User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:50, 29 October 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149

Template:NoBracketBot

Minimello

Sweden's on a roll! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone translate the voting system. I'm unsure as to whether the rolls in the studio audience get a vote, and there's some kind of "joker" as well. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this looks fascinating but I can't check out the video right now. How is Bishonen's entry doing? Drmies (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McKinsey & Company

The current article states

"according to an article citing public tax records, the senior partner leading McKinsey's Norwegian office in 2011 earned 67 million NOK, or between $11 and $12 million USD."

The link provided as a source is here.

user:Crisco 1492 has removed it a couple times (or so) at my request and user:My2011 has restored it. user:Hahc21 also said they may have some time to help on this page at some point (generally speaking), but was busy with some other stuff at the moment. I figured you were responsive in most cases and might be a good source of a third opinion. CorporateM (Talk) 00:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly surprised that it keeps getting included. Yes, the person makes big money. So what? The Norwegian branch is of little relevance to the main article, and the salary of its senior partner even less so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Crisco 1492 and CorpM, in that context I can see a point to it, so I'm not inclined to remove it stante pede. However, that source, the link doesn't seem to go anywhere and for something like this the sourcing needs to be strong. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case the income of consultants is an issue raised by legitimate sources, so I see why it keeps getting added. But we've already covered the issue with much stronger sources and without violating the privacy of any individuals. The article still needs someone to spend more time with me handling potentially controversial edits before it will be GAN-ready, but that was the only thing that jumped out at me as something that should be handled promptly. CorporateM (Talk) 03:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that article doesn't show up--the link redirects to the main page, no? Drmies (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

archived version. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! First, I'd like to respectfully disagree with CorporateM: the Norwegian government publishes these lists publicly, and has done so for every Norwegian citizen, and it doesn't violate the privacy of anyone. Second, I think it's a very important point that senior consultants make in excess of $10 million salary --- especially in the context of motivations for the Galleon case, which is another section CorporateM and I have worked on together (i.e. money could not have been their motivation). I don't believe it is generally well known that salaries are this high for senior consultants. This is important information about the company and the career track of management consulting in general. My[2011] (talk) | 06:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Crisco 1492 @user:My2011 I'm looking through my early drafts, where I had "New McKinsey recruits are paid $70,000 to $80,000 a year, and some senior partners earn more than one million dollars a year." This was cited to a USA Today article (citation 65) that said "Even top McKinsey directors, who rake in a million-plus a year" and a Wall Street Journal article (citation 60), which says "Senior partners can earn $1 million a year or more." Both of these are in-depth profile stories. I think these are much stronger sources to use.

There are numerous problems with the current content and sources in this section. For example, the sentence saying "these numbers have likely substantially changed" appears to be original research/synth/speculation. It says managing directors were estimated to earn $5-$10 million, but the source is actually referring specifically to Gupta and would be better placed on his page or the galleon scandal page (or not at all, since the source says its an estimate from friends and family). CorporateM (Talk) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, CorporateM. The reality is that senior directors (including Gupta, since the managing partner is also a senior director) make at least 5-10 million plus, confirmed by the Norwegian salary data. This is a big difference from "1 million plus," and I worry that you're trying to hide that fact. As regards to the original research, I think that's coming out of McKinsey's own internal history, as quoted by a book on the topic. I hope this is helpful -- it's an interesting tidbit that came out of our earlier work together that changed my view of the Galleon case (e.g. Kumar was certainly not motivated by money for his crimes at these salary ranges), which is why I'm fighting so hard for it. My[2011] (talk) | 00:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howe, exactly, would CM be hiding this fact? The salary of a person in Norway, which has a different cost of living than the United States and is given in a different currency, is not necessarily reflective of general practice. We need a stronger source, citing that this in general terms, rather than just for one person. Kumar's 5-10 mil salary was mentioned in a Business Week report (now offline), but again: that's one person. Sources don't say whether its an exception or a rule. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive profiles on McKinsey in USA Today and The Wall Street Journal are just much stronger sources than a blurb citing an individual exec. Doing some Googling, another BusinessWeek source says $2 million and Financial Times says $1-$3 million. We can ask a couple more editors for input, but consensus may not go your way (it happens to the best of us) and in that case we need to respect what Wikipedians (as a group) decide, even if it's not what an individual editor would prefer. CorporateM (Talk) 15:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only dog I have in this fight is Envy, and I'll stay out of editing the article. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed this on to user:Bbb23 to get additional input with what I hope is a neutral notification. Figured it would be worthwhile to give him/her a ping here, so they can see the discussion thus far. I didn't notice this originally, but it looks like it has been a slow-rolling edit-war for the last year and a half, so it would be good to finally get it sorted out and find consensus one way or another. It's strange that editors often make speculations as to what the article-subject desires. I would think they would very much like to boast about their high salaries in order to attract recruits (isn't that why they do it?).

Regarding envy, you and me both Drmies. But then, what does anyone truly need with that much? CorporateM (Talk) 22:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can get me a 24-carat gold pool. Plus, it buys a lot of clothes for a lot of Ebola patients in Africa whose clothes were burned when they went into hospital... And then I can finally get that brake job for my motorcycle, and eat a steak. Yeah, let Bbb sort it out. They've been napping on the job anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick (Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gaaaaaaawd. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sphilbrick, please explain me something. The page as it is now comes from the preliminary hearings. I see that responses to my comments are in there, but my comments are not. Why? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that comments by contributor other than named parties are copied to the talk page. So you will see your comments here. Despite being a clerk for a number of months now, I have only opened a couple cases, and I was a bit surprised to see that the instructions indicate that location. I've asked a more experienced clerk to check my work.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the instructions:

When you have moved the statements by named parties from the case request to the case page, you will be left with the other statements by uninvolved editors. These statements will need to be preserved, but they are stored on the talk page of the new case page you are creating, and not with the "Preliminary statements" section you have just made.

--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed

My friend Mies,

looking at this message (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite#Assistance_needed) and all its sub-messages, can you please lend a hand and let the proper user (Mishae) know where I stand? I know I'm being hasty after having already contacted another admin/user, but I see Matty is not active as you for the time being, and I'm in kind of a hurry to prove a point.

They can call me what they want, a bad person, a nuisance that does not know when to shut up, a loonie/retard for saying 3,000 times I was going to retire and returning 3,001, the lot. But a troll or that I harass people?! Way too much to handle.

I will not make any more promises about retirement (must respect others and myself), will leave when I leave. What stops now is the communication with other users (ALL users), let's see the community pin anything on me now!

