User talk:Drmies

That's right y'all.

Levenslied

Hey Doc, long time no hear. I just noticed that this link in Zangeres Zonder Naam changed to a redlink. It was deleted after a PROD for lacking references. Do you perhaps have a good reference handy? Or a good redirect target? Although I think this is quite a typical Dutch genre. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'll get on it. Not my favorite genre, haha (listening to the UDS right now), but it's important. I've done quite a bit of work on some Jordanezen, so sure. Thanks! Hope you're doing well. It was a nice day in the Tour, but what happened on the Riviera is hard to deal with, intellectually and emotionally. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, great job! Not my favorite genre either, but I do have some fond memories. When I was a little kid, my mom would sing while she would bathe my brother and me and some of the songs were "Hallo Bandoeng" or "Mijn fiere schooiershart". I once started crying because of the last one, so sad I thought it was. So I have deviated a bit from my normal paths and created "Hallo Bandoeng". First time I seriously edit and article on a song, hope I got all OK. I'll look into writing a short bio of Willy Derby in the coming days. --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hey, that's great work. You know we have a resident expert on the Indonesian slant in levenslied, Crisco 1492. Crisco, I think you just gave me a good suggestion for dinner. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Interesting. Any sources connect this to "Halo Halo Bandung" (Ismail Marzuki or someone else; debated)? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• According to the Bahasa Indonesia article (id:Halo, Halo Bandung) there doesn't appear to be a connection, apart from the similar title. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request

The identity of User:Marioorosa has been verified via ticket:2016071910023102. Please unblock. Thanks. — Music1201 ^talk 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Tarkan (singer)

yes names are relevant. why don't you mention names? Matintarkan (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Because I am not convinced they are relevant, because Wikipedia is not a gossip tabloid, because the references you provide (in bare URLs) do not look serious enough to consider that these names are of any encyclopedic value. If you don't respect the material you submit, please don't expect me to respect it. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Clippers18

I see you have blocked Clippers18. Thanks for that. Given that Clippers18 is obviously 68.187.108.155, who is blocked for 6 months, and who has previously evaded his/her block using 2600:1008:B116:A43D:6825:1E94:978E:CE05, isn't a 2 week block a bit short? That said, I fully expect another account to pop up now anyway. After 68.187.108.155 was blocked, the editor switched to using 2600:1008:B116etc, and then created Clippers18 shortly after I posted this. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Look who else resurrected in the past few days as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/A_portah29 EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I did notice that. These articles are the subject of some dubious editing by editors with a lot of similarities. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What does "a-holish" mean in English?

In Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Chopin's nationality: Added Solution F, G, and H with Support also for B, you accused me of "a-holish sneers ("Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English")". Since neither "a-holish" nor "holish" is a proper English word and thus not included in the Webster's Dictionary nor defined on the Web, then "a-holish sneers" refers to something that does not exist, as per formal logic. So - in other words - you accused me of something that does not exist. I am puzzled and do not know what to think. Should I worry or feel scared? I think, I should worry that you have power to block a user, as you have just done to ZinedineZidane98 (see there). I believe that knowing formal logic is essential to understanding user's offences, only which the users can be blocked for. So, it is also really scary that you have such a power. I hope, you will not abuse it. Does, what I wrote here, sound like "a-holish sneer" too, just a regular sneer, or - maybe - a mockery or a ridicule by an educated person, which do not qualify as WP:NPA, though close? Enjoy guessing.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Instead of guessing, let's play the SPI game. Much more fun, and with the pontential for real a-holery... _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Scary powers! Don't be an a$%hole, now! Doc talk 06:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me guess, based on 64 years of experience speaking English. It is a euphemism for acting like an asshole. Time for you to look in the mirror, I expect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A couple of (semi) quotes- "They have dunged the neighbourhood with their opinions" & "Here comes someone who with a great effort is going to say something stupid". I've no idea who wrote these (I think the first is Dr Johnson) and haven't found them on the web. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

