Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ElizabethCB123 (talk | contribs) at 06:44, 12 August 2011 (→I am so incredibly apologetic!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sorry...

Yes. LadyofShalott 03:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a .txt file with a lot of them in there that I keep open for copying and pasting them, Want a copy of it? Of course I remember that. I'll check out your new one. LadyofShalott 03:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks very helpful. Don't show it to Mandarax, he'll start drooling and will want to ask you out. GEEK! Yes, well, what can I say. I'm doing a writing-intensive class next year for which I'll have to sit through four classes--for $100 each, which I can spend on technology. And netbooks are cheap: I'm getting a Toshiba with a case and extra memory for less than $300, and on the company card, bwuhaha. Jealous--did I tell you we're going to the beach for a week? Drmies (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A propos of nothing much... do you speak any of the Frisian languages (just curious)? LadyofShalott 06:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three things Doc:
  1. It takes 5 minutes for me to load your talk page. Sign up for automated archving already!
  2. Did you ever get your book, I still haven't.
  3. Netbooks are great, I have an Acer, great for traveling, but I also thing my iPad 2 is the bomb, except for editing Wikipedia.
--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Butter, bread en griine tsiis, we't det net sizze kin is gjin oprjochte Fries. But I probably misspelled that. Ucucha 00:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"'Good butter and green cheese' is good English and good Fries"... or something like that (and I'll make no attempt on the Frisian spelling. LadyofShalott 00:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Brownlee

Would some WP:REVDEL be in order for Gerry Brownlee since you blocked 203.97.216.137 ? Mtking (edits) 04:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not the worst I've seen, but I'll err on the side of caution, since my opinion may not be shared by everyone, including the subject (no doubt). Thanks--good call. And thanks for keeping the house clean. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Mtking (edits) 04:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another lighthouse article

Groeten Drmies, since you got me thinking about Dutch lighthouses again, I added Groote Kaap from the Dutch. Would you please check for inaccuracies? In particular I don't trust that I got prepositions all correct, and it makes a difference if you say "in" or "near" a place. Dank u, LadyofShalott 12:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The translation looks good to this Dutchman. Ucucha 00:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ucucha! LadyofShalott 01:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lady, I am proud of you. Thank you, and thanks to Ucucha as well. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Sippi and I climbed to the top of a lighthouse yesterday: Cape San Blas Light. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmies. Comments like that will make me have to do more lighthouse work. I've been to the Cape San Blas Light, but I didn't know you could climb it. I think it must have been closed when I was there. I think there was a fence around it, but it's been a while! Did y'all have a good time? LadyofShalott 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Sorry, probably happened when I cut and pasted the information box adding it to a wikiproject. I was just being sloppy, and will watch closer in the future, thanks. l santry (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I started a discussion on ANI about what seems to be a new SP of User:FAIZGUEVARRA. I would be grateful if you can intervene since you are aware of the FAIZGUEVARRA case.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
No prob. Btw I can not smell him miles away, I'm just aware (since I'm a little bit more involved there) of the same issue on the French WP since he got more than 40 sockpuppets there :D
Thanks a lot btw, I hope that you enjoyed your week ;)
Omar-Toons (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May you agree too

Hello Drmies,In Literary Career and bibliography section,the book "De Wijze Weg" has been translated into "The Wise Road",actually User:Brianhe,Had translated, "The Wise Way",on my request he changed it accordance with your translation.But in my opinion,Brianhe's tranlation was more appropriat,because the book,De Wijze Weg has also been translated in to English (yet not published) with same translation,as Brianhe did,(The Wise Way).What do you think sir about it?.I have asked the User:LadyofShalott,but she has put the burden on me to do,now I am asking you to consider it,which is more suitable translation,two opinions are for "The Wise Way".Looking forward your editing on both places.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:MiszaBot III

Consider using this bot, please. ;-) Also I have a photo I took for you once I get it onto Commons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer doing some things by hand, Ed. I hope you are pleased with my archiving activities yesterday. BTW--photo? Nice! BTW, I wonder where this came from (I found it in this article). Drmies (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also BTW, I am typing this on my new Toshiba netbook. It's great, small, light, though getting used to the keyboard is not so easy. I can't believe what $300 will buy you these days. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't blame you; I do the same thing. And actually, I don't have to upload it. It's just the sign featured here -- I thought of you when I saw it. I also got a photo of the "Polish-American Heritage Highway" signage on the same trip -- that one's for my Grandma, who's a full Pole. :-) $325 bought me a 42" HDTV last year, allowing me to replace my puny but bulky old tv... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GBooks

