User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:51, 19 May 2014

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, 150

Well

[1]? Is it an invention? Is the Christmas tree an invention? An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field. Hafspajen (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK; he is blocked. Hafspajen (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were right, though: the Christmas tree was invented by Saint Boniface. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonifac? Hafspajen (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the editor is an adherant of the Lutheran theory. As to Boniface, that was an oak. Beyond that, I will endeavor to maintain neutrality. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor, - was. Yes, Yngvadottir.

Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look it up, Yngvadottir. Boniface lived for more than eighty years and I will fight all your efforts to reduce his life to the size of a tweet. DYK...that Saint Boniface wrote a grammar book? DYK...that Saint Boniface gave up a cushy job running a monastery to go slumming in Germany, before the Autobahn? DYK that Boniface served under three popes? DYK...that Saint Boniface told his companions to lay down their arms and accept martyrdom in Frisia? DYK...that Saint Boniface invented the Christmas tree? DYK...that Saint Boniface had asked to be buried next to a woman? etc. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And since Haffy titled this section "Well": DYK...that at the place of Saint Boniface's martyrdom a horse got a hoof stuck in the mud, which after extrication caused a well of fresh water to spring up in the brackish environment of the Frisian swamp, a well which later was claimed to be the "Brewer's Well" from which the Dokkum brewers drew their water, and which is now a basin with water from which a young child named Nefthys Brandsma was cured of the whooping cough? Well, did you know that? Drmies (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved the above hook. Too long, too sexy, too naked. Haffy (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK... that Dutch restaurant De Rôtisserie was criticized so severely by a restaurant magazine that the magazine was threatened with a boycott but that the restaurant was awarded a Michelin star a few months later? (Too bad that I still have to write the article about that restaurant, but the riot is real.) The Banner talk 22:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As I say, I will endeavor to remain neutral and thus not to mention Redbad or for that matter Penda. But I note that Ælfric wrote a grammar book that so far as I know has yet to be rendered into modern English - one of those tasks I neglect for Wikipedia :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Ælfric of Eynsham, and I see it was done in '08, good :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wells are deep subjects... (cue trombone). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Feminine beauty ideal.... Xanty? Yngvadottir? Haffy (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm… (gets Swann Morton number 3 out, starts first cut) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if all the uncited points of view are removed from that article, all that'll be left is copyvio. Responses from fairy tales??? Consequences??? Madame Hedhurtz now. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an exciting topic. Glad you're doing some work on it. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of shapes with metaphorical names Hafspajen (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat in email

Could you tell me how and where do I report a legal threat that has been sent using Wikipedia email? The help page suggests to report at ANI, but there I can not post email.
Plus could you check this short paragraph Adhisaya_Ulagam#Release_and_reception? The film had a poor box office record, the information is sourced by one highly reliable newspaper ToI and another more or less reliable source.
Now they want to remove the entire reception and box office sectionTito☸Dutta 18:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a registered account? Why don't you send it to me and I'll see. In the meantime, I'll ping Beeblebrox, Moonriddengirl, and Newyorkbrad; maybe one of them is online and has better advice to offer. Plus, I may not be on for very long. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is from a registered account you have found already. I have sent a copy of the last email to you. Tito☸Dutta 19:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I blocked. That was unacceptable. Keep me posted if there's further disruption of one kind or another. Beeble, MRG, NYB, see User talk:Kurtwagen18 or ping me if you have any questions or comments. Note that I removed email also (it was abuse of the email function as well), but I let them keep talk page access. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to take a look if you think it would be helpful, but beyond explaining our policy and blocking the account, I'm not sure what else we could do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Newyorkbrad. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Hollick

This article came in via AFC this evening about the man who might well have pioneered the concept of sex with a hoover, and I'm sure one of you lot can help improve it. There's some content on Google Books that can be used. I'd love to help, but I've got to break up a fight between two children upstairs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, sincerely, would you like to have sex with a hoover? Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firm opposition toward masturbation, homosexuality, celibacy, and interracial relations was upheld by Hollick Nature abhors a vacuum. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything or my laptop would have been ruined. Thank you for the laugh. Now I will be trying to figure out your username for the next few hours. Bgwhite (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, the two girls are sleeping outside, in the tent. Nice and quiet. But last night I found them on blankets in their clothes closet. Children are idiots, don't let anyone tell you different. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I call that inventive. YOU would never thought of sleeping in a closet, right? Hafspajen (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've never intentionally fallen asleep in a closet...although woke up in one at least once the panda ₯’ 10:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive Chilean IP is back on Ian Gow