Kind regards as always --84.90.219.128 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I am being accused of sockpuppetry, of all IPs on earth I am being accused of being the last idiot that taunted me into leaving (this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.81.115.107). You'll see more details in User:Tide rolls' talk. This is way beyond serious. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Situation resolved. Apologies to all parties involved, happy work to all. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad. I tell you what, I'm NEVER going to edit Wikipedia again. This was my last time. Later VASCO! Drmies (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forced seduction

I added a citequote tag. If it's in the book mentioned in the next sentence, it didn't show up in the preview I was given. I tried Googling part of the quote, and the only result was your article. LadyofShalott 16:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) LadyofShalott "Author Roundtable Discussion" Appendix E (I think page 288) http://books.google.com/books?id=oWOqSxWgVvIC&pg=PT288#v=onepage&q=%22many%20of%20my%20female%22&f=false "Pornography is a dangerous word... on eperson's porn is another peron's pleasure. For example, wheter it's politically correct to admit to or not, I know for a fact that many of my female readers love coyeristic rape fantasies, key word being fantasies. They certainly wouldn't want it to happen in real life, but enjoy the escapism and total lack of control provided by forced eduction scenes in romance novels. What is pornography? I don't know. If there aren't children, dead people, animals, etc. involved, then it pretty much poils down to a matter of personal taste. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gaijin. I didn't see that in what initially showed for me. I removed the tag. LadyofShalott 16:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One citation for two references--this is the first time today, since this morning, that I had time to sit down behind my computer. Phew. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LadyofShalott, this is a fascinating topic, of course--I started on it almost a dozen years ago, prompted by Mrs. Drmies's reading habits. About time I put it on the calendar here. I have been reading Stevi Jackson, which may be too old-fashioned for our Gender Gap Task Force, and which runs the risk of essentialism (haven't read the whole book yet), but offers very valuable insight. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ARB submission.

In your 1st list item you say "... Carolmooredc, in her section "User:J3Mrs Her five edits at GGTF", attempts to prove J3Mrs is disruptive. The last diff in that section is ..." but you link to the section. Perhaps you might link to the last diff? Since many (myself included) don't insert comments in order, I was confused as to what you meant by the last diff? By time or position?

And on a lighter note, a personal question; If you could be married to a dish, what would it be? Despite my handle, it's gotta be Peking Duck. Though I might have Carolina BBQ as a mistress. And there had better be slaw in the sammich like God intended.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK. There's two "section"s in there. I tweaked it--see if you like it better now. I could not be married to a dish: I'm too much of a slut. Sitush, nice to see you here again. DYK I'm a strident feminist? Hope you and yours are doing well. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off again tomorrow, Drmies. This is but a flying visit to defend my name etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the second point, Flapjack (oat bar). Sweet goodness that clings to me. OK, it is laden with sugar but I blank that from my mind in favour of the grain. My mum makes the best ever. Honest, she does and I don't care what anyone else might think of their mother's version ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiener Schnitzel - sooory.. Hafspajen (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot just say 'Carolina BBQ'. Them is fighting words!! Which Carolina and what part of the state? Fylbecatulous talk 16:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those who can't tell one BBQ from another, ping Dennis Brown. I do like Wiener Schnitzles, though I have found the breading can also mask shoe leather pretty recently, as vacation in Czechoslovakia proved abundantly. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Carolina = mustard based, whole hog, (ie: "everything but the squeal"). Lexington style = vinegar, catsup, salt, pepper, etc. and uses only the shoulder. Both can be chopped or "pulled". Similar in many ways but still distinct in flavor, and the source of many a debate in North Carolina, even in the State House with law makers unable to declare an "official" style. I kid you not. I often do a blend of styles, including some country style pork ribs I have in the oven as we speak, with a dry rub (Texas style) that uses sugar, paprika, red and black pepper and salt. Will put them on the grill later to get a sear on them, then a little sweet sauce which I allow to sweat off in the grill, via Kansas City style. Mrs. Brown likes that kind of sauce, and Mrs. Brown always gets her way. Dennis 2¢ 18:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiener Schnitzels

Only heathens use the mustard base. I prefer pulled, but chopped is a nice for a change of pace.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An idea - Carsten Eggers

File:Gitarren-Stilleben-1.jpg

Carsten Eggers

. I already gave a lot of work to Yngvadottir and Xanty - so I say - I put this one on Drmies-facebook. This German guy is good. This is his article on German Wiki. But it is a long article, a lot of work. Anyone?

Carsten Eggers
Hey, only joking, that's Melendez's ham and eggs

Hafspajen (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to do a first-cut translation from the German article, if that helps. Since German Wikipedia have different ideas on copyright, I would request importation of the German article (with history) into my user space (or elsewhere if preferred) and translate it there.--Boson (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any userbox you want to use or would User:Boson/Carsten Eggers draft do, Boson ? I don't think the German history is needed, only a remark that it was translated from the German Wiki - on the article talk page, when ready. like this, {{Translated page|de|Carsten Eggers }} Hafspajen (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Eggers images have had his name added in photo editing software, presumably either by Ilona Eggers or they've been taken from Eggers' website, i.e. the signatures are not part of the original artworks. I don't know if this is of any significance re copyright. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rater uggly they are, too. Don't know - but guess that the paintings are OK, as for the copyright... Blätterkomposition.jpg looks like it has the original signature. Hafspajen (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the draft. Page importation is the preferred method when going the other way. I have a vague recollection that German Wikipedia have a different interpretation of copyright requirements and have sometimes objected to translations from German Wikipedia that do not merge the history, so I usually go through Wikipedia:Requests for page importation when translating from German. I presume any admin can do the history merge if necessary, but I presume it is easier if it is done before too many edits are made. --Boson (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Drmies is an admin, for example ... Hafspajen (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've converted the template here to plaintext, so Drmies' talk page is not classed as a translation :-) Wikipedia:Translation has the rules and guidelines: attribution is required, but here on en. we traditionally do it in two ways: by naming the source foreign-language article in the first edit summary (or the earliest one possible) and also by placing the attribution template on the article talkpage. In practice many people don't do the edit summary, but it's best to do both: both provide a link to the history of the original article, so importing it is not necessary. There is also a template that can be placed at the foot of the article, as seen for example at Fichte-Bunker, which I translated, but it's deprecated because it was felt readers would see it as using Wikipedia as a source. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Haf et alia, I've been a little bit busy here and in other places, but I appreciate that my talk page is a village pump too. These conversations frequently remind me that we are indeed here to write an encyclopedia, one article at a time. [Apologies for any typos: I'm sitting outside with the low but bright Alabama sun shining on my screen, while the kids are turning each other into fall princesses. At some point one of them is going to put Liam in a dress and call him Lianna. For those of you who want a chicken note: those chicks seem to double in size every other day.] Drmies (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What chicken? Do you keep chicken? Hafspajen (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafs says you're going to do the Minimello DYK Did you know rap artist Gold Guy was reduced to miming on a children's TV program when his career went down the toilet?- or is that a BLP violation? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suedes need to be kicked in the as sometime. Worst ideas. Hafspajen (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have now moved the translation to mainspace. It could probably do with some more work.--Boson (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Maup Caransa

Hello! Your submission of Maup Caransa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you hiding?

