User talk:Drmies

Warga Notability

I added some more content on my article on Jake Warga including a reference to a New York Times article about how he got his start in public radio. As a result, as based on ChildofMidnight's belief that Warga is probably a notable figure, are you willing or able to remove the notability tag?

Thanks,

George R. Brumder (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• George, thanks for your note. I can't say I'm all that convinced, though the NYT article helps. However, I have found some other references to his work (besides all the NPR mentions), and I think you should add whatever you can. I'll remove the tag, but another editor might not be so convinced. CoM feels differently than I do on these matters; he says, rightly, that one doesn't easily find sources on journalists given the nature of their work, but that their importance can be established nonetheless (though in different ways); I say, and I think rightly, that the regular requirements in WP:RS and WP:V should apply here as well. Fortunately, I think that in this case the standard can be met, though the article needs to add a couple more of the things delivered by Google News, and I've just emailed you the text of an article that devotes at least a couple of sentences to him (that you can use in the Transom section). Still, other editors might require more. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help (I added the reference you sent) and for removing the tag, though I'm aware another editor might restore it (my fingers are crossed, however). I absolutely get your point about the difficulty of establishing notability for a journalist but there are a ton of other journalists on Wikipedia several with few sources beyond their own web page. Anyhow, New York Times or not, what I think matters most in this case, as CoM noted, is that we're talking about someone who has produced work that millions of people have listened to (and he's been asked to produce more of it). Any other thoughts as to how I could establish bulletproof notability? You can't believe that NO journalist is notable. Thanks again, George R. Brumder (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong: I do not believe that journalists are not notable, far from it. But the rules for Wikipedia are outlined in WP:N and that is what we should stick to. Many journalists meet that threshold, easily--see Category:American journalists, for instance. (And there might be journalists there with fewer references than Jake Warga, but that's beside the point: see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.) Bullet-proof notability will come from a sufficient number of sources that discuss the journalist in question, and while CoM may be right about someone (possibly! potentially!) being listened to by millions of people, the first proper question to ask is, is it verifiable? and the second, how relevant/important is this person? Millions of people, no doubt, look at that woman who's in the TV ads for that insurance company--Progressive?--and that could conceivably be verified, but that in itself does not establish notability, in my opinion: notability comes from a subject being mentioned and discussed in secondary and tertiary sources. Thanks for your note, and happy editing, Drmies (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Your wikilink to "WP:Wikipedia:Other stuff exists" doesn't work -- is that b/c of the WP: you added? I've seen that before but I don't know why people do it and why it didn't work this time. Anyhow, I found the reference and I knew you'd "say" that, and you were quite right to do so -- my error (if there is one) isn't excused by someone else's. In fact, I almost didn't mention the other articles b/c I know it's not a valid argument. Your pointing me to the link confirms that. So, thanks. As for the Progressive example, you're right that millions of people may see her but she's not necessarily the *subject* of the commercial so I'd agree she's not notable. With Mr. Warga, however, he's the creator of the work so if people hear it on the radio, it's HIM their hearing. However, I also get your point about people "possibly! potentially!" hearing his stuff since I have no proof that anyone other than me listened to the radio when his stuff aired. But, doesn't the fact that it's on a major outlet like NPR make it *likely* that millions of people heard him and doesn't the fact that they keep buying his stuff mean the people who hear it want more? Sorry for taking up so much of your time. I'm just getting used to the world of Wiki and, so far, I love it! Thanks again! George R. Brumder (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Sure, that's likely, of course--but again, that doesn't automatically translate into notability. The article, I should imagine, is safe, and you've done good work, so congratulations. (BTW, I tried to find a bit more information, something that would provide a nice "hook" for WP:DYK, but was unable to find it.) Keep up the good work, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Crossfire

Hey, what happened to all the political discussions? That was the only worthwhile stuff you've had on here in a long time. Oh well. Back to the drawing board. I thought you'd be more interested in the motorcycle company. I thought it was kind of cool. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• What motorcycle company? Drmies (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reconstruction Motorworks. Big game this weekend. Utah State at Hawaii.  :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is huge--I'll make sure to stay up late. Hey, that motorcycle article, you should get to work on it: it doesn't even mention what kind of engines they use! I have been working on Opzij, to help the cause: I'm sure you approve. Later, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey CoM, can you find a DYK hook for Jake Warga? Drmies (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't get past the first sentence of your Opzij article. What does it mean to say something is a "mainstream" Dutch feminist magazine? I would take the monthly and the meanstream and break them out in another sentence. What you mean by mainstream needs to be clarified I think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Drmies (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is Wayne Warge wikilinked? Is it expected that he will have an article? For a hook I would go with... that Jake Warga was as an assistant cameraman on Witchboard 2: The Devil's Doorway, The Prophecy 3: The Ascent and Mimic 2 before becoming a story contributor for National Public Radio and other radio shows. I can't really root for Bama or LSU. But I'll be pulling for something to give you hard time about whatever the outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for that suggestion! (I've chose to ignore one of your suggestions.) Drmies (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Jake Warga author has something in his sandbox about Wayne. LadyofShalott 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the sweet 80 yard touchdown reception your hero Alshon Jeffery just scored? Good stuff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William Parente

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is William Parente. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Parente (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I inserted the quote box (and the entire biographical section) during the last AfD. I'm of the opinion that this is news, not encyclopedia material, but if we must include it, then humanizing the subject is the least we can do. BusterD (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Jake Warga DYK nom

This is very nice, but all I did was categorize it and remove some of the excessive wikilinks. LadyofShalott 02:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Which is a very necessary and often ungrateful job--thank you for helping produce a clean WP article! I am sure User:Grbrumder appreciates your help as much as I do. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! :) LadyofShalott 02:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly DO appreciate your help. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia contributing and so far, everyone's been most kind and helpful. Thanks to all who've helped me this time!George R. Brumder (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

First they went after Jan and now this!