Remember that IP editor from Chile who responds with abuse every time there is a content dispute? User talk:200.104.245.226 may jog your memory. Just a heads up, he is back [2]. W C M_email 09:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see any abuse--where is it? "Cruft"--well, what you all have been fighting over is the brand of the car, and it strikes me as cruft as well. It's just another stupid edit war, and I'll tell you what you can do, given that the article talk page hasn't seen discussion since 20 fucking 11. Actually, this goes for the IP as well. There needs to be an RfC here, with one or two sharply formulated questions to settle this nonsense. Because this is really nothing more than a content dispute in which neither party has some kind of automatic upperhand. In other words, as long as the IP can keep their nose clean, language-wise, you are no more right than they are and I see no need for admin intervention. In yet more other words, if you're both edit-warring you're both at fault.
Sorry, but them's the shakes. You know I like to shoot straight, and I give no advantage to either party--not to you because you're registered, not to them because I think they have a good point. Thank you, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for admin intervention. (emphasis added) As you noted the last time, at User talk:200.104.245.226 I didn't treat the guy differently just because he was an IP. His response Cunts, Cunts Cunts You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster". You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster". and to make the singularly untrue claim that I reverted him solely because he was an IP.
Were this a named account the abuse he handed out would have seen him blocked long ago. He repeatedly gets away with it as he rotates IPs regularly. I simply alerted you, as you were familiar with the previous problems not to seek advantage in the vain hope I could edit without being abuse. I disagree as to your point on the make of the car, it was a modest cheap little car which gives insight into what the man was like. You can dismiss it as cruft if you like, I disagree and the consensus on the talk page agreed with me at the time.
Shoot straight by all means and I have no problem with that. Cooper's 4th rule is know what your target is and more importantly what is behind it. Don't shoot the messenger when all they want is a lid kept on the abuse. W C M_email 15:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WCM, there is (as yet) no abuse, only a continuation of an old conflict. I'm simply telling you that the only way to solve this is to get broad consensus, and then, if that RfC goes your way, every continuation of the edit war on their part is disruptive and blockable. (I do not see any consensus on the talk page at all, by the way.) I have no opinion on the "what if it were a registered account" thing--well, I do, and I think you are not correct, but I'm not shooting anyone here, I'm just trying to get this settled. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, any editor whose talk page contributions are CUNTS, CUNTS, FUCK YOU, YOU DOPEY CUNT wouldn't be blocked? As for not shooting the messenger, all I asked was for someone who knew about the past to keep a lid on abuse, whilst I tried to discuss it. As for shooting the messenger, you state above that I'm equally at fault. Really? Who remained civil, who tried to engage in talk and who simply yelled CUNT. W C M_email 20:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP 92.234.25.254 has no talk page contributions. The other IP did, and didn't I block it? There is no abuse as of yet so there is nothing to keep a lid on. And I'm not talking about you being at fault in civility, so please don't put words in my mouth: I was talking about the edit war. I still don't see how you don't see that putting the make of the car in there gives insight into the man's character: it's OR, SYNTH. Now, for the last time, I have supplied for you an avenue through which you can solve this once and for all, something that will give you carte blanche to revert, since it can easily be argued that your last revert was not kosher. I don't know why you're not listening to that, instead of harping about insults slung months or years ago. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venomous Voice

Drmies, can I ask for you to double check my translations of the Dutch quotes at Soeara Berbisa? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you may. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Crisco 1492, that's a pretty patronizing quote there. BTW, are you sure you want to call the Soerabaijasch Handelsblad a "Dutch newspaper"? Dutch-language, sure, but doesn't "Dutch" mean "published in Dutchland"? And you cite that paper pretty regularly: shall we just write up the article? Drmies (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, eh? "Civilised". I'm pretty sure these papers had different reviewers, since the review of Harta Berdarah even used the word "Indonesia". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for writing an article... I'll see what I can get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User abusing multiple accounts for making unsourced edits/inflation of numbers on articles relating to the Armed Forces of Albania