Your archiving of a quarter of a million characters from your talk page is an obvious attempt to hide something! As, for that matter, is your removal of your own question from my talk page earlier. I mean ... the sheer cheek of it all! Admin can get away with anything these days! ;) But seriously, was there something you wanted, my friend? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd ask you and then remove the question so that no one could ever see what I asked. But my question was answered; see edit summary. All this following the Panda's block of Lecen, of course, which I was slowly reading up on. Now it appears there's an RfC/U, which I'll have to check out; it's clear the Panda needs manners. One doesn't go around shooting people to prove a point in the dictionary. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. One of those scenarios that left none of the involved parties smelling of roses. I thought the RfC was a bit of an over-reaction to a side issue by somebody who spends far too much time stirring the shit on meta aspects of the project and far too little in the mainspace. But indeed he dos lack tact sometimes. Anyway, the ArbCom decree is at WP:AEBLOCK (though the wording at template:uw-aeblock is stronger, and there are other slight variations all over the place). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Grundy

This is why I love Wikipedia. I always thought this was a Heinlein invention. Little did I know it predated him by a century. Great writers do steal after all. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago Emanuel Ferreira

I think you know what reference needs to be translated. If you please...

Kind regards, as always, from Portugal --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that guy has your hairdo. And didn't I tell you I wasn't going to come back to editing Wikipedia? :) Drmies (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish he did, I'm not bald like you but I'm "balding" :) And indeed, you told me once or twice or thrice that you were retiring, don't know if I can trust you after this one! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo again

About a week ago I requested advice how to get rid of Trackinfo and his harassing behaviour and following me around. He never stopped with following me around but did stop with the personal attacks for one week. Now he is back with his personal attacks and lies. That guy is soooo pitiful but mighty annoying. The Banner talk 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banner, I'm sorry I didn't get this earlier or I would have blocked. I left them a final warning: next time, please let me know again, or any other friendly admin, and I promise you I will not hesitate. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No prob. I hope he understands now. The Banner talk 23:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this, he did not understand it. The Banner talk 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Minhyuk you are clearly not an uninvolved administrator, you have been clearly documented taking The Banner's side here. Whichever way that debate went, you should not have been the administrator to close it. Let me make this very clear to you: I am keeping all of my discussion to the facts. These are not personal attacks. Aside from this note, I have avoided even using his "handle." In regards to the discussion at User_talk:Dusti#Your_closure, yes its petty. That is HIS style. Look at his history of edits, as I have. He is the classic bully. You cannot reward a bully's bad behavior by letting them get away with it. "Bullying is noticeably reduced when the (the community) disapproves of bullying." "Intervention is needed." I tried. If you wish to call that word an attack, I will be happy to document numerous instances to support that analysis. Facts. Unlike his previous victims over the years, I'm also an experienced editor. I am not going to roll over and let him get away with more of it. I am trying to stand up for the little guys he is used to trampling. To the closure; Banner started it by doing something improper. I reverted it and he reverted back. I didn't want to get into an edit war, instead I went directly to person whose decision he offended. I presented the facts with full disclosure that there is an issue between the two of us. Had I not disclosed the situation, I would be in the wrong, correct? Of course. That's not attacking. I am behaving precisely, as properly as I can. And ultimately he got the appropriate slap on the wrist. He shouldn't have done it, he's enough of an experienced editor to know better. He got caught and feigns confusion. You know he did wrong too. I don't know how he managed to get you, an administrator, in his back pocket, or why. But the more you support him, the more you avail wikipedia to suffer from more damage at his fingers. And you are involved in it. If you think I've behaved badly then lets get a truly neutral administrator to look at the BIG picture. Look at everything I've written, everything he's done and said to motivate it. All of his argumentativeness at every turn. That's a lot of content. I can guide them. I don't really want to inflict that on some person who has better things to do with their time. I may have been a little joking in my approach initially, but overall I've been very logical and reasonable, with all the best interests of protecting wikipedia in mind. Trackinfo (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, can you write one paragraph without personal attacks? Banner has me in his back pocket? That accusation is prima facie ridiculous, besides showing a huge lack of good faith. If you think that your behavior is proper, you got a lot to learn. And if you think I'm in his back pocket, I suggest you take this elsewhere, so this lie can have some daylight shed on it. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of topic ban

Hi,

Will you please be so kind to explain to me if this edit (diff) of mine is breach of my topic ban "on topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)" as per this comment?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Peacemaker67 is correct. See, it really doesn't matter what the edit is, only where it is. So be careful next time, Antidiskriminator. Thanks for asking, and take care, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Will you please be so kind to clarify if the same goes for the Ottoman Empire which also included "parts of what is now (and had been) Serbia" in post 1900 period?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hold on. I'll ask. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Antidiskriminator, there is some advice for you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Your_broadly_construed_opinion_please. Next time, please get topic-blocked on a simple topic, like yogurt or Nuclear Weapons of the 1950s. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There is such long list of countries that controlled "parts of what is now (and had been) Serbia" in post 1900 period (i.e. Hungary, Croatia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Soviet Union, NATO countries, ...). Not to mention possibile connection to Serbs. I think it is only a matter of time when I will unintentionally breach the ban, or more likely, when will somebody involved in dispute with me interpret my edits as breach of topic ban. I don't think there is anything positive for wikipedia in keeping this topic ban anymore. Would you consider lifting it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need community consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Crisco says. Your detractors might say there's no point in your ban so I should just indef-block you. I'm not ready for either one. Crisco 1492, what was the usual recipe--wait three months? six months? and then propose on AN. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "try again in 6 months" is common. Not sure about this case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case most probably the only consensus my detractors may reach (other than to indef ban me from post 1900 Serb/Serbia related topics) is to indef block me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then now is certainly not the time to ask for the ban to be lifted. Good behavior elsewhere is typically a requirement for the community to consider lifting a ban. Believe me, Antidiskriminator, I like nothing better than unblocking and banlifting; it gives me hope and pleasure. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My detractors will never make a consensus to lift my ban. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of my detractors who supported complaint about my behavior underlined that I was not behaving this way during my first topic ban which lasted for more than a year.("This has been literally going on for several years. The only time I have experienced Antidiskriminator not behaving in this way is during his ARBMAC topic ban on Pavle Đurišić, imposed (and later lifted) by User:EdJohnston." - diff). This comment probably points to solution of the problem with this (apparently and probably unintentionally too broad) ban. Would you consider replacing it with previous one?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind reminder.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator, I like banlifting, but can only do so on the basis of community consensus. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pueblo Levee Mural Project