I am having a rather tedious conversation on my talk page with someone who is under the impression that GBooks works everywhere, just the same. I have tried explaining that it does not but I get the impression that it is not sinking in. Somewhere I have seen an article/essay about this issue but am blowed if I can find it. Any ideas? - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it courtesy of a TPS. What a nightmare: 18k+ edits and they seem to think it is ok to use snippet view and that the whole world can see GBooks exactly as s/he sees it. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for removing those additions out of the Glosa article. It seems I'll have to get it on my watchlist. Xabadiar (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TPS alert

Drmies is messing up the Florida coast, where internet access is spotty. See you in a week. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slacker! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're having fun! Don't let the kids eat too much sand. LadyofShalott 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second Mandarax. Try not to get too burned. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on RS for Celtic F.C. supporters

Hi again Drmies. I wonder if you might have time (yet again!) to look at this [1] on the RS Noticeboard and give your opinion. Thanks Mattun0211 (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of football in Tibet

Hello fellow Dr. Can you translate this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy International Beer Day!

Happy International Beer Day!
I am certain that you will be taking the time to participate in the following traditions of International Beer Day:
  1. Gathering with friends and enjoying the taste of beer.
  2. Celebrating those responsible for brewing and serving beer.
  3. Uniting the world under the banner of beer, by celebrating the beers of all nations together on a single day. -- kelapstick(bainuu) 08:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:99.248.60.99

FYI, you blocked this IP last week for vandalism. He's up to it again, committing several vandalisms today, and it looks like a vandalism-only account.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  23:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Obviously the same twit, so I've prescribed a two-week Wiki-break. Favonian (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Favonian! Drmies (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J Greb

J Greb is an admin. He also has been reverting my edits on List of Batman television series characters because of a lack of source. The info I have been inserting is true. Tell him to stop. I am a huge fan of said TV series and know obscure facts about it, which makes my info seem reliable.--76.236.0.168 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the information you are taking from IMDb - you comment on that here, other sources you are unwilling to indicate in edit summaries, or your own original research?
- J Greb (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End credits of the episodes.--76.236.0.168 (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)
At this point, sadly, that's going to need a third party reviewing the characters and actors listed in them.
And that does not cover the non-credit related edits.
- J Greb (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since 76 has taken it to ANI, there'll be various other opinions forming. LadyofShalott 20:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really need to look to find a reference to WP:BOOMERANG? I saw that J. Greb had already applied protection. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion, please

Is there any reason for Shaman (Finnish band) and Korpiklaani to be separate pages? It seems to me they should be one article that chronologically discusses the two styles/names. Do you agree, or no? LadyofShalott 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How odd. I am inclined to agree with you. But you can play it safe--there's a couple of editors who are in the know, much more than me--I'm thinking of User:Blackmetalbaz, User:Dabomb87, and User:Malconfort (formerly known as Cannibaloki). Drmies (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll drop notes on their talk pages... tomorrow probably. I'm getting to that point... LadyofShalott 04:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need your rest, my pretty one. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you flatter me. ;) LadyofShalott 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My User Page

Hi!

Thanks for the question. I have had a problem in that area for a while. Originally, I started writing an article there on the production of human protein before I knew the limitations of my user page. I've tried moving the text to another media, but it's too big. Can I move it to a subpage without a problem or better yet break it up into two subpages so that it's manageable? Every time I try anything the result is an error message from Wikipedia saying they're having a computer problem and the article remains as it. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see why. It took ten minutes just cutting and pasting it into three chunks: User:Marshallsumter/human protein1, User:Marshallsumter/human protein2, and User:Marshallsumter/human protein3. The individual chunks are already at the upper limit of what we (that is, most of us mortals and our machines) can comfortably handle. I think the bigger question is, what is it? Is this a future WP article in the works? Because if it's not, you really should move it off-line. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It originally started out as an article but there is obviously way too much material, plus most sections are fairly well covered by the respective articles included. They were usually not explicit enough regarding the human genome. Let me take a look at each part and maybe I can finally get the pieces into the other media offline. I really didn't want to lose any of the good info. Thanks again! Marshallsumter (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic F.C. supporters