…oh, and I spent five minutes once listening to a Polish libertarian, before I got up and walked away to deny myself the pleasure of punching him. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, after all the subject matter at hand tops the list of Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, so I doubt it's ever going to permanently go away even if the OP is put to rest. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• c.f. Polish census of 1931- an editor under various ips and aliases whose underlying concern seems to be Communist influence in sources, who charges at the article like a cavalryman at a Panzer, and with the same effect- a clanging noise followed by a forcible dismounting. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well why didn't you say so? We aren't mind-readers here on the good doctor's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's complicated DYK there was a room full of toy ducks in the Sejm? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• That does not seem to be mentioned in the article, which is surprising. Are there any sources which discuss it? I think it would make a valuable addition to the article if so. MPS1992 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• It was discovered after the 2007 election; they were gifts to Jarosław Kaczyński who failed to take them with him- the room was shown on TVN. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• User:Doc9871, you may not have been clear enough for this editor (whose syntax and punctuation, BTW, could do with some tweaking-but I'm a liberal reader who accepts lots of Englishes). Xanty, you must live an interesting life, that you get to run into Polish libertarians. I don't believe I ever had the pleasure. All this, BTW, proves two things: given Cassianto's lashing out at me on the same article talk page, I must be doing something right to get it from both sides; and this nationality discussion is quite interesting, given that it provokes such angry behavior. Did they have passports in Chopin's time in the way in which we have them? Did they mark "nationality" in the way in which we do? Have many Wikipedia editors read books like Patrick J. Geary's The Myth of Nations, and are they aware of the fact that our borders and, indeed, our ideas about borders and nationality (and their fetishization) are to a great extent nineteenth-century inventions? "Nationalism, ethnocentricism, racism--specters long thought exorcised from the European soul--have returned with their powers enhanced by a half-century of dormancy" (Geary 3).

  Some time ago I worked on Danilo Kiš, who is one of the most important and gifted writers most people have never heard of. I see that someone has edited that article to reintroduce a whole bunch of terminology that seems factual, but is actually far from simple. He was born in a place that is now Serbia but was then part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. He was Jewish. The family's last name had been changed as a result of Magyarization. His father was a Hungarian speaking Jew, his mother Christian Orthodox; both his parents came from what is now Montenegro and was then also Montenegro (if I'm guessing dates properly), but not the same Montenegro. He was baptized Christian-Orthodox, but that was in part, it seems, to not be Jewish--in 1938. His career took off in what was then Yugoslavia. The most stable location in terms of nationhood in his life is that of his death: Paris, France. He wrote in Serbo-Croatian, but some of his writing was done in France, and he called himself one of the "Yugoslavian intellectuals" who moved to France--in the same interview he also calls himself a "Jewish intellectual". I submit that "nationality", in such a case, is pretty much meaningless, a needless categorization which says next to nothing about the writer and his life and work. This may apply to Chopin also: discuss (on the article talk page). Drmies (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's mentioned in Béla Kun that the Magyar version of Kon (Kohn/Cohen?) is ... Kun. Maybe Kiš was a better alternative in Horthy's Hungary. Montenegro had the first state printing press in the world, and was a country that could only be entered by climbing up a ladder. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you. I like i-holes (to avoid the no-supper-word), but one parameter I never fill is Nationality. It is of no relevance for an artist, - their work is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Or for the Fourth International. Forward! _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this a reasonable EL?

Words Without Borders. I came across it via this edit and found it being spammed across multiple articles. It's not a spammy link but at the same time I'm not sure if that site is something that should be linked everywhere. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well, if this kind of linking seems to promote the publication, which it does, then it's spammy... Thanks Spiff. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed

JohnSpecialK's userpage is a 32,000-byte advertisement for himself and his books. He's also even added the magic word "INDEX" to it so Google will pick up the page. By the way, his sole editing across Wikipedia and global wikis is to promote his own self-published (through CreateSpace) books. I posted the {{subst:uw-userpage}} notice on his talk page, and explained that I was going to remove the userpage material as it violated WP:NOTWEBHOST. I did so and he has reverted my removal. It looks like an admin is going to have to outright delete it. I could MfD it, but last time I MfDed something the nomination languished in obscurity and I still don't think it has been dealt with. Could someone take care of this? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• JJMC89 to the rescue! They blanked, and let's let that suffice for now; if they restore again, we can delete it one way or another. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking a block may be necessary, they are indeed using the project to promote themselves. But, let's watch how this pans out.--v/r - TP 05:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I just saw the Beethoven talk page comment. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The sad thing is, he is doing it equally as much on German-wiki, but we have no jurisdiction there. Plus German-wiki is so bizarrely set up in that you can't track user edits to an article and so forth. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Plus it's in German. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That user page should be a straightforward CSD#U5. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks; if he reinstates it, one of us can tag it. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't said "one of us"--I won't get that song out of my head tonight. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• The author uses a pling in his book title ("Josephine !")- which reminded me of the house style of this particular magazine- TV Choice!. Published by a German company! Achtung Spitfeuer! For you the unerbittlicheselbstförderungkampagne is over! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, he has written more than 60% of the Immortal Beloved article [1]. I removed mentions of his books, but I don't know how to begin unraveling and removing the text he added. Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Some sections don't have references; they could be removed (like wot I done). The dating of the letter by watermark could do with elucidation (if a source is found)- it seems to imply that the paper wasn't made earlier than 1812. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks, that helped. When I say "I don't know how to", I basically mean "I don't want to". Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, not that anybody asked, it pisses me off big time that that stupid movie Immortal Beloved ruined for all time the correct English translation of Unsterbliche Geliebte, which is obviously "Eternally Beloved" (as in "unsterbliche Liebe" -- undying love, which refers to the love, not the love object). I knew that movie was going to suck the minute I heard the title -- and except for a few scenes it did not prove me wrong. I'm still mad about that mistranslation (which doesn't even make sense!) which has spread everywhere now and can never be put back to rights. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Should have been called "Josephine!". Starring Greta Gerwig and Ricky Gervais, with the part of the chamberpot played by the snowman from Frozen. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Back to the subject at hand: I notice that on the German-wiki version of the article, someone rolled back a large entry of Klapproth's theories [2]. Softlavender (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing the article's like knitting with spaghetti. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's an effing mess. Softlavender (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Do we know any admins on German-wiki? I think I may have run across one here on E-wiki and can't remember their name. Anyway, WP:Was Wikipedia nicht ist#6 applies there too. He has the same 25,000-byte advertisement on his userpage there [3], and it needs to be removed per policy. Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sandstein may be of assistance here. Irondome (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the translation from Immortal Beloved as unattributed and a copyright violation. Also there was a link to a pirated copy of the film. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK at this point he is edit-warring to retain his self-published works on the Josephine Brunsvik article. Softlavender (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Edited to add: He wrote that entire Josephine Brunsvik article, so it is going to have to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb in regards to accuracy and neutrality, and in terms of the claims made therein. Softlavender (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• …gone over with a fine-tooth comb? That's nit-picking! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ORCP#Izno

Promised reply from ORCP, since getting into the specifics of that AFD gets a little too far from the purpose of the poll page. Some thoughts:

A review of WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY seems to indicate the source is okay for establishing notability. It's independent, though blatantly using material from the press release, and neither N nor NCOMPANY seem to take issue with that sort of source. So I disagree with you on this point. I'm waffling, but I think I'd still either end up !voting keep or weak keep, based on those criteria and the comment by BU Rob at the ORCP that the rest of the article had decent-enough sourcing not to have written a one-line stub (since I can't see the deleted article). However, what goes unmentioned in most of the delete comments at the AFD (yours included), and implied only by one person, is WP:SUSTAINED. On review of the fuller guideline rather than the GNG alone, I would have found myself agreeing that there is sufficient cause for deletion of the article in question. --Izno (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Izno, as I argued at the AfD the source is extraordinarily thin and offers very little; what it offers is simply regurgitated from a press release. In other words, it's poor journalism too. I don't know what SUSTAINED says, though I can guess. Drmies (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's what you argued, but I can't find anything in either WP:N or WP:NCOMPANY that says such a source can't be used. It's distinctly not a press release as it was not reprinted verbatim. An editorial team, separate to the one which put out the press release, OKd the article for publication in a national newspaper, and there's at least one item in N which says "that's good!" I won't argue whether it's poor journalism, and in fact, tacitly agreed above regarding this point, but poor journalism is still not a criterion in our notability guidelines. Maybe you'd like to review them and point out the exact phrasing in N or NCOMPANY which agrees with your point of view, because I didn't see it after a protracted review this morning.