Eddie's Bar ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers

I just found this Google books source, which gives a wealth of information on old Dutch newspapers. As I suspected, there are in fact several other fairly old newspapers, although we'll have to sort out what exactly happened to some of them. The Leeuwarder's main claim to fame may be that it is the oldest newspaper that still uses the same name (since 1797, before that it was the Leeuwarder Saturdagse Courant). Ucucha 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And he also says why it's so difficult to find sources: "Pershistorie is het stiefkind van de Nederlandse journalistiek." Ucucha 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This, from the Royal Library, may also be useful. Ucucha 16:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I did find that last link--problematic there was that (as far as I could tell) they went by name, so to speak, and what you raise for the Leeuwarder makes that a bit difficult. But I'm on it. Thanks again, and enjoy your weekend. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

[1] LadyofShalott 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

R. K. Narayan

I would like to nominate R. K. Narayan for Featured Article status and would like your opinion on the article (post your evaluation) and how it can be improved to meet the FA criteria. Can you provide feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/R. K. Narayan/archive1? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? I'm having déjà vu all over again! Isn't Spliff supposed to be working on the articles for Gita Mehta and Matisyahu? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought Spiffy was back doing wickets! Drmies (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have one list still at FLC, so I can't nom another one just yet, so no point in creating another wicket list now. As for the patron saint of non-notables, throwing these articles my way isn't going to result in my touching them :) Doc, could you resend the email? Apparently gmail terminated the account I used for Wikipedia as someone else tried to login! cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case I won't even try to tempt you with milk paint, tiatr, posola, chacarero, cassareep and fish carving. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And you continue to tell me that this voice has no impact on you not wanting to work on the article?-SpacemanSpiff

I didn't like the one with the piano. It needed a lot more cowbell [2] [3]. But the second one was lovely. Add in a little tabla [4] and you'd really have something magical.

<--Eh, what are we listening to? And why? I'm sure you were talking to CoM--I am always willing to work on articles; Cassareep can do with some expansion. CoM, where do you find this stuff? Spiff, I'll get on the email, hopefully today. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd asked CoM for help in biographical sourcing for M. S. Subbulakshmi as I'd like to (re)write that article. However, in keeping with his reputation as the patron saint of non-notables, he found the subject too notable for his liking. -SpacemanSpiff 14:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I see...charming! Drmies (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mary Abbott (artist)

This article refers to the New York School as a movement. But the New York School article talks about it as a group. Please clarify. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh? OK. A movement and a group, that can really be the same thing. Clear? Drmies (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Even spliced with commas and semicolons you can't turn a movement into a group of people. I understand you're anxious right now, but don't worry. The misery will be over before too long and you can start looking forward to the "bounce back". ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Anxious? Hawaii is going to make mince meat out of those landlubbers. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Suhr Guitars, WP:OR

Hi, saw your edit comment on Suhr Guitars, and just wanted to point out that as a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia it would've been helpful if you linked "OR" to WP:OR. As it stood, I read it straightforward as "what is either or or praise", and that was quite confusing. Apart from that, I agree with your assessment, I'm hoping to rewrite that section of the article to be a little more useful, without becoming an ad. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, thanks for your comment. Many editors do not always note exhaustively in their edit summaries what precisely the issue is, and I'm glad you figured it out. Happy editing. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Is that your Telecaster model? Very nice. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, she's one of mine, thanks :) And btw, thanks for helping on the article, cool to see the content and references added! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bacon Explosion...

...is prepared, just waiting to start cooking it. Wish me luck...--kelapstick (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Don't do it man! We might need you for something. Make sure to take pictures. I will pray for you and Doc will give an offering to his favorite deity I'm sure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you all have a bacon fetish or something? Every time I come here there's something about bacon... Soxwon (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I should have some preperation pictures up when the little guy goes down for his nap, around 2:00. Soxwon, it`s not a fetish, it`s a cabal.--kelapstick (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, a real bacon explosion...you got last week's chicken fried bacon beat, K! But, eh, who in the hell is going to eat 3 pounds of pork in your household? Drmies (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And Soxwon, thanks for stopping by. I wish I could tell you to grab a fork, but this virtual food, unfortunately, can only be shared virtually. Sigh. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

It's ready, I am taking it for poker night, as the mere thought of it makes the missus cringe. Will take more pictures when it's cooked, and will add them, likely tomorrow.--kelapstick (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You lie! You're not a cabal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_cabals. You are therefore, a cult! Soxwon (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you fools learned that there is no cabal? 22:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kelapstick, your masculinity is almost beyond compare. Whether that's a good thing is doubtful, but there you have it. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This from the man who chicken-fried bacon...I will let you know how it turns out. Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just thankful you didn't use canadian bacon, or add ketchup and gravy to the mixture. Doc, do we need to revise interception per the new definition implemented in the Bama game? ;) Also make sure not to lead with your head when tackling quarterbacks, unless you're playing at home! Hahahaha. Looks like you're going to pull this one out. Darn sloppy game all the way around, I would say. I didn't think that pick off your QB was totally his fault. The receiver has to LOOK back if he's going to try to catch passes. And then the other guy drops a ball and there's a safety on the next play. But your QB could work on getting the ball to uncovered receivers. Still, with a little luck and some help from the refs it looks like you're going to pull this one out. I guess it will make the upset that Auburn throws down on y'all in a couple weeks that much more epic (story)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The good news Doc is that I have you guys up to seventh, after some losses by other teams. So it's looking good for an exciting rematch with Utah, a showdown with BYU, or a matchup against TCU. Just remember that failing to prepare is preparing to fail. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding work, k-stick. Please report back. ^Bongo_matic 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a smashing success at poker, although the missus didn't care for it.--kelapstick (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to let us know how you liked it? How did it compare to CCB and CFB? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I loved it, but I haven't tried CCB or CFB (yet) so I can't compare. I am waiting for Doc to invite me over next time he is preparing. But aren't we all?--kelapstick (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bon apetit! I suppose this is why there's been a noted lack of progress on Franco-Nevada? ^Bongo_matic 23:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that was entirely outside of my normal editing period (the real time uploads were lucky). I've been tied up with some other (non-bacon related) real world things lately and am not getting to the content as much as I would like. --kelapstick (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the bacon cabal have representation on Arbcom? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision history of Political scandals of the United States

Please use TALK before reverting edits, and when material is deleted because it is not supported, be aware that Wiki policy requires that you first support challenged material. If you need me to find and share these policies please let me know. Thanks 24.23.60.221 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, that was a heartfelt "thanks." You know I left you a message on your talk page. I should have included an "edit summary warning." Drmies (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice article Doc, did you write that one? <rolls eyes> ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cangiante

Drmies: I do think that the sentence on the counter-intuitive nature of cangiante ought to be restored. The whole heart of the matter is that brightness information is more important than color information in viewing and understanding a scene. Cangiante is not just an obscure painting term of 500 years ago. The visual concerns of the Renaissance artists are exactly the concerns we have today whether we're using Painter XI or Photoshop. By removing the sentence you take out the entire point of the article. Dante4848 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hello Dante, thank you for your note. The problem, as I see it, is two-fold. First, the article lacks inline references; the one reference you give is at the beginning, and that begs the question of whether the rest of the article is verified by that source or by any other--or that it's either unsourced or original research. Second, the tone of some of the sentences (esp. toward the end), and particularly the "it might seem counterintuitive" sentence don't sound very encyclopedic. Combine these two issues and you have, I believe, a good reason to remove that sentence.