Hello Dr. The other day you blocked DHalilialbania201197 indefinitely for being a sock of Denis Halili, created and used in order to avoid scrutiny, and previous warnings. Today a new obvious sock popped up, Denis20Halili01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), adding the exact same unsourced material to the exact same articles. So I thought you might to whack both the new sock and the until now unblocked master. I could file an SPI, but a), it would most probably take several days (not for me to file it but for someone to look at it), and b), the socking is so obvious here that it doesn't take much of an investigation to see that they're one and the same... Thomas.W ^talk 13:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thomas.W. Blocked, and now I blocked the main account as well, indefinitely. Listen, go file that SPI please, even if it's just pro forma, so we can collect some CU evidence in case this does not stop and gets more sophisticated. I can't rightly figure out if we're dealing with some teenage vandal or with someone who works or worked for that army and is genuinely interested in improving those articles (or, really, the army's reputation), and doesn't want to figure out how to edit positively. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the blocks. The SPI report is underway, in fact it was half completed when your notification popped up... Thomas.W ^talk 14:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work

I happened to read your comments on an RM for the Assault Weapons Legislation article. Very thorough, very methodical, very clear. That is some first-rate admin-ing.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Ping

I left a reply to you on the Assault weapons legislation in the United States talk page. It begins, "No problem." I am typing this on my phone's little touch pad. Will be gone one week but will check in as able... most likely this way unless son lets me take his notebook computer. Will you please help me keep an eye on that discussion while I'm gone? I'll be back May 26. Lightbreather (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe. I don't know. I'm getting kind of tired of the whole thing, and this latest move edit war is the icing on the cake. A little netbook, BTW, makes a nice birthday gift to yourself: my Toshiba NB505 is less than 300 bucks and has a great keyboard. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But I want you to know, that in addition to finding Scal's comments and edits to be against policy, he personally scares me. I think one thing WP could do to bring in more women editors is enforce the civility policies a little better. When I'm here - especially on gun related pages - I feel like I've walked into a dark bar full of men - many of them cranky bastards. It should be more like a best-places-to-work conference room of civil men and women. Lightbreather (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm glad you've archived your discussions. That last comment Scal made at me [3] was not only his usual mean crap, but it was creepy scary, too. I sat with my husband drinking my coffee for 10 minutes debating whether I should reply, but your archiving saved me. I live in a world where this happens - Spitting, Stalking, Rape Threats: How Gun Extremists Target Women - so when guys who edit WP gun articles game and belittle me, it truly does scare me. (I live in Arizona, and I am an acquaintance of Jennifer Longdon. Gun bullies say her story is made-up - but they also think the guvment is comin' to take they's guns. These guys are crazy scary, and nobody can convince me that there aren't some assigned - perhaps even paid - to edit Wikipedia. I'm not saying Scal is one of those guys, but dollars to donuts some of the guys I've worked with are. And Scal's behavior does not reflect well on Wikipedia or his own character or intentions.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't rightly know what to say here, but I will assume that Scalhotrod is on the level and isn't trying to scare. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies, I'm thankful for your archive as well. Lets hope that LB doesn't try to convince others that her personal fears are anything other than her creation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's enough, Scalhotrod. We live in a violent world, and in general I may well share some of her fears. Let's bring the temperature down, not up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit tags

The tag compared to the edit is priceless...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're a dumbass? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been a dumbass for years, juts ask Mrs. Kelapstick. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh really?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep! Pff, what's this me throwing the f-bomb around? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Might I present exhibit A (although I was quite fond of my response)? Did you miss all the excitement here yesterday? My comment over there was regarding this edit summary on your talk page, and then this response to it being reverted. It was a grand mix up, but I think everyone is happy and sipping their afternoon tea. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. Well. I didn't get it--the link to that list of tags, and what that had to do with someone pretending to be you saying you're a dumbass. I guess I should look at this page's edit history more often: I didn't see that Wee Curry Monster's edit was reverted and now that I do, I have to congratulate WCM on that, since I find that tremendously humorous. And looking at the history, I see that I have a message from an old friend, so I'll go read that now. Speaking of people who aren't dumbasses, did you see what Crisco 1492 manage to do with Surabaijasch Handelsblad overnight? Respek. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Sigh... It makes it no longer funny when I have to explain it to you. The text was indeed and i may not know much but i am a dumbass..., but the edit filter taged it as (Tag: Possible self promotion in userspace). And yes, that comment WCM made was quite humourous, and apropos, but some people just don't have our high class wit, and we must look after them now. Be sure they are not offended and all. Anyhow, it is tea time. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/I Got U

Drmies, Launchballer has suggested a new hook after you told him the original one was uninteresting. Can you please take a look at it? Many thanks.