    SUSTAINED says, ...brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events. New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER..., and in this case, the article probably fails, because (from memory) every source used was a burst-y sort of news item. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • That it's thin, maybe that's an argument regarding "in-depth". In which case, maybe that's just a different interpretation on my part. I've got enough in that press release rehash to write a stub. (I'm not sure I'd want to, but there it is.) Someone managed more than a stub, because they found other sources, so a 'weak keep' or even a 'keep' isn't that far from where a comment could have landed, if we were only discussing that point (as it happens, in the AFD, we were only discussing that point, but a discussion in retrospect shouldn't restrict itself to only the AFD in question). --Izno (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thin --> not in-depth. I don't see why everything that's published in a good source should be taken as quality material. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Since we're at a common understanding of your objection, I think I'm good regarding the AFD. I'm still unsure that I would change my !vote regarding the in-depth point, but certainly would have regarding the sustained point, were it more explicit. Regarding the second part, the bar for WP:N isn't "quality", only that it's a "reliable" source--the distinction of which should probably be a discussion for a different time. Lastly, thanks for your time here. --Izno (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Not everything is or should be covered under a guideline. How is regurgitated press release not a statement about "significant coverage"? It is true that a regurgitated press release in a notable newspaper deserves more attention than this one, but in terms of adding notability to the subject, it's nothing compared to how this article adds notability to its subject (as if it needed more notability--but this is the first article on a company I pulled from the NYT business section). That's judgement, and that's the kind of discussion you'll find in AfDs. Thanks for indulging me, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Good morning Drmies

Hi Drmies If you get a moment this am please take time to read over his mornings disparaging statements about me at the in block me so thin of Dontreader talk page. You r to.e will not be wasted sir since the writer has some more news a out you that you may eNd to beD. I was outraged after reading g what I saw there, it I expect you admin buys will be fine g at the blatant outrageous ness of the statements by the user editor there. Sorry no linKS I am on my mobile Sir.

Is Calli g another editor a gremlin. Personal attack, then continue the attack by strik in g gremlin. putting problemagic person? I believe that is a pot Callin g kettle situation. Later and thanks, Maybeparaphrased (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Maybeparaphrased, I've tried to read all that is written on that page, but there's not world enough and time. The editor is blocked, and it is entirely possible that some admin will come along and revoke talk page access. As for me, I think the disparaging remarks about a bunch of people made on that talk page are outweighed by the editor's continued self-exposure. If I were you I'd simply disregard them, since the comments say more about them than about you or me or others. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

Kind WP admin, I have the following doubt:

1 - was I deprived of this right? 2 - do I have still have it but have not had it activated? In my previous account, in addition to that feature, I was a reviewer; I admit to this day I still don't know much about the latter, but the rollback feature sometimes comes in really handy, for instance when undoing several instances of vandalism by same "user".

However, since I misused that feature on occasion, maybe it was stripped from me and I am not aware. If it has, of course I will accept the punishment and will not protest. Just wondering here...

Attentively, continue the good work --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The username from which you posted this has never had the "rollback right". You can see the relevant information here, which also indicates the username was granted (and did not lose) the "autopatrolled right".

Maybe you were previously using WP:Twinkle, which has a "rollback" button and can be enabled in the "Browsing" part of this section of your Preferences. MPS1992 (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Faiz Syed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faiz Syed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faiz Syed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. for (;;) (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My IP "fan"

So looking up the IP, it's an AT&T Wireless IP. Looks like someone on a mobile phone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm OK--so there's little more for us to do. Thanks for taking the time. Man, I'm hitting one revdelete after another; school must be out somewhere, or those racists that were trashing that actress from Ghostbusters all got blocked on Twitter and now have nothing better to do. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Since I do not like spending money on expensive movie tickets, I think of her as an actress from Saturday Night Live, and my heart goes out to her. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

The old guy who spends most of his time in front of my local supermarket (but is not allowed inside!) asked me to thank you. And thanks for the wikibreak and for improving the Shetland Black-article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, right! Well, I'm glad you enjoyed. That was an interesting potato, by the way, but I could not find enough to get it to DYK--sorry. Back to the grindstone, QP. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Welcome back! I got three articles to DYK today, two written, one nominated ;) - Pictured right now where I performed Rossini in June, - pictured in the ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing you're not the one playing accordeon. BTW, what terrible events in Munich. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Stuff like that is why I stopped reading newspapers. It is too depressing. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    • yes and yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you @Gerda Arendt:. Good work! Going on a wikibreak was a good decision for me; I was very busy IRL. It is amazing to see how old that church is! Oh, and that tree is beautiful. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    • yes and yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Danilo K