  I think you should look again at your source, find some others, and provide good sourcing for all the statements in the article--and if your source contains that "counterintuitive" statement, by all means, stick it back in: but edit it for tone, and give it a good reference. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for First Baptist Church (Montgomery, Alabama)

On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article First Baptist Church (Montgomery, Alabama), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Boston creme doughnut?

Stop dwelling on the past. Jelly doughnut is the kind of article that will get you recognized as a major contributor to the sum of human knowledge. No one cares about your partisan news rags and non-Tina-Turner-like garage bands. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I totally forgot about your fascination with Tina Turner's legs. Sorry--such a big part of your life, and I neglected it. Hey, did you see the First Baptist Church (Montgomery, Alabama) on the frontpage? My girl is on the frontpage of Wikipedia! I'm tickled. As for donuts, they're great, but so is the opportunity to nap. Later! Drmies (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bossche bollen? Is this what the lawn game is named after? Not exactly an endorsement of Dutch cooking I'd say. And oily balls (Oliebollen)? Wow. No wonder you fled to America. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, oliebollen are the BEST. Tonight, I'm grilling: corn (to be made into a salad with feta), chicken (in strawberry jam, chili peppers, garlic, soy sauce), and sirloin. It's nice and warm here; come on over, the beer is cold. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds delicious. Enjoy! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Oily balls (Oliebollen) from Belgium and Nederlands

Thank you for being an official chairperson for the Doughnut Drive 2009 event. We're fortunate to have someone as skilled and expert on this subject as you are. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dude, that list is a mess! Maybe I should go back and italicize all of them... or quotation marks? Whatever it be, it should be consistent. And should all the varieties be redlinked? Drmies (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you see that the Amazing Race is going through your homeland? I feel for the competitors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• You should look at the amazing series of articles on that dumb show--more trivial and unreferenced and in-universe than most manga articles. No, I've never watched it and I don't think I'll start now. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you and Spaceman Spliff going to sign in on the doughnut project??? Everyone is waiting for you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I currently have a higher calling in my Wikipedia life than the pursuit of sugary delights. I am fighting POV and even earned the barnstar of untouchability for that effort (see the edit summary). As you can see, making sure that people know about these things is more rewarding than a jelly filled Krispy Kreme. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Doc, I would say that this is right up your alley [5]. Notice for example the location. What exactly is the house specialty namesake doughnut I wonder? And I see that they have a specialty buttered maple bacon doughnut on select days. But I didn't see anything about oily balls... Maybe Kelapstick knows more about that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Also of interest is that the definitive history gives your brethren credit [6]. Also, what is the status of the Bacon deluxe article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Whoever translated oliekoek as "oily cake" should be taught more about Dutch doughnuts and I will make every effort I can to help in that effort. I'm "copy-editing" your comments: my talk page is a collaborative area of friendship and good will. (clarified by ChildofMidnight) Drmies (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Roy

If you're interested in a better picture for the infobox, there's a PD one at [7]. A couple of other author pics are on commons from that list, so you shouldn't have any problem in using the Roy one I guess. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Masala vadai (மசால் வடை), a deep fried savory doughnut. It is so tasty that it is even used to catch rats

• Thanks--but I think I'm not going to change. That image, though it's nice that it's closer, has a really strong shadow and she looks like she just got a $600 power bill without ever turning the AC on... I looked for an "untouchability barnstar" for you, but the only thing close was Template:InvisibleBarnstar, and I'd have to tweak that. If that untouchability thing comes up more often, we should reconsider. That edit summary, BTW, isn't the worst I've ever seen, but it's pretty close. You're doing something right! Drmies (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think her "barsati" had an AC, so a $600 bill is just not on, especially given that Green Park has more outages than the Delhi average. Oh, you should look at the edit summaries and TP comments for the reverts of my reverts on this list. I have been assigned caste names that I've never heard of before, had jealousy attributed as my motive and so on. Makes me feel special. BTW, I think you guys ought to include some savory doughnuts in your Doughnut Drive. -SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi Drmies,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Apollo High School (St. Cloud, Minnesota)

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollo_High_School_%28St._Cloud,_Minnesota%29&diff=324993305&oldid=324993286 this edit Apologies after having examined my undo. Funnily enough I don't even remember reverting this, I must have clicked the wrong browser tab and hit revert without paying attention; sorry again Ledward (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK--but do be careful. I would also suggest, especially if you are active reverting vandalism, that you should not blank your talk page: it should be a forum where articles but also actions are discussed and, if needs be, explained. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Doughnut Days

Which articles are you working on for the big event? Are you planning to sign-on? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Is this you [8]? What is bosch (apart from an audio company) and bosche bollen? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, I don't know yet--I find it hard to commit. I'm a typical guy, I guess. "Bosch" comes from 's-Hertogenbosch; the Bossche bol] is not a deep-fried item--it's a pastry. A very tasty one, I might add, though a bit heavy. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A little Voodoo for you[9]. And no comment on Dutch Monkey Donuts? The bossche bolles look fried to me. Don't lie Doc! ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Misanthropy

I really must thank you for the work you've done on the article. It's looking much better now. Pollinosisss (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Help me out with it. I've seen your activity in the history, removing unverified and rather random stuff. I'm trying to rebuild the article by giving it a sort of a historical timeline. The first section, "Forms," actually could have been useful if it didn't sound like OR and if it had any kind of verification, but I was unable a. to verify the information in the section and b. to find a source that gave a description of misanthropy along those lines. So--help! I'm stuck in kelp! Drmies (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Doc, I see you're still tweaking out in misanthropy. It's time to rejoin society in collegial collaboration on doughnut and other fried food articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Brabants Dagblad

On November 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brabants Dagblad, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it 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.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for love in all the wrong places...