PS: Apologies for not doing anything with the Poklonskaya nom, but I think it's sufficiently controversial that it should be closed by an admin who's familiar with DYK, and I am not an admin (nor do I want to be). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Is it closed yet? My computer slows down to a crawl when I look at that 130k monster. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, maybe you can ask some of the admins I pinged, or find another one, to close it. While that beast is hogging up space I really don't want to go anywhere near it, and as long as this keeps dragging on the article's proponents have no reason to believe that a qualified majority and editorial/administrative experience counts for anything at all. I mean, the folks opposing it didn't just fall of a turnip truck, and their comments need to be taken seriously, if only to put the lie to this "it meets the requirements so it should run" stuff. For the sake of DYK, and a few other sakes, please get someone to close it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember not, Lord, our offences! My fault, I supplied another hook, and instead of taking that they argue about still a better one and if it the article may have one or two images. - I won't mind a translation to nl of the useful phrase, moving to "and be not angry with us for ever" ;) - The discussion in German was amusing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's hilarious, and I'm not even halfway through. Ha, even I have an inkling of who Henry Purcell is, so yeah, that's Axel's problem. And of course we all know who "wir" is in "Du hast Recht und wir unseren Frieden" (BTW, I know it with "Ruhe")--it's men. Yes, we're obviously dealing with someone whose penis got caught between two intelligent women who argued a point correctly, and he had to dick his way out of it. Oh boy. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do horses have hands?

Picture description. A miraculous intervention (1182) by the Virgin Mary in saving the life of the 12th century Portuguese knight Dom Fuas Roupinho, possibly a templar, while he was hunting deer one foggy early morning. Beside the chapel, on a protuberant rock 110 meters above the Atlantic, one can still see the mark made in the rock by one of the hands of Dom Fuas horse.

In memory of the miracle he had a chapel (Capela da Memória) built over the small grotto, where the miraculous statue had been left (c.715) by king Roderic after the monk's death. The first church in O Sítio, was built over the grotto Hafspajen (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked it. At least Nazaré, Portugal had it correct already. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the Nazaré page- a "protuberant rock" is a rock shaped like a stiffy. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK Hafspajen, we have work to do, all of us, including Always Learning, and of course Yngvadottir. AL, can you have a look at the Portuguese article pt:Pederneira (Nazaré), to see if it has any quality at all and if it's worth translating--I think, after some Googling, that it has notability. In that case, part of the history needs to split off from Nazaré, Portugal, because the church, for instance, properly belongs to Pederneira. In addition, AL, I'd like for you to look at this here to see if it appears accurate and somewhat in line with the pt-wiki Pederneira article. For instance, I need to know if the Alcoa river in that source is indeed the Alcoa River. It would be nice to get a map, too--I have a hunch that the Pederneira Bay, if indeed it is still called that way, is an important geographical feature and it might be nice to look at. (The Portuguese articles don't have anything.) And I wonder if Sítio needs an article, but maybe that's of later concern (see pt:Sítio da Nazaré). Besides there are associated articles: I know that Candleabracadabra could have a field day with something like pt:Elevador da Nazaré.