Thanks for the talk page comments there. That was one of the dozens of pages I removed from my watchlist because eventually it came down to a choice between continuing to deal with Wikipedia's gangs of jingoists and preserving my sanity. But I'll rewatch that article. I've only read a couple of books by Kis but I'm pretty sure he would not be a fan of the Wiki-chauvinists and their tagging. After all, he once called nationalism a "form of collective paranoia". There used to be an even better interview with him on the subject on the Internet but I can't find it now. Maybe it was collected in his book Homo Poeticus, but that's not available online and I don't have access to a copy. Cheers anyway. --Folantin (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability 101...

You recently nominated Eglinton LRT Carhouse for deletion. I used the term "Notability 101" in my keep reply.

There is a grain of truth in this nomination. Not every building is notable. One of the flaws in the nomination is the assertion that press coverage doesn't make a building notable. Of course press coverage, and other reliable, authoritative coverage, is precisely what makes topics notable. That is Notability 101.

I came to your talk page to decide whether I should discuss my reply with you, here. Prior to deciding whether to leave a reply I saw your reply comment at #Again I'm sorry, and I will suspend all AfD activity.

Dontreader, I'm kind of on the run and can only skim, but let me just say that Wikipedia needs those who defend articles at AfD, and if it's about winning and losing, terms I don't really like, I don't mind losing if I voted delete since we typically end up with a better article, which is why we're here. Sorry I have to run; I'll respond in more detail later if you like me to.

One interpretation of your comment is that you see AFD as a useful tool to goad the contributors who first worked on an article to make improvements to it.

I joined the wikipedia during its golden age, when there was a good balance between anabolism and catabolism. At that time, the deletion policy, and other key wikidocuments related to deletion, were quite clear. Nominations for deletion were to be based on the notability of the topic, itself -- not on the current quality of the article. When a topic was notable, but the current state of the article sucked, deletion was not in order; nominations for deletion were not in order. Good faith efforts to improve the article were what was in order.

Okay, since then, out of concern for non-notable people, we tightened up the criteria for biographies of living people. We delete them, if they are poorly referenced, even if the subject is notable. But the Eglinton Carhouse article is not a BLP.

In 2007 there was a sudden change in wikipedia participation. It marked a defection of that portion of the wikipedia community who create new articles. Most people who write about the sea change of this defection treat the defection as a mystery. It is not a mystery to me. The defection most of the contributors who were good at adding new content coincided with the introduction of WP:BLP. BLP changed the balance of catabolism and anabolism. It changed the balance and gave too much power to those who wanted to delete articles.

Now maybe your nomination of the Eglinton Carhouse article is not typical of your nominations -- not your best work? But if you regularly nominate articles for deletion, when the topics they covered might measure up to our notability criteria, because you thought the nomination might trigger article improvement, I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to use the other techniques for article improvement first.

Your comment to Dontreader strongly implied that !voting delete, based on the article quality being poor, was "no harm, no foul", if those who actually add content, and keep articles up to date, rushed in to improve and save the article. If that is what you meant, I think you couldn't be more wrong.

Such nominations are manufactured false crises. It is extremely unpleasant to be pushed into rushing to respond to an AFD. It is particularly unpleasant when there are strong clues, in the nomination, that the nominator didn't bother to take the time to read more than the first few sentences of the article, check any of the references, or conduct a meaningful web search of their own. That web search is essential for the nominator to reach an independent conclusion as to whether the article in question was a problematic article on a topic that was definitely notable.

In this particular case you referred to the Eglinton Carhouse as a "yard for buses". Light rail vehicles are very different than buses. This mistake gives the appearance that you spent only seconds, barely skimming the article, prior to initiating the AFD. Even a stub, with only a couple of references, represents a substantial input of time.

Since our policies state that articles on notable topics should be preserved, and improved, when the article itself is weak, it seems to me that everyone who offers an opinion at an AFD should conduct their own web search, and form their own opinion as to whether the topic itself is notable. Clearly, a lot of AFD participants don't do this, put their trust in the nominator to have done so. It seems to me that nominators, at least, should conduct a good, thorough web search.

