User talk:Dr. Blofeld

"Ah Meester, I've been expecting you"

• User:Dr. Blofeld/Archives
• User:Dr. Blofeld/Awards
• User:Dr. Blofeld/DYK
• Article needing additional references by month
• All articles needing additional references
• Wikipedia:1,000 core topics
• Category:Wikipedia vital articles by level

---

Why the break?

This is the second time I am using this section header, now you are leaving. Well good luck for that but come back soon or at least specify a date. Soham 14:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Duty

When you return, you my want to look at actor and director de ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

+ de --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

+ expand Walter Renneisen, birthday 3 March --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm on a mini break at the moment but I'll try to start them in a day or two.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, no rush, enjoy your break! (You know why I don't want red links on my user? To prevent another The Company of Heaven ;) - There are some left in the 2013 archive.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Varanasi

Hi, I remember that you asked me to have a look at this article a while ago. I can re-write sections like Geography, Demographics, Education. However, I'm not really comfortable with History. Rest all looks fine —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into it in a few days. It will require a lot of maintenance, it gets a lot of unwanted edits...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

New Category to your User Page

I have added a new Category to your User Page, Category:Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia. If you don't like it, you can of course remove the Category.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What! You don't consider yourself a Wikipedian?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Die hard wikipedians follow rules rather than common sense and are afraid to be bold in fear of becoming unpopular!! The culture of being a wikipedian also means that Jimbo is to be treated as the divine being and authority on everything, and to act as if everything is being run smoothly :-] I consider myself an encyclopedian as I'm sure any other decent editor does here who is well aware of the problems that wikipedia presents in the way that it is run. I simply happen to be an encyclopedian who happens to edit wikipedia because it's the best the web has to offer at the present.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. It gets me thinking on the term common sense. Thanks for opening up this world to me further for a wider perspective in life.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am just going to throw this out. Of course, its your choice on how you want to select. I notice that Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian is a red link. So if by chance you did wish to be in Category:Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia, you are not selecting BOTH categories. I consider you a Wikipedian (because you do use much common sense) and you certainly do edit Wikipedia - so I see you as fitting this Category and NOT the red link Category. This Category I made is just a little humour! Besides as our article on humour says: "it derives from the humoural medicine of the ancient Greeks, which taught that the balance of fluids in the human body, known as humours (Latin: humor, "body fluid"), control human health and emotion." So, its good for the body and soul! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Max Anderson (British director)

Hi Dr B. I don't know if you can help with this biography and save it from deletion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

British cinema

I'll try and do it but I've got a bit of non-WP work building up, so I might have to do it over a bit of a while. I'll add it to my to-do list. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the 'welcome back' notice and the barnstar. Much appreciated. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox decisions

Hi Blofeld, although I'd love to see more ways in which visitors could control the presentation of articles for themselves, most of our readers are not registered and therefore do not have access to preferences. We'd have to have a different system for allowing them to store things like "display/no display of infoboxes".

I was, however, dismayed by the second part of this comment of yours: It's just everytime we have an article on the main page this "why doesn't it have an infobox" argument breaks out, when all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide and they're not compulsory.

I believe you have fundamentally misunderstood the ArbCom Finding of fact, "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." The "editors at each individual article" - especially when linked to WP:CON - cannot be restricted solely to those who have edited the article previously. It is a fundamental contradiction of the wiki-way of doing things, particularly achieving consensus, and no editor should be trying to ring-fence an article from other opinions.

If you agree that you were wrong in your interpretation of that ArbCom decision, then I'd like you to make a clear statement at the Hattie Jacques talk page indicating that; and I'd like you to alert User:MrDannyDoodah that you accept that he has a right to comment and seek a consensus for his views on that page. --RexxS (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Deary me Rex, are we still going on about this? You misinterpreted me actually, I'm not mistaken in my interpretation, I am well aware that the arb were pretty vague with how consensus is decided and that potentially several hundred people could comment on having an infobox issue to come to a true consensus, but in practice the decision to use an infobox really is generally decided by discussion and consensus between a small group people who have written the article in question and I'm sure the arb would acknowledge this. It isn't practical to request hundreds even dozens of editors to comment on one infobox in every article. The three of us as normal came to the decision not to use an infobox, that's consensus, just not wider consensus. Mr Danny has the right to say whatever he likes, it is just disrespectful to editors who bother to promote articles and have to deal with this sort of thing every time an article hits the main page and if you can't see that then you're lacking a sensitivity chip. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with your interpretation and I don't believe that ArbCom intended any content decision to be taken solely by a small self-selected group. As a consequence I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment #Clarification request: Infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You're something of a troublemaker aren't you? Why do you always go crying to arb whenever anybody disagrees with you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)