User talk:Drmies

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

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

Happy New Year, all you nice people!
Don't forget to quit smoking, lose 20 pounds,
and reference some BLPs! Drmies (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAR for Guillaume de Dole

Hello :) I've started the review, just in case you overlooked it on your watchlist (mine looks like a buzzard's throw-up... heh) Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have Huggle, or Twinkle, I don't know, so basically half the pages I edit are on my watchlist. I haven't looked at it in ages. To get to the point: thanks! I will have a look. If there are major issues that require time and scholarship, it may be a few days before I get to it--campus is closed. Happy New Year, and thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your review question. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me, without nonsense labeling, what was wrong with my revisions? GiantSquidAttack (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
Message added 08:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

New comments at the bottom, please

Can you please explain to me, without nonsense labeling, what was wrong with my revisions? GiantSquidAttack (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, as your user page seems to claim, I'm just anal. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are. So there is nothing wrong with them, correct? I would restore them, if not for fear of being permanently blocked. GiantSquidAttack (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this edit, in its odd mixture of silliness and inside references, is indicative of a lack of good will. You know, of course, that I did not report you--perhaps you should take this up with that editor. And while there is nothing wrong with a few of your edits, there is a lot wrong with some of the editors. Thanks; it's been a pleasure. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a relatively straight answer. Nice dismissive remark, as well. So I should simply edit the Longview page again, correct? GiantSquidAttack (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, your copyedits were more than welcome. Now, if you could explain that weird edit to a closed AfD discussion, which WP newbies would be hard-pressed to find, that might help your cause--I understand an SPI on your behavior is to be opened, and that would be the place to leave your comments, not this talk page, which is a place for tranquility and enjoyment. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's an SPI? GiantSquidAttack (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your question has been answered: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Welshdave86. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nested

As we've discussed refs before, I thought you might be (very slightly) interested to see that I did something which I didn't even know was possible: refs nested inside a footnote! I hope you had a good New Year's Eve/Day. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly Mandarax--you are taking geekdom to a whole new level! I am very proud of you, and I will have a second and a third look at that edit to figure out what is going on. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's one of those things where you don't really try to figure it out – you just follow the examples and hope for the best. It's "explained" in WP:REFNOTE and the next section. That help page implies that it's only possible to have one ref nested within another, but I did ten. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subaru Outback commentary

Changes made to Subaru Outback are based on real world experience of Subaru Outback owners who are experiencing this problem with their vehicle. This is backed up by the FACT that subaru has issued TSB's And letters, which were referenced with URL links where people can confirm this issue. The fact that some are referenced in a forum does not take away from the credence of the information. As an educator, I remind my students not rely on sites like wikipedia due to the fact that info on this web site may not always be 100% accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.189.170 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about Subaru Outback, specifically edits you made of this type. Those will be reverted every single time, since Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia with information based on reliable sources--owners' experience as it is related on message boards cannot count as reliable sources. So yes, that does take away from the credence of the information, since message boards do not have editorial control. Please see WP:RS. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clan of Xymox

So how does this work? The dates, members and events keep getting changed, so how do we agree on what constitutes "reliable source(s)"? Muso88 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale revert undone. Simple as that--no reliable sources, no changes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately that's not making any difference because it's being reinstalled as fast as you're reverting and there are certainly no discussions going on Muso88 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011 Response about Ergun Caner

The message which you sent me implied that the information published on Ergun Caner's wiki page was unverified. This is a false attribution on your behalf, each piece of information that was published on the page consisted of proper citations which exposed his dishonesty or at least showed the opinion of those who criticise him. What has been added to the wiki page now are laughable refutations of the allegations placed against Ergun Caner which have already been debunked on fakeexmuslims.com. Just search "normal geisler fakeexmuslims.com" and "john ankerberg fakeexmuslims.com" in google, you will find all this information there. You as a supposed person of integrity should be willing to allow criticism of individuals to be published, unless of course, you are implying that Ergun Caner is infallible. Contact this email address for a friendly discussion regarding this matter: contact@fakeexmuslims.com. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo khan247 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]