So, if you really meant to imply "no harm, no foul", I think you couldn't be more wrong. Escalating immediately to AFD, when you find an article with poor references, or a similar issue, strains the patience of the dwindling number of contributors who actually add new content.

It is exhausting to respond to any AFD. In some ways responding to AFD where the nominator hasn't actually read the article, or complied with WP:BEFORE, is even more of a strain than responding to substantive, policy-based challenges. Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Geo Swan, you are welcome to think that I am discouraging new editors by nominating poor articles on non-notable topics. And I don't think that going to AfD is an escalation. At that AfD, by the way, I encourage you to present some actual evidence, besides your usual grand statements. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Does this have to go though SPI or can it quicker?

• Exhibit 1: (User:Glemmens1940~enwiki blocked indefinitely)
• Exhibit 2: Sul-account Lucas van Oranje with edits on NLWP and ENWP
• Exhibit 3: SPI on NLWP for block evading by GLemmens1940 by a sock called Lucas van Oranje

What do you think? The Banner talk 17:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Done. I don't think much of it. I didn't know I was on the guy's shit list; can't remember having run into them. (On the bright side, they think I'm dumb, so they can't be that stupid.) What I can't figure out is why I can't see who suppressed all those edits; the log gives me no entries. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're only talking about revdel, I think you have to look at the log for the page(s) in question. For instance, Writ Keeper did at least one of them [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I see what it was--it was the "~enwiki" bit on their own talk page. That was the one I was looking at. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It was not nice to deal with this guy in 2013. so I don't want another episode. I still have the unproven suspicion that he is the one behind a few threatening e-mails I have received about Wikipedia. English language mails about what I did on the Dutch Wikipedia... The Banner talk 08:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's old, it's redirected, and maybe I'm over-sensitive ...

But could someone with a toolkit please revdelete this? Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fangusu edit

Are you sure you want to let a Fangusu edit stand like you did on Bulsara? You know you are inviting more of her bullshit to continue if you do.

Have some sources btw: http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Adi%20Bulsara&nojs=1 https://books.google.com/books/about/Adi_Bulsara.html?id=2VSmuAAACAAJ http://america.pink/bulsara_787432.html --Tarage (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And if you are going to protect articles, protect this one too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_Loving_You --Tarage (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't really care what you're dropping here ("revolvy"? wtf is that? go read WP:RS). The edit you keep restoring is completely tripe. Sock or not, you are making the article worse--ffs, what's someone's cousin doing on a dab page? I'm going to step away from the keyboard, because I am thinking too much of your completely unacceptable edit summaries. If you can't make your case without telling someone to fuck off and die or to go and kill themselves, you should really, really step away too. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to report a vandal

Hello. Someone is damaging the wikipage of the 2012 US presidential election. What can I do to stop them??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• It seems the user stopped. I sent a notification about vandalism. Sorry for bothering you. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No bother. I'm surprised someone still cares for 2012. That's almost ancient history, making it an encyclopedic topic. Anyway, that user is perilously close to being a vandalism-only editor, unless they can't tell the difference between a 2 and a 6--and even then. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Haha. You know, I think that user is bothered about Obama reelection and sees that fact as what led to this black comedy we call 2016 US presidential election. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Well: thank **** for Nixon eh; or it could've been three terms... _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for getting to that ANI so fast, some people just never learn. BTW love the geolocate =) Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well, if it works--but in this case it was abundantly clear that it was the same person. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ham

Hello

I am new to this so I hope that I am doing this right..yiikes. In response to my Canaan edit, I am greatly baffled. All I did was add the correct information to a flawed and very misleading page and even cited the Scripture Genesis 10:6 the second time around. It isn't shocking that I used Scripture for the page is RIFE with references to Scripture. Genesis 10:6 very plainly says that Ham was the father of 4 sons and those sons were Mizraim, Put, Cush and Canaan. There is a plethora of information about who Ham was and what his name means. Why is this new knowledge to Wikipedia? For a site that claims to inform and educate this is downright embarrassing.