Alright. AL, we could really use your help here. Let's see if we can put this town and area on the map properly. Bishonen, do you know a mapmaker on the English wiki, or should I try the Graphics Workshop again? Drmies (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bunchofgrapes left… :-( But I'm delighted to see that Johan Elisson, official mapmaker for the Andrée expedition, is again editing a little; I thought he left too. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Xanthomelanoussprog, I pruned your stiffy and created Pederneira. Now how about the bay? Drmies (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think geography needs to be made clear here. Church of Nossa Senhora da Nazaré, the church, is on O Sitio, a hilltop. It does not seem to belong to Nazare properly (it's not part of the Portuguese article the way it is part of the English article), and that makes sense since it's on a hilltop and Nazare is on the seaside. Always Learning, what say you? Drmies (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 - PT:WIKI entry of the Pederneira neigbourhood seems tidied up and written in neutral language, has no refs though; 2 - Yes it is the same river, 100% positive. I profit from the opportunity to say i'll be leaving WP for good after the 2014 FIFA World Cup, this time no turning back, i'm not having fun (no way, quite the contrary) anymore, for quite some time. Wish i could have been of more help, happy week to Mies and everyone that participated in this exchange. --AL (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a small bit to Pederneira (woke up after 3 hours sleep to find that I need to write something about a bay- right I see it's Pederneira Bay, I'll check it out in a few hours time). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complains, complains

List of Toy Story characters ...eh. Hafspajen (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine and Native Hawaiian cuisine

I was unable to move the draft back to the article title so a history merge or admin intervention is needed. I have taken the article to a deletion discussion so the community can weigh in on how best to handle the subject. Given your interest in the dispute over Hawaiian foods I am letting you know so that you can provide whatever assistance is needed. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but K-stick has already taken care of it. I accept your apology, Drmies (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies. I had previously moved this cut and paste pastiche from Hawaii-related articles into draft space with this rationale. Please notice, Candleabracadabra did not reply to that discussion, but instead copypasted the draft space article into the redirect and nominated it for deletion to clean up the page history. Once again, Candleabracadabra refuses to engage in a discussion about problems with his edits. I think the article should be moved back to draft space or his personal sandbox, as it is not ready for mainspace. It is simply a duplicate fork of the cuisine of Hawaii article, most of which has nothing to do with Native Hawaiian cuisine. I have temporarily remedied that problem by removing it, but Candleabracadabra is continuing to add too many images and surround the text, even after this problem has been pointed out to him several times in multiple discussions on article talk pages and his user talk page. There appears to be a serious competency issue at work here that goes beyond any simple content dispute. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I am going to leave this up to K-stick, who is thoroughly read up on the matter, though I will be glad to monitor the situation. Thanks, and do keep me posted wherever it is by pinging me, if necessary. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For you

	The Silent Award
	Sadie the black Labrador Retriever... Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hafspajen. I was just thinking today about Sadie getting old. Our neighbors had to put their dog to sleep the other day, and I can't help but wonder. I should be stocking up on bourbon already, cause I'll be a basket case. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but she is not that old... Hafspajen (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as old as my marriage, and we're all limping along, haha. Seriously, she'll be 11 this fall, and her old football injury (meniscus? our vet in Knoxville was a former football player, and that's what he called it) is getting worse and worse. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This helps always for football injury elderly dogs.Hafspajen (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonator needing a block

Hello Dr. Since you seem to be online I thought I'd post here too, in addition to the report I filed at WP:UAA. Could you please block BilCat litter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They're impersonating/targetting user BilCat (see contributions). Thomas.W ^talk 20:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have time to spare Dave de Silk Air 11-85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another imeprsonation account, that is directly linked to "BilCat litter" (see contributions). Thomas.W ^talk 20:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Both users have been whacked now, so nothing here to do... Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Can nothing be done about Scalhotrod's and his ownership issue with the Assault weapons ban page? In addition to moving it unilaterally without discussion, he is now removing as many instances of the word ban as he can get away with. Aren't these articles under discretionary sanction? Isn't what he's doing completely contrary to those. Please, please help. I'm on vacation for a week and losing weeks and weeks of work. All I have to work from is my phone. Please help. This can't possibly be acceptable behavior. He's also scrubbed all but one instance of the word ban from the Roberti-Rooms article. Please help. Lightbreather (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article falls under discretionary sanctions. I'm a bit busy right now with dinner prep (need to make rice and beans the easy way) and can only do little things, and intermittently. But we have ArbCom on call, in the shape of Beeblebrox, who owes me a beer (maybe). And isn't Writ Keeper an admin, a bureaucrat, and an ArbCom clerk? And isn't GorillaWarfare on that team as well? Y'all, we can use your help here: I'm just a lowly admin who's been involved in way too many gun-related discussions. In fact, all those articles could do with a bit more oversight. Thanks girls. (I'm appropriating "girls" to mean the old-fashioned "guys".) Sorry Lightbreather, but the three people I pinged are good people and they also know people. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom clerk? Ew, no. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean you can't help, Writ Keeper. Don't make me go to AN. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neck deep in examining piles and piles of diffs from our current case so I am somewhat lacking in spare wiki-time at the moment. If there is anything to this I suggest taking it to WP:AE for action. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it's because I'm totally unfamiliar with the history here, but I don't really see a problem, nor what discretionary sanctions have to do with it. Making edits that another editor disagrees with isn't a blockable offense. There hasn't been any edit-warring over the changes Lightbreather is talking about, and at least on the surface, they appear to be good-faith, so I'm not sure what you really expect me to do about it; as everyone knows, admins don't rule on content decisions. Is there any particular reason why discussion on the talk page or escalation to venues like DRN can't be tried here? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also