[10]...um. wow...just wow Tiderolls 07:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Was she nice, that Florida girl? Drmies (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ahem. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • As opposed to bad? What is better is the next edit. --kelapstick (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Ha! I wish I knew how to use those templates, and get a little hanky-panky as a fringe benefit of being a WP gnome. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick Opinion?

I am continuing in my quest to gather suitable references for editing the Missing Persons (band) and the band member pages. In some cases, I am not finding the information that could be used to add to existing content from generally accepted resources.

I am not sure whether I should pose the question as to the acceptability of referencing the Warren Cuccurullo/Duran Duran fan magazine, "Privacy" (example here) on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The author is an assistant librarian at Vincennes University, and has contributed to the bands' and members' Wikipedia pages. What do you think? Doc2234 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Doc, I think it really depends. I don't see how fans' responses to something should ever be cited, and this wouldn't be a very reliable source for it. A more interesting case is the BAM Magazine article--I assume it's not available online from the source, and the information in that article could be interesting. So the question is, would we accept the online version, on a website that is not the magazine or (say) the LA Times? I think I would--it's not much different from accepting, on good faith, a printed source that not every editor can look at. Now, the Cyndi Glass stuff, I don't know who she is, and this particular website does not add to her credibility, so that is not something that I would accept as a reliable source. Go ahead and pose your question: I am not sure at this moment which way I would swing--but in as much as they appear to reproduce (hopefully faithfully) material from other reliable sources, I would proabely accept that. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you. Yes it does help. I will contact her, and ask if she still has, or can direct me to, any source material from which some of her information was derived. It is apparent that a fair amount of her information came from first-hand interaction with the band members at concerts, etc. After I get information from her, I will pose the question. Finding good references that touch upon the issues that are worth noting in the encyclopedia is challenging in the case of the band, and Dale Bozzio. But then that's part of the fun of it all! Doc2234 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Boberg

This article might interest you. It's creation was also part of an experiment where alternate accounts were set up and articles created without proper formatting and/or reference to see how noobs are treated [11]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Some light reading that might prove informative. Tiderolls 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Not wanting to step on anyone's toes, I do have to say that some editors and some admins made asses of themselves. At the same time, I look for the positive also: some editors really latch on to stubs and make something out of them. CoM worked on one of those mentioned in WP:NEWT, and LadyofShalott was a trooper. I myself have speed-tagged too speedily: see Unthanksgiving day, but there I hope I made up for that (look at the history)--it's in the queue for Thanksgiving DYK. And look at this one: I'm pretty proud of that one, which arrived as a stub with great problems and great potential. In other words, I hope I have atoned for where I may have nominated too quickly or in unfriendly terms, and in the last month or two I've become much more careful (I hope) in the CSD field. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we all have incidents we wish could be oversighted (I won't bore you with my extensive list). I will say that your "net positive" is heavily weighted on the "positive" end of the scale. I think I told you I took a shot at new pages once. Very challenging but a bit beyond my depth. I think it took more than an hour to check three articles, and two of those were stubs...lol However, I did make contact with one of the editors and we had an enlightening (for me) exchange. I'm not that bitey so I don't care if admins want to walk among us in disguise. I'll just do my job and take things as they come. Roll Tide Tiderolls 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not "bitey" at all--it was interesting to see the responses by some of the "trapped" editors and admins. Actually, I wish I had some of your patience and manners; I don't suffer fools lightly, I'm afraid. BTW, nice little article on McElroy in our paper this morning; it mentioned a slew of Bama QBs who had gotten criticized, including Freddie Kitchens--and as far as I remember no one ever said anything good about him. Take it easy! Drmies (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Leeuwarder Courant

On November 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leeuwarder Courant, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jake Warga

Hello! Your submission of Jake Warga at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 07:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Waters--I hope I took care of it. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Sorry, I had no idea. I removed the others that were on there. I only added them to show where they were released because usually a date shown is normally for Europe because Unheilig and Joachim Witt albums are rare to come over here. I didnt mean to cause problems :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenshinXSlayer (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Kenshin, it's no problem at all--but as the link I dropped on your talk page shows, there is overusage of these flags, that's all. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cassareep

Hello! Your submission of Cassareep at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs quit?

Where are you going to go now to get your paranoid anti-immigrant pro union misinformation? ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard that on the radio this morning (interestingly enough it was the CBC). I enjoyed watching him, even though if he had his way, I would not live here.--kelapstick (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Joe Scarborough still on? What will you watch now, John Stossel? I saw Current TV is cutting back a bunch also. Doc is partial to Larry Kudlow and Howard Stern if I'm not mistaken. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pro-union?? I used to watch Lou Dobbs, back a half a dozen years ago, until he became this rabid anti-immigration lunatic. But if I want any misinformation, all I have to do is turn on the radio and listen to anything besides NPR--yeah, you know me! Drmies (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

NPR and Jim Lehrer are downright conservative compared to most of of the news programs these days. And what's with that McLaughlin Group? Doc, Pat Buchanan's time has past. It's time to move forward. Si se puede. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Doc is this kind of thing helpful [12], [13]? Do we need to get a checkuser involved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block for butchering Belgium?? That's a tad harsh... Hey, Pat Buchanan, I think he's great. I wish Chris Matthews would let him (and other guests) finish a sentence every now and then. If that sort of courtesy is "downright conservative," then Jim Lehrer has my vote. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Booze

What does this have to do with Cassareep [14]? Does the article need expansion? I'm sure I can find some good stuff to bulk it up if needed. Just say the word. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Phew. Just got done with the expansion--I hope it's enough, cause frankly it's too much trouble for me to get the tool and count and all that. What do you think? If you can find some more on its application as an alcoholic drink, please add. I assume it's a fermentation process and not distillation, but I don't actually know. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle Beyond The Stars plot

Hey, if you have some problem with the way I worded the plot, please let me know what's wrong with it so I can improve it, rather than just reverting it. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Mathew, thanks for your note. If you look, you'll see that I did in fact explain, in the edit summaries--you, on the other hand, simply reinserted that material (using no fewer than 30 edits!) without giving any kind of reasoning. Now you reinserted it again, this time with some edit summaries, but some of the problems I pointed at still remain.

  One example: you say that there is no need to mention characters/actors twice: that's silly, and your removal of these roles from the one-paragraph summary has removed valuable information--your very lengthy play-by-play account takes no heed whatsoever of the relationships between Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven and the current subject: that is a disservice to the article. In one edit summary you said there's no need for a reference for a plot summary--well, with such a convoluted account, that doesn't hold water. Consensus is that there is no need for a reference for a short summary. The problems I noted in the writing remain--for instance, the "then...and then...and then" structure, which indicates merely placing one event after another. That's not summarizing, that's listing every single detail.