HolyJustus (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Start a new section on Talk:Canaan. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yep. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

108.199.223.23

You should consider blocking 108.199.223.23 for longer than 31 hours. He was blocked the other day using - JT Country Pop and 108.199.223.221

2601:983:8102:24A0:FD12:4581:127A:AF1B (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I should? Makes no difference, since they switched IPs before and will probably do so again. If you want to help, start an SPI, if there isn't one already, or add to it. Drmies (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking more like a range block to block his future available addresses. I don't know how you do it, I just know that I get caught in them all the time on my mobile devices. Every time I boot or drive down the road to a new tower, I risk not being able to post because of a range block. The difference being, my ips vary quite drastically, while those two have the first 3 groupings the same. 68.33.90.182 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

And here's a good reason to log in: I don't know who I'm talking to. Range block for future addresses is not doable, and I don't do rangeblocks in the first place (not smart enough). Drmies (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have an account for when I am on a blocked ip or am on a protected page. But all of my browsers are set for privacy mode - all cookies and history get cleared every time I close a window. I would need to log in every time I am here - too much hassle. If I wanted involved with policy making or regularly policing users, maybe I would consider logging in. But I am just a minor page editor. 166.216.159.217 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. Well, I couldn't tell if the first message here was from the same person as the second message. You'll note there's a comment below from an equally numerical IP editor who identifies himself as "99", from an old IP he used to use, and so I always know who I'm talking to (besides that, I recognize his editing style and language). So that's something you can consider whenever you roam outside of article space. Anyway, yeah, I can't do rangeblocks and don't see how someone who can would do it here; whenever I propose one the answer is always "too much collateral damage", haha. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Danratedrko's sockpuppet DS-616

In connection with this message, you may or may not find it interesting to know that, by coincidence, when I saw it I had just logged into Wikipedia with the intention of consulting a CheckUser about the possibility of looking for Danratedrko's self-declared sockpuppet. As for whether I "want to do something about this user's block", I'm not sure what there is to do, but thanks for letting me know anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• JamesBWatson, great minds think alike. I think I pinged you because I misread your block notice, thinking that the block was not yet indefinite. Drmies (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that was my fault, for saying "you won't be surprised or disappointed", rather than the more direct "you are blocked indefinitely". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that: because I thought they weren't blocked indefinitely I didn't see that they in fact were; I must have seen that they were blocked or I wouldn't have pinged you. Perception steered by presumption. I liked your handwritten notice. BTW, my misreading was not unlike Cavalcante de' Cavalcanti's, though this is not something our article explains. I'll get on it. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Perception is often steered by presumption in that way, and yet in other situations the contrast between presumption and what actually occurs can hit one's perception very forcefully. As for Cavalcante de' Cavalcanti, that is a bit of the Inferno that I had never read. From what I have now seen, it looks as though the incident is probably notable enough to be mentioned in the article: probably far more notable than many of the trivia that appear in "In popular culture" sections and the like. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

A removed prod and hello

Hi Dr, I removed this prod [5], noticing after the fact that you'd placed it there. I think that particular issue has been resolved. Anyway, it gave me the chance to drop by and say hello. Hope you're staying cool this summer, enjoying both the pool and the ale. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well, that was certainly an improvement. The pool looks great, by the way--crystal clear, not like when Writ Keeper used to visit. But I'm on the office pretending to work. Hope you and yours are well too, and thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to identify IPs

Hello again. Some IP users wrote very strange commentaries about a cleanup I made in an article in my talk page. I did the cleanup as parts of the article violated WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR and the political content was WP:UNDUE but these users mistook me for some kind of conservative activist. The users are violating the policy WP:NPA so I'm wondering whether and whom I need to report this. Thanks for your help. Leo Bonilla (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think they think you're a communist. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• Well, they're trying to hit people up all over the place. It's not really disruptive, it's just a waste of time. Not much for an admin to do. You can ask them to zip it and stay away from your talk page? Drmies (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Actually they claimed User:Chronus is a communist and they are asking me to be some kind of Wikipedia police and they asked the same to others users. Do you think I can stop them to be WP:JAGUAR showing them the list of policies on Wikipedia and asking them to continue the conversation in the respective talk page? Leo Bonilla (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well, sure--"take it to the article talk page" and just stop responding. They're trying with a number of other editors too. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla and Drmies: About the IP, please see this! Chronus (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Chronus: I took action. Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla: Me too. Chronus (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)And I see they are blocked as socks of Bazaira.[6] Doug Weller talk 10:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello. I noticed you had posted an additional warning on the talk page of Vwvu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so would you mind taking a look at their recent edits? It's an editor with an obvious COI repeatedly (as in three times today, so far...) adding/re-adding unsourced and/or improperly sourced trivia on Jain International Residential School, in spite of tonnes of warnings on their talk page, treating the article as if it's their property, and an extension of the school website. Thomas.W ^talk 13:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Please disregard, they were blocked after a report at WP:AIV. I wouldn't mind if you would semiprotect the article for a couple of weeks or more, though, to prevent socking during their two-week block, since they have a history of using multiple parallell accounts (including a previous block for it). Thomas.W ^talk 13:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Let's see what happens. The next block is indefinite. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WO

