User talk:Drmies

Iggy Pop

I beleive a {{fact}} tag would have been more appropriate here. --kelapstick (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe, but I had no idea what this person was trying to say. Only when they put it in the third time did I realize that "Iggy" might be the subject, not some idiot schoolmate of this idiot. Hey, are you hounding me? Oh, my regards again to the fam. We were just discussing this morning how much we'd like the four-year old to be two years old again for an hour. Enjoy it while you can, K! Haha, Drmies (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we will be at least another two years till we have another two year old...where does the time go? Hey? Have you considered autoarchiving? Boba Phat is still on here, and while I know he was crucial to the project, that was months ago! Plus it takes me forever to scroll down this far on my iPod....So when are you coming to NS? It is prime lobster season, although we both missed the Lobster Carnaval. --kelapstick (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See also

Sorry about the RVV label; I have been barely sweeping articles for the last few years, after spending 3 years creating 100s of them. It's a lot of work to keep up on that many, and honestly, when I see an editor who has never edited the article before come along and wipe out large portions of link sections I almost automatically assume it's vandalism, revert it, then move along. Sorry to lump your concerned effort with those. • Freechild'sup? 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sure thing, Freechild. Thanks for your note--and I hope you like the feather I stuck in your cap. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Against my word and yours we need to discuss this, civilly and calmly. We are obviously going to get nowhere with snarky comments and edit warring. So, how do you want to solve this? At present, there is no consensus for either inclusion or non-inclusion, as it has no been actively discussed. The inclusion is something that has just happened over time. I feel we should have (at ANI for more eyes) a discussion on this and work something out. We aren't going to get anywhere but blocked, both of us, if we continue to spit snarky comments at each other and revert each others edits. So, truce? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Homer, I haven't yet forgotten that you called me a "petty, arrogant troll"--on this same talk page. I make good-faith efforts to improve articles that you hadn't even edited before, and you are obviously following me and reverting me (blindly reverting me at WIAT also removed a valid maintenance template, and you know it). And no, I am not going to get blocked over this: every time you warn me about 3RR, you're the one at 3, not me.

  Now, there is progress in your message: you say there is no consensus for either inclusion or exclusion. By that I think you mean "no consensus in the TV station project"--which is correct, but that's not all that matters. What I want from you, before we go anywhere, is the acknowledgment that Wikipedia's policies on BLPs and directories apply across the board, since I can not agree to anything that allows unverified information to stand. You have brought forth a few arguments for the reasonability of some of that information. I can see the possibility of a compromise there, where it concerns current staff--but why don't you start by linking to a webpage, whenever possible, where that info is verified? Some time ago you agreed that especially in the case of former staff there are BLP problems, and I think (but seriously, I am not checking your edits!) that in a number of cases (in the past anyway, if I remember correctly) where you reverted me you have not reinstated those unverified/non-notable folk, for which I applaud you (and I hope you are still of the same opinion).

  Look, I'm watching the news right now on WSFA, and I want to finish watching that. In the meantime, have a look at that station's page--there's barely a notable person there, and you know it. More than half the article is directory information. I'm leaving it alone, since Rich Thomas is doing his spiel (he's obviously not just the weekend meteorologist). Thanks for your message; we'll talk later. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know I am not following your edits, we actually just popped up on the same page, please see this edit and this edit. These were for a couple days ago. There is a sockpuppet afoot, so I have been doing some reverting. They were hitting the WIAT and WVTM pages often, so I watchlisted them, otherwise, I wouldn't have seen the edits...they are outside of my watch area (I watch VA, WV, MD, PA and DC stations).

I am still open to adding links to the station bio pages. I can do that in my area, since you appear to live (I am guessing) in the Alabama area, you might want to do the same down there. As for other stations, we would have to put something on WP:TVS to get more help so it is not just two people working on this, it would get tiring very quickly.

As for the former staff, I am fine with the lists being slimmed down to notable and another editor has already started that. I think while they are at the station, they are notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Homer, this sounds fair to me. Current staff should have a link to a source (the station's website) to satisfy WP:V; for former staff, bluelinks are of course sufficient, and if at least some sort of significant reference is linked (to satisfy WP:BLP), people without WP articles make the cut as well--and they could be redlinked as an invitation to editors to write the article. I'll do one of the articles we've disagreed on, and then you can see what you think.

BTW, there is another matter: I personally don't see the justification for those slogans and lists of names of news programs and I wonder where, in most of those articles, that knowledge comes from, but we can leave that for another day. OK? In the meantime, we'll stop the namecalling and next time we disagree we'll settle it after school on the playground, under the old oak tree, with fisticuffs. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. My idea was to link to the reporter/anchor/etc's individual bio per a link, but this works just as good. :)

The slogans/news programs lists should be taken out. At first I was indifferent on their inclusion, but since a long time sockpuppeteer has created all those lists, they are out. I will do the VA, WV, MD, PA and DC stations sometime today.

*totally joking*Yeah! 3pm after History class! You're going down! :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Matthew HK

Hi there MIES, VASCO here,

Glad to see everything is (for now resolved) in this situation, even though i think (i could be wrong though) the apology is contrived, not sincere. Also (was totally caught by surprise, because i thought blocked users could do everything but edit, so i assumed they could still send messages and stuff), if you notice his talkpage, watch how he goes in an endless rant about football technicalities to justify his (not being) block(ed), then speaks about differences with two users, one of them me.

About this last part, i feel as though he is trying to make me look bad, again calling me stupid ("nonsense"), saying i don't own articles (does he?) and saying i engage in things i do not (as of now that is, i did it in the past - could his horrible English be to blame for any misunderstanding on my part?); more or less, it seems he is saying "I was blocked, how come Vasco was not?". But i will leave everything as it is - sent him a polite but to-the-point message when i saw what he wrote - hopefully this is the beginning of a good Wikiunderstanding between you two - i say "you two" because i feel that i haven't reached, for reasons that escape me, that kind of understanding with him or any other user in almost four years of editing :(

Cheers, take care - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Vasco, thanks for the note. Well, he apologized, and I accept that, so as far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. I haven't looked at his talk page and I probably won't; the lengthy explanations of other things, I saw that before. But you see, I only incidentally edit soccer articles (like last night, when you should have been in bed, haha), so I don't run into him very often. Really all I can say is I hope he gets it. He's produced a ton of edits, many of them useful, no doubt, but Wikimanners count for something as well. And it's hard, especially since all of us think we're right, usually, to deal with someone whom we think is wrong, and I'm not always good at it, but it's worth trying to get along. So, try to keep your cool. In the meantime, make sure you enjoy the rest of the summer, and adeus! Drmies (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Vampires Suck

You did not abide by WP:Assume good faith and as such I request a redaction or change in your "warning." Thanks.68.1.89.162 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Request denied. I asked you to start making constructive edits; up to now you are merely being disruptive. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I haven't. I've been trying to fix this crappy article. I'm trying to add an external link. Why do you have to be such a wiki-nazi?68.1.89.162 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)