  As I suggested in one of the edit summaries, your time is much better spent trying to find some reliable sources to improve the article. No article on Wikipedia was ever raised to a higher level by expanding the plot summary: higher quality comes from better writing and better sources.

  If you want to do the article a favor, and probably the movie as well, reinsert some of the information about characters and roles, in an elegant way. The producers consciously made decisions based on their model--that George Peppard was cast is incredibly important, but you deleted why that was important. At some point, I or another editor will return to that plot, and trim it for economy and rhetorical tightness, and reinsert what was there earlier: unless you do that first of course, which I challenge you to do. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being more constructive. I made sure to add mentions of how characters are similar to TMS, and I tried to copyedit some of my run-on sentences and get rid of the "then"s... It should be noted though that the summary I wrote is still pretty small compard to the films this one is based on. I'll try to look over their writing style and see if I can improve what I wrote. Mathewignash (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathew, writing is revising, that's a fact. (And your last version is better than your first, absolutely.) And summaries can be tricky: how much detail to include? Usually, less is more--the plot for Seven Samurai is huge, as is that for Hamlet: but the latter is a featured article, and a lot of meaningful things happen (though I would divide that summary into parts, for the five acts). But like I said before, much improvement comes from finding reliable sources. Drop Google in favor of Google News and you're likely to find fewer things, but of higher quality. Happy editing, and drop me a line if I can help. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jake Warga

On November 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jake Warga, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it 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.

SoWhy 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the barnstar. Most kind! PamD (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, you're welcome, and you and your fellow sorters deserve a ton of them. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy

I understand your reasoning, but it was also tagged as a possible copyvio by the searchbot.-- fetchcomms☛ 23:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, but look at the article now--no more copyvio. Besides, you didn't mark if for copyvio, you marked it for not being notable... Drmies (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I see... However, I just looked on Google and all the results are of each local chapter's website. (Also, if you are responding here, please don't forget to add a talkback template). Thanks-- fetchcomms☛ 00:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you started a conversation here, so I figured you'd want it to continue here. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for being unclear... I keep forgetting to add where I respond and stuff to my talk page...-- fetchcomms☛ 00:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Salih Archiving

Hi, I just corrected the link....I archived his talk page because it was so huge that my slow net connection was taking a long time loading it........But anyway, i will not repeat the same action in future.....

AruN_KumaRTalK 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's just that this is the sort of thing a user needs to decide themselves. If you are helping someone out who asked for it, that's great (cause archiving isn't always easy), but that's a different matter. Thanks for your note, and happy editing. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tyler john Swanger friggen rocks my socks

Hey. I don't think the article Tyler john Swanger friggen rocks my socks was eligible for a speedy because it was vandalism, but because it didn't state notability. This kind of thinking assumes more good faith. Just sharing my opinion, I dream of horses @ 03:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Come on, with a title like that? Good faith? He added the link to that piece of nonsense to John Madden (and also added that Madden was gay). I mean, "John madden's best friend"--what IS the topic, and how could you possible state notability for something that is not a topic? Is it a biography? I appreciate your effort and thank you for your note, but this was vandalism. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Obvisouly, you knew more of the situation than I did. All I could do is lack paranoia. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dream, seriously--with a title like that and the content "John madden's best friend" you don't need paranoia, and if you imply that I am paranoid for calling that vandalism, I'm going to say that you are not nice. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ode on a Grecian Urn

"perhaps the status of vendler as a critic of keats ought to be included" - All of the critics included at the critical response section of Ode on a Grecian Urn are critics of Keats, as I tend to include only the major scholars in the list. There are a few more works of scholarship that I left out (see the talk page where I am compiling some more). Mostly, it deals with the reception among the critics, with emphasis on the major views/important views. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava, I know what you tend to include, since I have studied that poetry also, and Vendler happens to be one of my favorite readers of poetry. What I would ask is some explicit statement on the status of these critics--verified, of course, and to the point. If critic Y says something about the Ode, and you add that critic Y should be listened to (I had a phrase for Vendler but erased it), that would help the reader--certainly it would help the reader who knows less about the Romantics than you do. I mean, Vendler is one of the leading scholars on Keats, and one of the most renowned close readers of our time; surely that bears mentioning. And if you or I say, for instance, that Milton was of the devil's party, who would care? But Blake said it. Everyone knows, or should know, who Blake is--but not many people know who Vendler is. Thanks for your response, Drmies (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd just get tired typing in "literary critic" every other sentence. :) To Autumn begins each section with "___ century critics say ____" with a generalization. Think that would be enough (1 for contemporary, 1 for later 19th, one for early 20th, and one for later 20th/21st)? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. Before you know it, listing one critic after another, you've written a perfectly adequate sophomore paper, but you (I mean you) could do more. In the lead, you've hinted at some varied responses, and to use that statement as a sort of a frame to organize those responses would increase the coherence and usefulness of your very comprehensive overview of criticism. And the first two paragraphs of that response also follow an arc, though it's not made explicit--early responses were negative, twenty or thirty years later critics found much more to appreciate in the poem. From Richards to Rylance, you discuss the final lines--that's also an arc, and a topic sentence would tie those sections together. The final two paragraphs are a bit harder to make a general statement about, but surely the critics you cite agree on one thing: a century and a half after publication, the important critics agree that the poem is a thing of beauty (enigma, great structure, etc.). The chronological organization of many of such sections in a lot of WP articles is often correct and sometimes quite inclusive, but not always very telling: I personally like a combination of topical and chronological organization, and often it is simply true that different eras are interested in different issues; just think about how Abrams changed the game for critics of the Romantic period, or how pace New Criticism some of the best readers of Keats (Coleridge, Wordsworth) are not afraid to use the letters (letters also for STC, autobiographical poems and DW's diaries for WW) in the interpretation of poetry. Well, for the Romantics you know this better than I do. Happy editing, and thanks again for your (second) note, Drmies (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this - when I have a chance tomorrow, I will put up the last of the critics from seven other books I have (making 12 on the talk page) and we open up a discussion on how to craft them together into nice, tight fitting groups in the critical response that recognizes both chronology but also organizes some into theme? It is always good to have a few eyes on fine tuning a section like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure--but honestly, I don't think you have to do that much work, really. The section is pretty complete already, though mo' is better, I s'pose. Here's what I like to tell people: if you put a whole bunch of stuff together, you probably did so because of some reason, even if you didn't make that reason explicit to you or to the reader. Bring out that reason, those principles on which you organized the material in the first place, and you probably have a pretty tight thing. (I am, I realize, echoing what my dissertation director told me ages ago--stop it, you have enough, start writing.) BTW, that's also the kind of thing I would want to see in an FA, though I don't know if my standards or perspective would be shared by any of those reviewers. I haven't looked at the FA review, but I certainly think all the basic elements necessary for an FA are in the article. BTW, wasn't there some discussion on the quotation marks in line 49, related to the manuscript? Is there anything interesting to say on the textual history, besides the publication in Annals, Examiner, and the collection? I'll grab my books and will meet you tomorrow, if I can--depending on birthday party, nap time, and, ahem, football game. I really like this conversation; you and I haven't always seen eye to eye, but I've always had great respect for your work, though I'm kind of pissed that you beat me to it: you didn't even leave me Songs of the Pixies. Drmies (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to work together on the Songs of the Pixies and some of the Coleridge works, that would be very helpful. The textual history for this poem, unfortunately, is only a little remarkable regarding the quotation marks placed within the final lines. Most critics seem to ignore it even when mentioning it to focus more on the "Ye". As Motion points out "Critics have long debated the question of who speaks these last two lines" but mostly focus on the possible relationship between speaker/audience rather than who the speaker is. However, a section could be started dealing specifically with the last lines with a small expansion to explain the variation in editions (moving the section out of the critical response). There doesn't seem to be any controversy about declaring the final lines as a quote from the urn (more like a musing before arguing the standard interpretation). Ottava Rima (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[15] - "These influences are important, but they should not obscure the fact that Keats's urn is his own invention." Motion p. 391. Does that answer your question?

