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... are we sure that's not a secret Cosmopolitan? Drmies (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was keeping gender out of this discussion, but you may be right. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Shannon (artist)

Hi Drmies and his talk page stalkers: this is one of several problematic Milwaukee arts-based pieces I came across yesterday, and for which I'd appreciate help. The subject is pretty notable, but as I've mentioned at the article talk page, it is dreadfully sourced. I've already removed some of the career text, and could eviscerate personal life, painting, etc., but would prefer not to have it be a solo enterprise. More eyes would be nice. Best regards as always, Dr., from 99. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes. That "Shannon's sculptures are strongly idea driven" paragraph, so typical of visual arts articles, needs sourcing or it needs to go. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can do you one better, ole 99: The Kid (artist). Drmies (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if "strongly idea driven" was sourced, it's still drivel. Unless Shannon has made the world's first telekinetic sculptures. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~God save us from artists who double as writers.~~ 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know Vonnegut's race of aliens who communicate by farting and tapdancing? That's how artists think. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doktoro: meet Jgmikulay (talk · contribs) another doktoro, Wikipedia:WikiProject Public art/Milwaukee, and a lot of student accounts. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Palatschinken...I remember those...should make them again... What are you signaling, Uncle? Drmies (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment company navboxes

I remember you removing these templates from artists' pages before. You may be interested in the deletion discussions here and here. Random86 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to have a look but yes, I have serious problems with those templates which give undue importance to the company that owns the contracts, and that in many cases just add to the bewildering amount of articles and templates that get created for all those bands. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I didn't know you had dealt with similar subject matter before. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here…

… to this.Right. I don't give characters like that a block template (i.e., I avoid using Twinkle) because I don't want to dignify them and also because I don't want their crap pagename adorning my contributions list. (Which is also why I'm posting to you here, instead of there.) Bishonen | talk 21:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, that's fine--the way I feel is that DENY has some value, but I also want to make it clear that they don't own their talk page, that in fact they don't own shit. As I'm getting older I'm getting worse with names; I've no doubt Dr.K. (Dr.L.?) remembers, though. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Vgleer? That's who I suspected it was. Random86 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed

For some reason Checkingfax is repeatedly violating WP:TPO on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince. Could someone put a stop to this and explain to him why he is not allowed to do this, before this spins absurdly out of control? Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already on it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. Guess what I'm watching on TV. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but is the precipitation in Alabama purple at the moment? Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! A compilation of the Prince performances on SNL. Hell of a guitar player. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you start listing all the charitable work he's done you'll be up for a while. And if you just watched the Let's Go Crazy performance from the SNL 40 year anniversary party, you saw how generous he was on stage as well. I'm liking him more and more--I was never a big fan (and I don't care for the color purple...), though I always appreciated his artistry. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 :::I don't know, but is the precipitation in Alabama purple at the moment? [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 ::::Nope! A compilation of the Prince performances on SNL. Hell of a guitar player. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 04:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
+::::If you start listing all the charitable work he's done you'll be up for a while. And if you just watched the Let's Go Crazy performance from the SNL 40 year anniversary party, you saw how generous he was on stage as well. I'm liking him more and more--I was never a big fan (and I don't care for the color purple...), though I always appreciated his artistry. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 04:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)