In addition to being on a mission to wipe out as many uses of "assault weapons ban" as possible, he also is unilaterally removing "high-capacity magazine" wherever he can. No discussion. No matter how well sourced or how long they've been part of the lexicon... these terms must not be used on WP (according to Scal's and a half-dozen other editors. They have battled editors over this (not just me) for years. Here's the latest: [4] Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, I looked at a few edits and I can't say that they are prima facie disruptive, which means that I simply can't do much as an admin. [It is not immediately obvious that changing "ban" to "legislation" is, for instance, politically motivated--and you have to understand that I am writing this as an editor and an admin, not as someone who is offended by the letters to the editor in my local newspaper.] As usual, the case is to be made on the talk page. You are, of course, free to revert (as the second step in the BRD cycle), as long as you make sure that you yourself don't fall into Discretionary Sanction territory. I saw that Scalhotrod had been notified, and I am sure you have too. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kelapstick, remember how you told me that the only way grilling is successful is with beer and undivided attention? Please have a look at these matters, since I'm out for a while. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuca

Should this page be a disambiguation? It seems to me that cassava is the main subject. The only other yuca subject is a redlink. And a hatnote link can be kept to Yuca (disambiguation) for the yucca subjects. Clearly my process and procedure knowledge is insufficient to know how to process this kind of housekeeping and I've already disappointed Kelapstick once today. If it's too much to handle or involves lots of acronyms we can just let it go. There is only so much Wiki knowledge I can acquire in one day. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question on behavioural problem

I want to know if you created this article Denise Donnelly just to make more trouble.