Can you restore this for me. I requested csd as I authored it but I have founde more sources to back up what I wrote

Sure thing. Talk page visitors, feel free to help HIAB improve this stub. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, I finally found more relevant coverage which you already added lol but when I confirmed the history in a better manner thought it could be a stub. Thanks all. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mies

We were working hard to fix this file for you! User talk:Crisco 1492 #Europe. AND I was trying to add a section with mytology, there is a lot of great stuff more to be added, and who removed that? Hafspajen (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I appreciate it, but not every divine rape is a forced seduction. It's really a trope/theme in modern literature, and the mythological stuff is a bit different, if only because there are gods involved and because the modern conception of "love" is just not there. So I moved that bit to make it a kind of "origin" section, because that's more than likely what it is, but it is not "forced seduction" in the modern sense--which, it seems to me, really comes after Richardson. For starters, one can hardly find any hits for "forced seduction" and Zeus... Drmies (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your question...

I made a response to your question here, but I self reverted due to Jack's correct assessment that the subject matter of the discussion isn't really what the Reference desk is for. Still, I hope that information helps inform your needs. --Jayron32 03:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your comment is appreciated. What's correct about their assessment, I have no clue--or why it had to be spewed in that vitriolic way. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was rude and vitriolic, but it doesn't make it wrong. He was entirely correct, if unpleasant in his presentation. The purpose of the reference desk is to ask questions which have factual answers we can direct the question asker to by means of references, either articles at Wikipedia, or sources outside of Wikipedia. Responses consisting solely of opinion, speculation, or commentary are frowned upon (every response should be linked to references, indeed the ideal response would consist solely of references for the OP of each question to read on their own). Even more so, questions that invite nothing but opinion, speculation, or commentary should not be asked (the header itself expressly says this). Your question, as terse as it was, seemed to ask for "What book should I read?" There's no reference to provide for that, so we shouldn't be answering it. --Jayron32 03:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rude and vitriolic is wrong, Jayron, isn't it? I mean, where the fuck did that come from, comrade admin and all? Drmies (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rude and vitriolic is wrong. Right things said in a rude and vitriolic manner don't become not right, however. I can say the sky is fucking blue, and you can fuck yourself if you don't also think so. The sky doesn't become red just because I was rude and vitriolic in stating a truth. Likewise, though Jack was rude in his presentation, what he says about the purpose and scope of the Ref Desks is spot on. --Jayron32 03:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A different Ref Desk volunteer could have come up with [19], which provides Eva Brann's answer to the question (and my apologies to everyone who wants to answer only one particular question, asked in one particular way). People who aren't in the humanities often don't realize that in between opinion (apparently excluded) and fact (uninteresting since already available on Wikipedia) is a broad field of well-argued material--the material of the humanities, in fact. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
realism, idealism, pain, suffering, etc, language, formulae, technical quality, "The Odyssey is a much weaker epic than the Iliad" (Chester Starr), two very different societies, subjects

As near as I can tell, you're a teacher who wants to know which book to have your students read, given time to only read one. If that's as clear as you can ask a question, then I feel sorry for those students.

Of the two, I'd go with the Iliad, since it includes many widely used terms, such as the Trojan horse, and Helen: "The face that launched a thousand ships". Achilles heel isn't actually from the Iliad, but did involve the Trojan War, so that would be a good time to mention it. It would be nice for your students to know the source of those mythic phrases. However, the Iliad is also quite violent. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those situations actually don't come up in the Iliad. The kidnapping of Helen and the Trojan horse are only mentioned obliquely in the text of the Iliad, and Achilles doesn't die either, so the three major events you allude to aren't part of the main action of the Iliad. The Iliad only covers a short period of the 10-year Trojan war, IIRC towards the end but before the Horse is built. The story is a series of epic battles and single combats that climaxes with the death of Patroclus, leading to the final duel between Achilles and Hector. The major battles are interspersed with the main characters fighting over a girl (not Helen, tho, Briseis) and with occasional interference by the Gods because, well, Gods get bored and like to stir shit up once in a while. If the story has a central focus it's "The Greeks should have won this thing by now, why haven't they?" and the answer is pretty much "Because the leaders are fighting over a girl instead of trying to win the war, and also because the Gods are dicks." Once Hector is killed, the story moves into an epilogue, but we never get to the Trojan Horse. --Jayron32 12:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my students will appreciate that you feel sorry for them. Thanks for the advice, and the Marlowe quote. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)b[reply]

I live in the Napa Valley, where the sky is usually blue, though black at night, and sometimes red at dawn and dusk, especially when the smoke of wildfires fills the air. Here in the Napa Valley, we have little patience with people who argue about the color of the sky. And I have never yet encountered a teacher, or a professor, who recommends reading "just one" book on any topic. There is a very big difference between recommending the best book on a topic, and "just one" book on a topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Odyssey

Saw you at Bugs. I am actually surprised you are asking this. A fantasy voyage with monsters is much better than a war story that even Shakespeare didn't bother to remake. Of course I didn't major in literature, and I only read the Anabasis, in excerpts, in Greek. Suetonius is still better if you are just teaching the classics in general, and not only rosy-fingered Homer. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, since you felt the need to revert, will you just go ahead and hat the fucking question, and that incredibly rude response? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, I'm kind of bored with the fantasy voyage, and I never understood what the slaughter of the suitors is for, why it gets so much attention and detail. And one answer to the question "Iliad or Odyssey" is, "The Iliad [or the Odyssey, of course] is much more important for a study of medieval literature/a reading of Shakespeare/a proper understanding of Paradise Lost". That's the sort of thoughtful response I was hoping to get, but your comment is pretty helpful, so thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of a joke. Q: Whom does Polyphemus hate more than Odysseus? A: No one! MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad,MastCell! Thanks for that bit of levity. BTW, I'm having a blast rereading the Illiad. Don't know why I remembered it as tedious. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar experience; I remember The Iliad as sort of a chore when I was compelled to read it in high school, but I enjoyed it immensely when I re-read it on my own terms. To me, one of the most interesting aspects is the question of where the reader's sympathies are supposed to lie. I would imagine that an ancient Greek audience would be rooting for the Greeks (of course) and view Achilles' behavior as heroic. But to a modern sensibility, Achilles comes off as petulant, entitled, and immensely unlikeable—basically the ancient world's equivalent of Barry Bonds or A-Rod. To a modern reader, Hektor is the most sympathetic—and the most three-dimensional—character in the story by far. He's afraid, and acknowledges his fear, but he does his duty anyway (in contrast to the non-stop boastfulness of the Achaian heroes). There are some surprisingly affecting passages, for instance when Hektor's son sees his father in his armor and bursts into tears. Or when Hektor proudly imagines that his son's deeds and heroism will eclipse his own. Anyhow... happy reading. MastCell ^Talk 02:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that is the section I just read--and yes, very touching. But I can't dislike Achilles: he was promised a short but brilliant life, and they owe him that. Also, he's Brad Pitt, and Brad Pitt is my other man crush, so I totally dig him. Damn he's handsome. Who would make a good Odysseus? Who's a smooth talker? (No, not Stephen Colbert.) Philip Seymour Hoffman, maybe. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man-crushes aside, Achilles chose the short, glorious life over a long, peaceful existence in Phthia. And he got what he was promised. His sense of entitlement is so overweaning, though, that he'd rather see his own comrades lose the war and be slaughtered than put up with a relatively minor loss of face. Insofar as we're allowed to traffic in symbolism, Achilles represents humanity's capacity for irrational, self-destructive rage and vanity. But I guess with a mom like Thetis... As far as central casting, for Odysseus... the easy call would be Johnny Depp. More daring, maybe Denzel Washington or Peter Dinklage. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help