Hi. Did you recently make a post on Wikipediocracy? There is an account claiming to be you and I am not sure if it is a joe job. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's old Jared, who's got nothing better to do. I don't know how to post on Wikipediocracy and I never look at it; I hope someone there blocks them--is that the kind of thing they do? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User editing in violation of ARBPIA 30/500 GASP

Hi Drmies, I don't want to open up a full AE action, but this user Dreamsarenotreal has been making edits that he's not allowed to. I've reverted, posted on his talk page, Bolter has also informed him, but he just doesn't listen. Is there anything you can do short of me initiating an AE since I thought admins can take action without an AE action. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I hate to clock out, but I'm about to serve dinner (been working on it for a while now)--I have no doubt, though, that TParis is entirely at your disposal, and if not him, well, I hear that Kelapstick's eagle has landed. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Two edits don't rise to AE action for a new editor. This is an appropriate first step. Let's see how it goes.--v/r - TP 08:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you TParis. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Shenanigans at Andrij Dobriansky again

Hi Drmies. You and Jpgordon blocked User:Nosay990 and User:LGR02g as socks. Just a heads-up that a new editor has appeared, ALU0819, who is carrying on the shenanigans at Andrij Dobriansky where the first two left off. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Barinder Rasode for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barinder Rasode is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barinder Rasode until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Canuckle (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

An Apology y

I am sorry for my disruptive and uncivil behavior on the Wikipedia Teahouse a year and a quarter ago. I am sorry for all the rude things that I said to the Wikipedia community and about falsely accusing you of having an agenda against hate groups, pseudoscience promoters, and pedophiles. I wasn't thinking clearly then. To be clear, I do not support or advocate these group's ideologies especially those of pedophiles who view adult-child sexual relationships as healthy and safe, on-or-off Wikipedia. Editors who use Wikipedia to promote the ideologies of hate groupes, theories that are thought to be pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community, and pedophiles who promote pedophilia on Wikipedia, or edit articles to support their views must not be allowed on Wikipedia. Please forgive me. Frogger48 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Relevant links:

• permalink at user's talk
• permalink at WT:Child_protection

Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

see in real life

I looked up in his archives what I exchanged with Kevin and found your "Hope to see you again in real life somewhere." Hope it happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

ICARE Foundation

Sometimes I tag an article and throw up my hands--perhaps the good Dr or one of his talk page stalkers can have a look at this. To my eye pretty much the whole thing is an advert. Thanks from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not often wrong and right again, '99. I'll probably get bollocked for stubbing it, but between the advertorial and the near-50%copyright violations, there wasn't much to be picked out. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I thought a lot of it was probably copyright violation, but was having trouble separating out distinct examples. Much appreciated, 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much the same issues at Agribusiness Teaching Center, a related article. If you don't get to it, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I will return to the article later. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks 99, dealt similarly with that. But I wish the Dr waz ere: there's some major WP:MEAT going on on both of them, and we could use some temporary protection. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

All in good time; he can't pretend to be on vacation forever. Plus, there are other good-natured admins who check in here. Thank you. The Agribusiness article has a helpful listing of 'see also' pages, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find similar issues with some of those. The IP you warned is operating out of the University. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I just saw you add the 'Who Is' bit- Great thinking! Talk about COI. But now it's open for all to see. And also- isn't reverting opyvios a 3RR exemption...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I should think so--I've never hesitated to revert copyright violations, though doing so as an IP has several times earned warnings from undiscerning passersby. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)