It was a content that was put up for deletion and got merged on the wrong place. We had enough trouble with this content, [5], SandyGeorgia, see edit comment and quite a lot of other editors, including me. At the Celibacy talk page half of the talk page is about this issue. Notice that that there was a WP:AfD WP:Consensus on this topic of involuntary celibacy. That said that the topic does not deserve its own Wikipedia article and is to merge the topic to the Celibacy article either. Admin Joe Decker closed that issue. And then suddenly you pop up and start getting involved. Hafspajen (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen, why are you bringing up a subject related to involuntary celibacy on Drmies talk page? I try to assume good faith, but this seems very pointy. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen I would suggest if you have a problem with the article(s) in question, you bring it up on the talk page, or a problem with CACs creating articles in general, you bring it up on his (I am presuming his) talk page. I can look into your Yaca question of you would like Candleabracadabara. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because I was curious. I think this is a general behavioural issue that belongs here or above, Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine topic, or maybe on the discusson on the other topics, that are much similar, on Kelapstick talk page, but Drmies is following this issue as well. By the way, two other people are already brought that up at the right talk page. Hafspajen (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes, well sometimes it is best to stick to the topic at hand. In this case Yuca, which would be suitable as the primary topic, of you are interested Candleabracadabara. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested. Is there anything I need to do to make it happen? Some sort of rain dance? A copious offering of poi? The solving of multiple rubiks cubes simultaneously? Or is there an easier way. I have had quite enough of the attacks for one day so I don't want to do anything wrong and upset the WikiGods. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can either nominate the disambiguation page for deletion to make way for a page move, or you can wait and I will do it for you tomorrow. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am often told that I have the patience of a Saint. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss this it probably deserves it's own section. Please assume good faith. I am also not sure Drmies will appreciate this discussion taking place on his talk page. But be that as it may, creating an article on the associate professor whose writing's have been the subject of some controversy seemed to me a reasonable outcome given that the AfD close did not work out and the merge was reverted (per what I read on the revdel or whatever the wp:refund Wikispeak is for that subject. I guess I would simply close by saying that I have no objection to moving this discussion to the article talk page or to anyone initiating a deletion discussion for the new article or to any other action that is carried out with respect and consideration and without any attacks or assumptions of bad faith. Discussion is probably the best first step and I always think it strange that it isn't more common as a first step on Wikipedia. That said, as I've noted, this may not be the best place. We have to be respectful of the various sensitivities of our editing community and to whatever disabilities, challenges, or obstacles they may or may not face. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not try to evade the basic question, with this what section we should use for discussing this off topic thing. Why are you creating an article on a topic that has consensus to be deleted and that has WP:Undue weight, see also above. Hafspajen (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments are called Irony and discuraged on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:POLITE. So do you have something to SAY that is constructive or just use your sense of humor to make fun of us? Hafspajen (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also suddenly everybody knows what Drmies will say or think. You let HIM speak. Hafspajen (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I asked, before we started talking about rain and Rubic cubes: You create an article of a content that was put up for deletion and got merged and again was voted for unimportant, badly sourced and not to include or have a separate article on. At the Celibacy talk page half of the talk page is about this issue. Notice that that there was a WP:AfD WP:Consensus on this topic of involuntary celibacy. That said that the topic does not deserve its own Wikipedia article and is not to merge the topic to the Celibacy article either. And then suddenly you pop up and start getting involved. This is what I asked. Hafspajen (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination), and here redirect [6], and article created. Hafspajen (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because I think her work is notable. The previous AfD was on involuntary celibacy, not her and her work. It closed as merge and was pretty contentious and the merge was reverted. As I mentioned, there was a request to restore the article because it was not merged. I think including the subject in appropriate context ie. as being based on her research and writings is very reasonable. There is probably a case to be made that she and her work aren't notable, so I guess we'll see what happens. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, YOU decide that. How about all the previous discussions? See also Talk:Celibacy#Incel. You ignore them, and you ignore what the community decides. Do you realize that this decision is not appropriate ? Hafspajen (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a community process, and what you do is against broader community consensus. This is disrespecting the consensus. Hafspajen (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of the discussion there. Much of it seems not to be about the article I created but about the subject more broadly and whether it should be a stand-alone article or merged or handled in some other way. A couple of comments do note the actions I took and one editor said they plan on taking the new article to AfD. I'm not seeing a consensus one way or the other as far as Denise Donnelly and her work is concerned. Am I missing something? Maybe you can summarize the key points for me? I acknowledge that I don't know a great deal about involuntary celibacy so perhaps others here with more knowledge or experience related to the subject can weigh in? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have them summarized ten times on the talk page, no need to ask for that. Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have a very short attention span. But I am sure it will get sorted out soon and that the new article will be deleted if in fact that's the best outcome. I think it looks okay although it probably needs a little trimming and tucking and a great deal more photos. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You go and write an article that the incudes material that was decided on previously and you do this against broader community consensus. And you say you are not an expert on the field, so WHY do you do this? Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either a) I am an idiot or b) I am a genius. Maybe both. Or neither. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:09, 19 May 2014 view source Hafspajen (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 86,543 edits →Additional question on behavioural problem ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:51, 19 May 2014 view source Candleabracadabra (talk \| contribs) 25,793 edits →Additional question on behavioural problem Next edit →
Line 209:		Line 209:

	:* You go and write an article that the incudes material that was decided on previously and you do this against broader community consensus. And you say you are not an expert on the field, so WHY do you do this? [[User:Hafspajen\|Hafspajen]] ([[User talk:Hafspajen\|talk]]) 03:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)		:* You go and write an article that the incudes material that was decided on previously and you do this against broader community consensus. And you say you are not an expert on the field, so WHY do you do this? [[User:Hafspajen\|Hafspajen]] ([[User talk:Hafspajen\|talk]]) 03:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
			:::Either a) I am an idiot or b) I am a genius. Maybe both. Or neither. [[User:Candleabracadabra\|Candleabracadabra]] ([[User talk:Candleabracadabra\|talk]]) 04:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)