The conduct of Viriditas you witnessed on my talk page continues. As you know, he was politely and firmly told not to comment there -- after accusing me of being an evolution denier, a climate change denier, racist, racially insensitive, and serving someone's "White masters" on my talk page. After I requested a warning at ANI for his continued unwelcome posts on my talk page, he has attempted to draw others into this one-sided mess, repeatedly accusing me of attacking him. Frankly, I just want him to leave me alone and stop making unfounded accusations against me to anyone who will listen. He needs to stop. If he stops, I will gladly stop defending myself [20]. Until he stops, I believe my own on-wiki reputation is at stake. Help, please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, you may know that I'm an equal-opportunity offender, and apparently all sides in those debates take offense at me. I'm staying well away from Viriditas since I have had my fair share of vitriol from them, and from some of their opponents in that debate--people on both sides seem to think that my POV lies with the other side. So I have no advice to give you, and prefer to stay away from those individuals (not the issues, but the individuals). I have various opinions on the net value of various editors, and I'm going to keep them to myself. I trust, though, that there are admins who have not gotten their credentials questioned by the admin abuse crowd (members are found on both sides), and perhaps some of them read this page. I'm sorry, but my involvement there will not do you any good; I will tell you that I understand how it feels, realizing full well that my sympathy is of no practical help to you. ANI is not always equipped to handle such problems either: for many editors civility seems to mean nothing more than "not using a bad word" and everything else is OK. Sorry. BTW, I greatly appreciated your comments and analysis in the NDGT matter. I may not always agree with you, but you have certainly shown plenty of common sense and good faith. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those comments in the section above your response, that's pretty typical I'd say. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc. I understand. I'm really ready for the aftermath of the NDGT great debate to be over. Frankly, I don't believe that I did anything wrong in those discussions, but when you have someone still following you around and badgering you a week after the fact, it certainly makes one wonder. I'm not used to being an ongoing on-wiki target, and from that standpoint alone I question my participation in the discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you. The best scenario is that others have noticed it too and will pick up the baton for you--an admin, for instance, who leaves a note or whatever. A useful thing to do, but this is by no means right or satisfying, is to just let your detractors talk--but sometimes they'll find a way to bring these matters up in really unrelated forums and piss on you there. See this, for instance, which has fuck-all to do with the Landmark case in which arbitration is requested. Eric Corbett knows what this feels like, being brought up all the damn time in the ArbCom Gender Gap case, where his edits from all over the project are brought in to a totally unrelated matter. I wish I could do something for you here, but I can only do more harm than good. Maybe ANI is a place to go, but that has the potential of turning into a shoutfest. Then again, you can see what's happening with Andyvphil, who made a claim on ANI and may end up being topic-banned (correctly, as far as I'm concerned)--so maybe sometimes ANI can accomplish something. If their disruption has a chilling effect then you can certainly make a claim of harassment. But those things are never easy. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seth Gaaikema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kiss Me Kate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done it by putting Kiss Me, Kate. The DAB page is Kiss Me Kate. Now you've got Kiss Me, Kate, Oliver (three musicals) instead of Kiss Me Kate, Oliver. Consider yourself at home. Consider yourself part of the furniture. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ffff that didn't work. Now had to put Kiss Me, Kate (musical). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Coat alert- new editor with interests in Bali sex tourism and Featured Pictures. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong whiff of Coat, with a problematic user name. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I emailed Euryalus about this but haven't heard back. Maybe the best thing to do is simply start an SPI, and request CU. As far as I'm concerned a block on behavioral evidence can be made, but for reasons that should be obvious I am not going to make it--the whining about abusive and involved admins is so omnipresent that someone else should do it. These days, if you warned someone once or twice, and they called you an abusive cocksucker a few times (well...), you're already disqualified in the eyes of some since you're invoooolved. In other words, one can become unblockable by insulting admins, though without using one of the seven words of course. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- shame the editor isn't the person they're impersonating. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure that person is who that person claims to be. Unless you're talking about the other, older person, who most likely is who she is and she is not our editor. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get your meaning… I was talking about the younger one- would actually have some knowledge about topics- I can't believe the inane stupidity of it all. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You got it perfectly. It does remind me that Rookworst can do with some improvement. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command- I'm too tired to do the degrees Celsius bit properly though. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Haven't checked the email in a while due to spam. Will have a look later today, sorry for delay. -- Euryalus (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Euryalus. It's not a matter of life and death, but sooner is better than later. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your email. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted Xanty - and things started already all over again at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates - typically on my nomination (as usual) - This is not good enought to be nominated - stuff. What? And on a nomination with already four supports already. Isn't Paul Nash worth featuring? Com on. Paul Nash? Nash was among the most important landscape artists of the first half of the twentieth century. What not good enoug ? Who say that? Also opposing an other gorgious nom, Cypresses at Cagnes, also with already four supports - just because I was helping the editor to nominate it, CorinneSD. And Jim Carter's nom, because he asked my oppinion. Even if it is not the same computer - it is the same editor. NOBODY is behaving like this, but that one. It was so nice and quiet for two weeks, just gorgious, but now, here we go again. It is just I don't like Hafspajen . Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, apropos biting the newbies, Jim Cartar is indeed one, it is his third, and Corinne's second, and it is not fair that it goes out all over them. CorinneSD knows a bit more about this, I would guess, but Jim and Corinne should not be hurt because I am the taget. Hafspajen (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD‎ is a typical newbie on the project, she doesn't deserve this. Hafspajen (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also snatching others ideas, same thing. It is not considered le bon ton taking the idea of someone else. That nom is from Crisco's nom-pool from his own talk page. Hafspajen (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say, the evidence looks increasingly damning. Though if it is that one editor, I don't know if a checkuser will help. He/she seems to have no problem bouncing the signal off different nodes (or whatever techno-wizardry is used) to hide his/her true IP address. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, remember editing from Warrington? (My username before) and suddenly from Indonesia... You need to search for some technology that goes trough that bouncing IP - techie -thing. Than you will find him. Hafspajen (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voilá- Marinka van Dam is blocked indefinetly as Coat of Many Colours sock. See here. Disregard any comment per FP voting rules: Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. - Hafspajen (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And he did it AGAIN; just how many more of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Coat_of_Many_Colours... shall we have? Hafspajen (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hendrik Koot