DYK for Cassareep

On November 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cassareep, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Case sensitive

Drmies,

Yesterday, using TMZ.com as a reference, an editor posted information in the Missing Persons Featuring Dale Bozzio section on the Missing Persons (band) page concerning Dale Bozzio's having gone to jail for the animal cruelty charges.

The band is currently not her's alone. Both she and Warren Cuccurullo are now involved with it, and of course other band members, both original and more recent, have made significant contributions. In order to maintain a proper encyclopedic perspective for the band, I think that the information about her case should be moved to her page. Given that there have been different iterations of the band, under differing ownership, it would be logical to move the entire Missing Persons Featuring Dale Bozzio section over to her page, also.

A challenge in moving the text and reference about her case to the logical location on her page is that it compounds the existing problem concerning the information in her Personal life section, that issue being skewed context with most of the write-up focused upon her court case. Other significant events in her life are worthy of note in the encyclopedia, however, noone to date has added that information. Having read through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, I see the need to quickly add information to her Personal life section. I have a couple of generally acceptable references, however, to offset the volume of text devoted to her case, I will likely find it necessary to source from some of those issues of "Privacy" that we recently discussed. I have not yet had the chance to post the question about "Privacy" yet.

Does an approach such as moving the information to her page, adding info to the Personal life section, and referencing both accepted references and possibly "Privacy" issues with the hope of either having that magazine allowed or finding additional better sources in the near future sound reasonable? Doc2234 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Doc, I guess it sounds reasonable enough. I don't think you'll be able to keep it out of Missing Persons completely--she is, after all, quite significant for that band/article. Sorry, gotta run. But the proof is in the pudding: go for it, and see what happens. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll give it a try. Doc2234 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh!

How's your throat? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• My throat's fine, thanks, though South Carolina lost--but we got a couple of sick kids here, so my throat isn't the most important organ here. Also, USC lost???? Big??? Drmies (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright, there's a bit of peace in the household again. And we're up two scores! Did you turn the motorcycle club into a DYK article yet? Drmies (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that meatloaf and mac and cheese are considered "upscale" down there near where you are. What a sorry state of affairs. I was happy to see USC get rolled pretty good. Why isn't Pitt getting any respect? And they're going to try to work Ohio State back into the mix? And I guess TCU and Boise are in. Which one are you guys going to face after Florida picks you apart? :) I'm supposed to go for Korean BBQ tonight. Have fun. Big lead early. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yes I saw that too. Hey, at least it was bison... Korean BBQ! Sounds great! Hey, didn't they have some sort of deep-fried bacon dish? Yumsters! Drmies (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

SBO Custom Guitars

Notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, a guitar that looks like a Les Paul with a Telecaster head and a Sustainer and a Kaoss Pad is either notable or ugly. I'm going with the last one, unfortunately. I looked in News and Books, and searched Guitar Player--nada. So, I am going to have to go with "no". Thanks for asking! Drmies (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

I replied there. Sorry if this results in a double notice for you. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, but you are quite hostile - it dumbfounds me. I have noted why elsewhere. Chill, please. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