On 23 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hendrik Koot, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the death of a Dutch fascist in Amsterdam in February 1941 was an excuse for the German authorities to start raids in the Jewish Quarter and install a Judenrat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hendrik Koot. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going?

I haven't remotely missed the drama whilst I was out in the cold, but now, I feel up to doing some low-level cleanup/vandalism removal, and I thought I'd drop in and say hello. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm just having a blast here... Nice to see you back, Luke: it's more rewarding to write content, though, than to do this cleanup/vandalism shit--it only leads to conflict. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep. Content is far more rewarding even if no one actually rewards you for it. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, yes... but not when content edits were what the trolls went after me for in the first place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oud-Strijders Legioen

On 24 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oud-Strijders Legioen, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Dutch right-wing military veterans organization Oud-Strijders Legioen was compared to a "Boy Scout organization for the elderly"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oud-Strijders Legioen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of interaction ban...

...between myself and Pete/Skyring. Here. I had already posted twice in that thread, most recently five posts and five and a half hours before the one in that diff - not that far away. This is not a first offence. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I'm going to call on the cavalry. John, do you have any fatherly advice for me or for these two here? I do believe that this was an infraction on Pete's part; you may recall some earlier discussion on this topic. It's at User_talk:Drmies/Archive_68#Can_we_drop_the_ban.3F, and there are two other sections, just before, on the matter. I really don't wish to block anyone, it's not even 9 in the AM, but an infraction it is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on it. Sorry for the slow response. --John (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries John, the ship is not sinking. I appreciate your help, esp. since I really don't know what to do. I wish I could just put my clogs on my head and walk out of the temple. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am having one of those days as well. My real-life responsibilities are weighing heavy on me; the baby is crying as she is teething and the teenager just kicked the 6-year-old. While exalted beyond belief, my Wikipedia duties can at least be switched on and off at will. Are there any articles needing work, do you think? I might have a two hour window later on, with luck. Hang in there Doctor. Totsiens! --John (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - AFD is backed up a bit if you're bored. I spent all morning closing them, after doing a bunch last night. Those are kind of fun. Dennis - 2¢ 17:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I did a couple yesterday. Let's see how long before I'm at Deletion Review again. Right now I'm reading Bloom on Milton on Shakespeare, so indeed, tot ziens. (!) Drmies (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        My Dutch is extremely poor, so apologies if that is the wrong word to use. Is it like adieu then? On the bright side, I do know how to say "Ik kan nie Afrikaans prat nie, mijnheer." which may still stand me in good stead again. Dennis, thanks for the steer. With all the articles I have deleted, and all the crap and cruft I've removed from articles over the years, I wonder if my net contribution to the project mainspace measured in bytes is perhaps even negative? On the plus I wrote Robert M. Bond which I'm very proud of. --John (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the original question, Pete has pointed out that he has been editing this talk page since 2004 and User:HiLo48 only since 2010, so if I understand how an interaction ban works, it is you who have to yield. Sorry about that if it isn't what you were hoping, but in this case as Americans say, it's "no harm, no foul". --John (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn fine article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --John (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, I looked at the thread, not at the talk page as a whole. IBAN does not help us here; if anything, it would allow participation without mention, but I think we typically treat participation in a specific thread as a violation of the iBan. So what's next? Ignore it? I don't mind: I'd rather do nothing, but as you can see in that archived discussion, Pete, rather than stating he'll do his best to get along, took the opportunity to present extensive "analysis" of HiLo's edits and behavior. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, I was invited to comment there. If this is going to be more disruption and inconvenience, then it might be best to accept HiLo's suggestion of dropping the IBan. Whatever works best for peaceful editing. I'd rather get along with happy, productive editors and let any conflict be over substantive content, rather than personality and pettiness. --Pete (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thank you for posting for clarification about how interaction bans work. Pete, what needs to happen for the ban to be undone? --John (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual agreement as a start, I imagine. I hereby drop my objection to HiLo48's proposal. You admins can handle the paperwork - it's what your're paid for, isn't it? --Pete (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We used to get paid by the block (that is how Drmies paid for his pool), but now we make more money taking bribes to not block. We don't care where the money comes from, as long as it comes. Dennis - 2¢ 18:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had a deal to keep that quiet Dennis? That's the last cheque you'll be getting from me, that's for sure. Eric Corbett 18:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and please Dennis, can you not make an effort to avoid splitting your infinitives? "... taking bribes to not block" made my eyes bleed. Eric Corbett 18:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have used that bribe money for a better education instead of fast cars and fast women. As for prose, my job is to research the facts, your job is to make it worth reading. ;) Dennis - 2¢ 18:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're making a joke a joke Dennis, but here's my take on that. I'm maybe the most abused editor and yet productive editor in the history of Wikipedia, perhaps along with Giano, and being considered some kind of beast of burden copyeditor who is unable to create anything of value by himself has long been a bone of contention for me. Eric Corbett 19:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone else but Drmies and me have got The Man in the Moone to FA? Perhaps, but they didn't fucking do it, we did. I need to sign off now, I'm getting angry. Eric Corbett 20:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you kneuw, I could have done it by myself. Easily. Tell you what, Eric, I feel a bit like my old friend Mandarax: tired. There are quite a few more articles that I'd love to bring up, and god knows I can use your help with that--it's just that, sheeit, it's so much work, and then you do all that work, and someone somewhere calls you this or that awful term, and they have done fuck-all for this project. One of those fools said I should be stripped of my bit cause they think I asked the wrong question at a ref desk--I have over 40 times more article edits than that joker. And then I see all the work that Ealdgyth does, and someone who doesn't know how to write an article brings her into that unholy civility/gender/bullshit case. Like they're trying to taint everything. Pfff, it's nice to vent. Eric, I'm reading Harold Bloom, Western Canon; I think you'd like him. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you and I work together, I tend to do more of the research simply because I know my prose pales next to yours and that is my contribution towards our shared success. After working on Sunbeam Tiger with you, I know for a fact that anyone that says you are just a copyeditor is a fool. It isn't a huge thing, but it took an amazing amount of research because of the lack of available material, and the fact is, the Wikipedia article represents the most complete and sourced documentation on the car. I only played a small role, but enough to see how you really work. I would also note that you are the only one that say things like "Dennis, your organisation is shit" when it needs saying (1950s American automobile culture). Maybe that is the difference, I want to learn, to get better at all things in life, so I welcome valid criticism, and I don't mind it being blunt because I know it is good natured. In the end, it ended up being a damn good article because of it. So I'm not that impressed with what others say about you as it comes from ignorance and hearsay rather than first hand experience. Dennis - 2¢ 20:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... you are the only one that say things like 'Dennis, your organisation is shit'". Did I really say that? I probably did, sounds like the sort of thing I might say; no wonder the newbies don't like me. But let's face it Dennis, what we ended up with is a damn fine article. Eric Corbett 21:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You already knew me well enough to know I would take it in the proper way, which I did. It was done because the article needed to be carved in half. I had the facts and sources, but too many of them, and I had created an article that was too broad and had no focus. Had you NOT been so direct, I would have ended up with one huge, mediocre article. Instead, we ended up with two GA articles. Yes, I wouldn't want to see you say that to a newb, but I've never seen you do that. And I'm still working on the 60s article, slowly. It will be completely different. Hard to source the production numbers, I'm finding. Dennis - 2¢ 22:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per IBan "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way" so is this actually a violation? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would still be completely happy with the dropping of the iBan. Pete agrees. How do we do it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was placed by the community, I think a thread at WP:AN might be the best place. If it was voluntary between the two of you, maybe you don't have to do anything. If it was placed by a particular admin or arbcom then you would start by asking them. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:ARCA. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked there. It seems a typically ugly, clumsy and overly bureaucratic Wikipedia process that puts me off trying. There has to be an easier way. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember where you got the ban, but basically you go to the same place. If it was an WP:AN or ANI ban, go to WP:AN. If it was Arb, you need to go there. If you both agree and have had 6 months without issue, I would hope there wouldn't be any problem is just getting it dropped. Dennis - 2¢ 23:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's up at AN right now. Pete, HiLo, I suggest you go there, read what I proposed, and briefly chime in. Then, go off to Canberra or Melbourne or whatever those places are called and smoke a peace pipe. I suggest you don't discuss football/soccer until after your second peace pipe. Cheers to all, Drmies (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting that out gents. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Maup Caransa

On 24 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maup Caransa, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Amsterdam businessman Maup Caransa (pictured) lent his name to the ugliest building in the country and to the sons of the gods? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maup Caransa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, too bad you can't claim the other links for DYK stats. The ugliest building in the country got over 11,000 hits, and Sons of the gods over 5,700! Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<Cue the eerie theremin music> This is freaky! Maupoleum got 11,803 hits as an auxiliary link on October 24, and that is exactly the same number it got when it was the bold DYK link on September 28. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I setting records yet? Mandarax, cue that bad boy again, because as it happens I was reading today about the Theremini--I want one! Drmies (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's like recursive freakiness, playing eerie theremin music to denote theremin freakiness. The Theremini's a real sleek beauty, and at a mere $319, you can't afford not to get one! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness. Hafspajen (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I for dinner (can't believe CoM hasn't written that article yet), and we had cucumber and soup and egg. Strawberries would have made a nice dessert. DYK that I've never eaten Devon cream? Is it really that good? Drmies (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clotted cream is the cream of the cream! thick, soft and ... creamy!! Oh, you can write that one, Mies, filled with enthusiasm or desire... Hafspajen (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Hafspajen (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clotted cream is heaven on the tongue and hell on the arteries. I've not really read the article, which is unlikely to do justice until scratch 'n' smell 'n' taste Wikipedia develops (which might be a while yet, given the Visual Editor/MediaViewer etc problems) but my taste buds are wobbling just at the thought ... and bugger the arteries. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish ice cream, with clotted cream on top, and poured on top of that, single cream. Clotted cream can be sent by post- I don't know the postal regulations for the US, but I suppose it can be put on the Customs form as "grease for handguns" and get through without any trouble Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not leave this hanging

So, I took the trouble to explain in detail why I acted as I did, and I reiterated my previous apology for any unintended offence. Your response is to continue to take me to task for the manner in which I raised my objection - even after I've apologised for that - while continuing to totally avoid addressing the substance of my objection. Where did you learn that that's a decent way to behave? Lecture me on civility all you like, but beware of showing your own feet of clay while so doing. You say your two-year-old has already learned to say "please", and that's fine. But I sure hope you don't teach him to be as ungracious and evasive as you've shown yourself to be during this exchange. I assume that's not your normal way of operating, but that you're reacting to what you regard as a significant offence.

Look, it's obvious I've got your nose royally out of joint, and I take responsibility for that. I'm known as a peacemaker rather than anything else, and I would like that view of me to be the one, ultimately, that proceeds from our exchange. I'm more than fully aware that the only outcomes worth a pinch of shit are win-win outcomes. It's just as unacceptable for me to win at someone else's expense as vice-versa. But there are always two sides to a story, and it takes two to tango.

What I want: I'd really like to see you take some responsibility for your part in this matter. For without that part, there would be no matter. Or at least some commentary/justification/call it what you like.

Peace. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should be more evasive: this is the third place, fourth tread where you're haranguing me. What do you hope to achieve? Drmies (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My last three sentences, which I've now placed into a separate paragraph. I live in hope that you will, one day, eventually, actually address the points I've raised. If you intend never to do that, probably best to state that right now and I'll know to leave you alone. Of course, that would leave me with an indelible impression of you as someone who refuses to accept feedback from others about his own transgressions, while maintaining the capacity to impose sanctions on others about theirs. Not a good look, but that would be your choice. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, as a random talk page lurker, I think they've already made clear they consider the conversation over. I appreciate this isn't what you were after but I reckon it's already time to leave it alone. --Euryalus (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ball's in Drmies' court. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. Continued pursuit of a particular editor is not encouraged. We're not there yet. But it seems clear from this talkpage that they consider the conversation over. And again, I reckon you should respect that, take from it whatever you will, and leave it there. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I've again mentioned the issue of administrators appearing to be given special licence to flout the rules, when such licence is denied to non-admins (see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Questions seeking opinions, my post of 21:47, 25 October 2014). While that perception persists - and Drmies has said nothing to allay it - you're asking me to respect his wishes, while he appears to disrespect other rules with impunity. Does that seem right to you? Is that the sort of impression of administrator behaviour we want to foster? Anyway, as I said, the ball's in his court, and I only came back to respond to your amazing suggestion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Euryalus. Jack, I don't know where you get "transgression" from. A wrong question does not call for an embarrassing diatribe in article space. That your rudeness, and your bad mouthing my adminship was unintentional, I can't believe that, nor that you live for something I should do. It's Saturday, which means I'm playing with the kids, and Alabama is about to play. I have not opened my net book today, and the last few days I have not cared about Wikipedia anyways, not since your public rant and your friend's ridiculous call for my bit. So if you want any more groveling from me, you're barking up the wrong tree. I fucking get it: you thought I asked the wrong question. I don't get why you couldn't tell me that on my fucking talk page, in normal fucking English, with a little fucking AGF built in. And now I'm going to get a beer, and not think about you and your Ref Desk for a while. Stick your pleasantries wherever you like, but not on my talk page.