For someone "done hanging out at my talk page", you couldn't resist one more round of incivility, apparently. The other editor felt you were overzealous, and I agree. Kindly keep your bad feelings and inexplicable incivility to yourself, henceforth. What WP:DRAMA - none of it needed, and all instigated by you. For shame. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No pardon necessary. Stop acting like an ass, by reporting people for things that aren't vandalism, and we'll all be fine. You may not realize this, but reporting someone at AIV for a clumsy edit, that's hostile. You're like the little kid crying that the teacher who punished him was being mean--after you tried to blow up a frog; your definition of "incivility" is having your actions being brought out in the open. Also, it is clear that your actions were guided by Geronimo's earlier actions: here you call the substitution of 'vegetable' for 'seed' a good faith edit, and here, all of a sudden, it has become a level 3 offense. And this is something for which that editor should be blocked? Stop whining, and return here AFTER you have explained your grievance to User:NuclearWarfare, who rightly denied your request that the editor be blocked. And then I'll gladly accept your apology. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What is it with you? Incivility is incivility - and everything we all do here is "out in the open". As for calling it Good Faith in my revert, so what? As for level 3 - he had two prior warnings. Why is this such a big deal for you, anyway - and why must you argue on the original editor's talk page, of all places. As for an apology, you'll not receive one from me for other than wasting my time discussing this with you. You seem intent on "punishing" me (and threatening me) for reasons that are not actionable. And, as you yourself stated, describing my motives is inappropriate. You seem very angry for reasons I cannot fathom - but I'm uninterested in engaging with you henceforth. Farewell, my angry, angry fellow editor. May tomorrow find things looking brighter for you. Best wishes, and be of good cheer --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You should restore 4wajzkd02's hilarious display of incivility, since he feels everyone else is not civil to him. It'll show some context. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, OK. I guess this is classic "playing the victim"--reporting some guy for vandalism, three editors and one administrator at AIV turn it down, and then start crying when you're called on it. I did threaten him, by the way, with hauling him off to the etiquette board if he restored the level 3 and 4 warnings he left for that editor at User talk:Quahog10, and then he sang a different tune. I have seen a bit too much of it, this overzealous anti-vandalism. Note how they think it goes from 1, to 2, to 3, as if these levels have no content. BTW, that is a STUNNING image of Fortuyn on your user page! Drmies (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Trying to deescalate here). OK, shall we call it a truce? A draw, perhaps? Or whatever. I'm really not interested in forming up "sides" or having an extended battle with anyone, regardless of your take on how things should work here at WP. (BTW, I don't know what "Fortuyn" refers to.) Regardless, I think this discussion can't be good for at least one of us, and doesn't help the encyclopedia. I infer from your commentary that you take issue with vandalism patrolling. I'll, in good faith take to heart your comment about going directly from levels 1..4 without pause. I would ask that you consider two points: (a) [made previously] false positive are part of the WP:AIV process. It seems to work well. (b) (a big issue for vandalism patrollers, like me) it is hard to distinguish, sometimes, from persistent all-out vandals and editors who don't know better - fresh vandalism-only and/or trolling acocunts are setup all the time, and its a bit of a game for them, I guess. For me, I'm neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist, I aim for stability of editing environments - which vandalism (and POV-pushing and incivility) make for unstable, and hence in my opinion, unproductive, editing environments. Cheers. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Look, I have no problems at all with vandalism patrol: just look through my edits. I do it all the time. But after reading up on WP:NEWT (you should really look at it), I realized that some of us are too quick on the draw, and I count myself as one who was quick to react. I brought up AIV because you did--you asked that an admin review whether a block was to be denied, and I told you that an admin did in fact do so in this case. But every time someone is hauled before the AIV court, two things happen: people have to spend time investigating, and there is the possibility of scaring off the newbies. Now, considering the edits this editor made, I don't have high hopes for them, but we could be wrong, and I felt--and still do--that those warnings were too strict (and level 1 and 2 have the advantage of not implying bad faith). Tonight even I have gone from mild to final warning--it depends on what a user does, in what kind of environment, etc. Some edits are just beyond the pale, as you know, so this one is "3 after 1". What I meant, and I hope you understand, is that it isn't just simple addition--a user got a level 2 already, so next time it's level 3, etc. BTW, the Pim Fortuyn painting remark was in reference to User:William S. Saturn's page--look on the right. Alright, let's bury that hatchet, and get back to work? Thanks for your note, and keep fighting the good fight, but please, in the interest of the project, don't shoot 'em down too quickly. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hatchet buried, work resuming. Cheers - time for a Whiskey neat and Guinness draught. Thankfully, the bars are still open in my time zone.

An amusing true story - I was in an Irish pub in Annapolis years ago. I ordered a Black Bush neat and a Guinness draught. The very Irish publican says "Ah, a man of me own heart". I tell him I always drink Bushmills. He says "Ah, yes, they sure do make fine whisky,for thieving, murdering Protestants". I had no idea until then that Jameson was made by the Green, and Bushmills by the Orange. Sorry for the digression, I think of that story whenever I imbibe. Ta! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

<--And they happen to be my two favorites (those and Famous Grouse); I had no idea my religious allegiances could switch from one drink to the next. Thanks. And when you pour yourself one, make it a double, and hop on over to WP:NEWT, really an eye-opener. Later, Drmies (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fribbulus Xax's RfA

Thanks, Drmies, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, congratulations--unanimous! Excellent! This afternoon, I will email you a list of editors that need to be blocked indefinitely. No more article writing for you; from now on your mopping until you get RSI. Congrats again! Drmies (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Speedy care, please

Thank you for your message. I happened to take a look at the "New Pages" sectin and saw that article. At first glance, it seemed to be an unnotable article, and being unable to remember the CSD template coding from memory, I put {{db-notability}} - which seemed reasonable. Upon seeing that this was the improper code, I switched it to {{db-g7}}, the proper code for lack of notability. Its my understanding that this was either wrong or overlapped with another CSD (copyright), and the other CSD took priority. While I believe that the end result would be the same, I understand that the distinction is important.

I apologize for acting too quickly and will try to show more restraint in the future. I would like to point out, however, long successes with CSD, nominating several of such articles for deletion under their proper categories.

Again, I apologize for my behavior. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delta, don't worry. But indeed "notability" is not a category, and A7 (not G7) does not apply: even if there were no copyright issue, it wouldn't be correct: see Template:Db-a7. There's a category even for non-notable animals (!), but not for books. What you could do is install WP:TWINKLE, but you still need to know what all's covered under what (Twinkle doesn't have "db-animal", for instance). So I usually keep a window open with the WP:CSD page, just to make sure... Thanks, and keep up the good work, Drmies (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk Back

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Taqi Haider's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notable?

One of your socks? Alcohol may have been involved. kelapstick (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, K, that was just a meat puppet--a meat puppet on a stick, haha. (They sell chicken on a stick at a gas station close to my mother-in-law's.) Drmies (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you started drunk ninja yet?--kelapstick (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of ninjas [16]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your soothing answer on "Quinceanera (film)"

I just happen to find it : I had "turned the page" as we say in french. Truly, I think my text can be of some use for those interested in chicano culture & that Shiver of recognition is just a red-linked racist nut... T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! But you intended this message for User talk:Phantomsteve, which is where I'll copy it. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Taqi Haider's talk page.
Message added 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Taqi Haider (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Decisions, decisions

Got it. I'll be a rock pope. Peridon (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. If When I get to be the cardinal of sin, you'll have my vote. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What?