Finally, an acknowledgment that the question was wrong. Until now you've continued to berate me for my rudeness, even after my multiple apologies. And you're still doing it. Apparently, some sins are completely unforgivable. Even after your mention of "wrong question", which is the first time you've done what I asked, viz. address the substance of the grievance, you've still brought out the big stick about my rudeness. When would this ever end? How many times must one be punished for the same crime? Anyway, enough said. I'm leaving, and I promise I won't be back. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, pretty impressed by the forbearance you have shown. I was tempted to interject earlier, but was afraid that would only invite further abusive and passive-aggressive ("self-flagellate or I'll think less of you forever") posts on your talk page. I hope Jack gets some perspective and the point now, and stops beating a dead horse. Enjoy your beer and the rest o the weekend.

Jack: if you wish to respond to me, you are free to do so on my talk page, but note that I don't plan to engage either. As a refdesk semi-regular myself, I have been pretty under-impressed by your conduct in this instance. Abecedare (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

semi?

Could you semi-protect Death Cab for Cutie? We have an IP who keeps adding a contested genre without waiting for consensus. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 16:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in principle I don't mind, but this edit appears well-sourced and you didn't indicate in your revert what was wrong with it. The Pitchfork thing says they're "emo vets", and the Vulture source (I have no idea what Vulture is) points the same way. This isn't a BLP; I wouldn't go edit-warring over it pending talk page consensus. I also don't see a link to the previous discussion you mentioned, which would be helpful, and it is true of course that consensus can change if strong sourcing is provided. So sorry, can't do it now. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Featured Picture Award

	The Featured Picture Award
	This is a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images. Hafspajen (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Featured Picture Award II
	This is a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images. Hafspajen (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Featured Picture Award III
	This is NOT a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia (Featured pictures) and is NOT considered one of the finest images (though it should be). Indeed, it's one of the scariest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A Dinner Jacket for Five. 03:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your good contributing to Wikipedia, I'm rewarding you the Defender of the Wiki award for defending the encyclopedia against vandalism. Keep up the good work, -- Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good things come in pairs or more!

Hafspajen (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brohoof! Drmies (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Drmies:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Hafspajen (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Haf, I went to a children's Halloween party dressed as a rockstar and no one realized I was in costume. Embarrassing... Drmies (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well until you don't dress up into this .. all is fine. There are worse things in this life than to be confused with a rock star. Hafspajen (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, love, let us be true

To one another! for the world, which seems

To lie before us like a land of dreams,

So various, so beautiful, so new,

Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;

And we are here as on a darkling plain

Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,

Where ignorant armies clash by night.

_{Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach (1867), St. 4.}

Are you inviting me to love or to war? Drmies (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on circumstances. Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be a little more precise: is anybody here experienced about the situation of having an article with a history of 1 1/2 years moved to draft? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir is the one, my guess. Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one. Anybody else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. I looked at that talk page discussion but I don't think I understand what is going on. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also looked at it, but cannot work on it myself for a number of reasons. My understanding is that one editor argues that it is a POV fork because the section on it in the survey article, Bach's church music in Latin, is actually longer and crucially, includes more scholarly opinions on a question regarding its composition. That is fairly easily remedied by covering the other opinions and any other missing amplification in the article on the mass, and I agree that there is no reason per se why this does not merit its own article: the editor in question does not contest that. But it should be fixed. Personally, I prefer editing of the article itself to talk-page workshops, for greater transparency and less complexity. There is no reason why that requires the article be moved to draft space, as implied in the latest move edit summary. However, since that editor has called the question, once it's moved back to main space the expansion needs to happen fast. Gerda, are you willing and able to do that pretty much now? Perhaps you can line up help from others and then give the word when you're all ready? If so, I'll restore the article to main space. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not now, that's what I said on the editor's talk page. You saw in the history that it was imported to the other article, in which it had never been, and then changed/tagged. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Version of 19:32, 14 October is the last one prior to the moving around and poking and prodding, right? Ping me when you and/or others are ready to expand that version to include the divergent scholarly views and anything else that is in the overall article(s) and was not in that version, and I'm prepared to move it back and revert to that version then. But the challenge now requires a response to fix it. Of course, if anyone expands it while it's in the Draft space, that would work too, but would require more fiddling around after it's moved back, which is why I prefer to just do the editing in article space. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. Looking for sources, I always came across Wikipedia first. I think I found enough, drop my other plans and can start as soon as you move.

Done, redirect to section of longer article deleted. Go for it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! We have now a new article with a new name, - I addressed most of the points, right? (ce welcome) Not yet covered: sourcing for performance and the lament/celebration thing which I don't remember to have added. Tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OBS _ RED LINK ARTIST: Georg Reimer ...Hafspajen (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Drmies:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Boo! Ah, just kidding. Happy halloween! =) Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Epicgenius; I appreciate your good cheer. Same to you. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, and thank you. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet investigation for user INic

Please check here. Caramella1 (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Blanker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NRC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S. Truett Cathy

Hi. If you look at his history and talk page comments you can see he has a clear agenda and bias. Consensus was meet in 2012 and match's the citations let alone this also is similar to several others pages languages that was agreed on. Even when his opinions are shown to be flawed he then tries something else even though its the same. He keeps trying to insert his NPOV issues and usually only reverts when he has someone to tag team with and that is why he is changing now but stopped when he was called out before. Resaltador (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 483: / Line 483: @@
 It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
+==S. Truett Cathy==
+Hi. If you look at his history and talk page comments you can see he has a clear agenda and bias. Consensus was meet in 2012 and match's the citations let alone this also is similar to several others pages languages that was agreed on. Even when his opinions are shown to be flawed he then tries something else even though its the same. He keeps trying to insert his NPOV issues and usually only reverts when he has someone to tag team with and that is why he is changing now but stopped when he was called out before. [[User:Resaltador|Resaltador]] ([[User talk:Resaltador|talk]]) 16:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)