Hi Doc. Thanks for working on the Doughnut Drive this weekend. Much appreciated. I know you'd like to get your shopping done instead so it's something of a sacrifice to cover the A-L countries. You're the best! Also, what does "Do not look at the vessel, but what is in it; there is a new vessel filled with old wine and an old vessel that does not even contain new wine" (Avos 5:27)" mean [17]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just another disgruntled editor. Interesting case--again over something relatively trivial. Do I really need to explain scripture to you? Hey, as you may have seen from my erratic spurts of tiny edits recently, I don't have that much time right now, which is why I stayed on the donut sidelines. I'll be happy to help in the copyedit and ref-to-template department...just tell me what I can do to help. Sorry, but that's all I got right now, CoM! (And you can use four tildes to sign your name. I'll leave you a warning on your talk page, haha.) Drmies (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it says do not look at the vessel but what is in it. There's old wine in the new vessel. And there's nothing in the old vessel, so maybe someone drank it already? Is this an early bird catches the worm thing? Or that I shouldn't look at the new vessel and be fooled about this old wine that's offered when there's the alternative of an empty vessel? Is there more wine in the pitcher? I think a margarita sounds good right now. What kind of vessel will it be served in? Does it not matter because I'm not supposed to look at it? Will it affect the way salt is distributed on the rim? I need help with scripture. Why won't you help??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you're talking religion, what do you think of the mythological origins of Kerala? Is it rollback worthy or undo only? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Spiff, I'm staying out of it. My involvement in Indian articles, beyond the occasional women cricket's team, can only lead to grief. CoM, are you for real? You missed "New Wine into Old Wineskins" in Sunday School? Or--good heavens!--did you never go to Sunday School?? I am saddened, and I'll leave a note on Glenn Beck's talk page: you are betraying the one and only origin of our country. I think you need a good slap with a kelapstick. PS I had TWO margaritas tonight: they were only two bucks a pop! (Though there is always another price to pay.) Drmies (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it can be fun sometimes. I'm reforming a blocked POV warrior. See Talk:Telugu language#Will you help me. Anyways, I didn't know margaritas cause problems. -SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That article says not to put new wine in old wineskins because of leakage issues. What does that have to do with not looking at the vessel and disgruntled editors? I'm more confused than ever. Only the Spaceman is making any sense. Wait, Kerala is mythological? I always thought it was real. Although meals being served on banana leaves does seem rather far fetched... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

They're high in sugar, Spiff--not good for my artificial pancreas. We appreciate your efforts at reform; more than one editor could benefit from your advice. I gotta say, though, you kind of sound like an English teacher, and I always figured you for a bureaucrat of sorts. CoM, can only tutor you if you're willing to listen to my kind words. He who hath ears to hear... Drmies (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dieting

I'm glad that all the beautiful blondes on Fox News have inspired you! There's no shame in taking walking breaks as you need them until you can run the full distance. And I won't tempt you with any comments about the sweet potato fries, truffle cheese fries, and bacon avocado burger I had last night. That would be totally unfair. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Olympiacos F.C.

I wanted to say exactly the same thing, this is how wikipedia should work and your help to improve this article is very important. I'd tried to find some references in google books but I didn't find anything important. Especially the history section of the article is too poor. - Sthenel (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't worry it's OK. If you find anything interesting give me a notice. ;-) - Sthenel (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Atypical?

Drmies, On the Missing Persons (band) page (yes again), an editor entered the following just above the lead-in paragraphs": :For other uses see Missing Persons." That doesn't appear to me to be typical placement for a statement that directs the reader to a disambiguation page. Am I correct? Doc2234 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, sorry--that is indeed where that goes, at the top of the page. Makes sense if you think about it: if someone is in the wrong place, they'll need to know right away. Hey, that reminds me--you got to spread your wings beyond them Missing Persons. Buddy of mine, you may have heard his name around the watercooler, ChildofMidnight, is looking for a few good editors to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of that all-important fried food, doughnuts. Please have a look at User:Grundle2600/Doughnut Days 2009! Drmies (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, seeing as I have a particular fondness for them, Boston cream in my case, and seeing as ChildofMidnight has a particular interest, I will try my hand at picking up one of the varieties that are not already taken! Of course, I'll have to sample my choice! Oh, and now it's time for a bedtime snack. Thanks! Doc2234 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Excellent! But can you sleep on a sugar rush? It's wine and cheese for me after 10 PM. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • So I'm looking into taking on Olicook/Olykoecks. How should I reserve the subject? I was able to find some information this morning.

Well....I don't get into the doughnuts just before bed; that's for sure! It's usually the Lillet with Bremner wafers, or just cognac on the rocks. Doc2234 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Timelines

An article's history section should be in prose, not an unreferenced timeline. I have nothing against timeline articles, but timelines shouldn't be in where prose belongs. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Hey, sorry that it may seem like I'm making sock puppets, but i promise you that I'm not. I got in touch with the people who know LTWC the most. they wanted to comment on the page. I know user: douglas bradley, and Ldavidson, they are both associated with LTWC. they thought that their comment would look better coming from a user than a person "unsigned." Jhaseltine (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help on Artis the Spoonman. I might get back to improving it even further later. I'm just busy all the time. Cheers.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wunderbar!

The tourism opportunities in one of Europe's socialist states were featured in the Sunday Times (the real one, not the tabloid). That was an impressive win over Chattanooga's well respected football squad. Impressive! Maybe you can get Samford on next year's schedule? Meanwhile they want to fire Charlie Weiss because his team lost in double over time to a legitimate big east opponent (despite Notre Dame's winning record, no losses by more than 6 points even against Ohio State and some other tough opposition, and wins over Michigan State, Purdue and a PAC 10 team or two). Strange days Doc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Again, you seem to be the only person who sees right through things. Alabama is ranked no. 1 but in reality couldn't play their way out of a paper bag, whereas Notre Dame, even though they are 6-5 (you are correct: that is a winning record!), lost three games in a row, and haven't beaten a single ranked opponent, should be proud of their coach (whose record by now is worse than his two predecessors) and their record. Child, I feel your pain, and I'm sure Weiss does too. Why don't you jump on the Connecticut bandwagon? I wish you patience and fortitude. (Oh, my other team won too, today.) Drmies (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bob Wheeler

Hello! Your submission of Bob Wheeler at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

reported 24.242.253.44.

 Done For sockpuppetry. A8UDI 12:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Better Belated than Never Thank you for your welcome message when I logged in for the first time. I am new to the internet and am slowly finding my way. I am currently researching an expansion / revision to one of the articles, while at the same time trying to figure out from the explanations how things are supposed to be done. Would it be an imposition if when I have completed my research, I call upon you for help in those areas of editing I am not confident with?Coralhue (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)