Hello Drmies, I'm not sure why you have decided to take an interest in Scottish football, and I would encourage you to learn about and contribute to the greatest sport played in a country with one of the greatest histories in football. But I am not happy about your edits on this page. To be honest this feels like WP:WIKIHOUNDING as three editors have now gone from the Green Brigade page to the Celtic supporters page and even if it is not I do not see why you get to deem sources as unreliable for no reason.Adam4267 (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if you'd care to look up the page, you will see that I was asked to look into the matter. Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass for Scottish soccer, being an Ajax fan, born and raised. I don't see where you get the Wikihounding part--who am I supposed to be hounding? But in regards to the reliable sources stuff, the burden is on you. I encourage you to partake in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Celtic_F.C._supporters, where you should have left your comments in the first place, and where you are welcome to explain how Celtic is itself a reliable source for information on its fans (for instance, [2]), or how this can reliably verify that 80% of Honduras soccer fans support Celtic. In other words, I have very good reasons for deeming these sources not reliable. Thank you for your comment, though. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your very welcome for the comment, why don't you frame it and put it on your wall. I am not going to assume that your unwillingness to show how the sources are unreliable is you sublimally saying that your wrong. I'm sure you have a very good reason for rejecting sources for no reason and without explanation. And please remember Drmies that veiled, petty comments don't help contribute to productive discussion. If you don't have anything nice to say, why don't you try saying nothing at all. Adam4267 (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise! Or, if you got nothing useful or nice to say, don't say it on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not continue to leave warnings on my talk page. The first time you warned me was fair because you warned three users who were all editing and I was as well. The last two times you warned me were completely unjustified, saying my edits were vandalism when they were not and threatening to block me is completely unnacceptable. You have still not shown how any of the sources used are unreliable and undoing edits without participating on the talk page is more akin to vandalism than what I am doing. If you would like to continue editing why don't you try participating in talk page discusions and explaining your reasons for edits rather than just leaving vague statements which don't really mean anything and threatening to block me. Adam4267 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not threatening to block you. If you continue to remove valid, sourced information, and if you continue to insert unreliably sourced information (how many times do you need to be told that sources are to be independent of the subject?), I will ask for someone else to block you? You throw around nonsense like "POV edits", well, I explained yet again on the talk page why this is nonsense. I'm done with you. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. I am sorry to bother you but if you could comment here I would be appreciative. Even if you support the proposed topic ban I would like you to comment. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get involved - just tell me how it is

Have I done the wrong thing at User_talk:MangoWong#Wayback_Machine ? No need to get involved in it - just tell me how it is. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you did sounds fair enough to me. It's a bit tricky for me, since I have in the past removed dead links without checking that Wayback Machine--but links that I remove are usually websites or otherwise not so notable things, not newspaper or magazine articles, which is what I think you were talking about. In other words, if there is a citation with a dead link, removing the citation because of the dead link is not OK, in my opinion. Removing a dead link if there is nothing else that comes with it, so to speak, that's a different matter. Mind you, I've never looked at that DEADLINK guideline (I assume it's not a policy) before and I'm not about to right now, but I think that, as usual, you are going about this the right way: patiently and in detail, even if they don't want to hear it. In fact, I'm jealous of your patience. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above. I am quite concerned about what the person is doing but reluctant to get further involved. At least in this instance I have someone who has reviewed. And thanks also for your edit at James Tod. I am half-minded to run it through GAN (which should not be a problem) and then progress to FAC, but the whole idea of FAC scares the bajesus out of me. A little work to be done yet, but I have the feeling that it is already close to FA status. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I am the villain of the piece. Only that nobody bothered to check the Dennis Rader article to see if i actually deleted the link or not. At how many places did you make this claim? What are your other false claims?-MangoWong (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to this article?

I think this has material I need for Chris Norman (flautist), but I can't read it. Can you? LadyofShalott 03:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Check your email. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! LadyofShalott 04:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well shoot. I was hoping there'd be more. He's in one lonely footnote! Oh well, I can use it. LadyofShalott 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Celtic F.C. supporters. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all we arent chummy being members of the same project is a different matter. Also if you want the truth i agree with you on the matter but you have reverted his edits four times he has only reverted you three so is nnt yet in breach of the rule. This is an edit war you have done the correct thing now stating why on the talkpage which he has asked you to do earlier. The problem is the article had a lot more refs on it which were removed in agreement on the talk page which is how it should have been dealt with this time. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are incorrect: I have not reverted him four times; my first edits were to remove improperly sourced information. I have reverted him three times, as he has me. There is indeed discussion on the talk page--but there is nothing there that suggests that there is a consensus among editors that improperly sourced information should be kept. There is only one editor urging that the page be kept as a puff piece for the club, and that is the editor whom you still have not warned for edit warring. If you agree with me on the content of the edits, then why not say that clearly on the talk page? It is obvious that the editor is not listening to me. BTW, I am not obliged to explain every single edit on the talk page--the other editor should be capable of reading individual edit summaries, and you should note also that I have explained, in my first series of edits, for every single statement why it was not allowed. Can you leave that editor, besides a warning, a note asking him to read the edit summaries before he starts blindly reverting, without explanation or edit summary, without a note on the talk page--in short, without proper manners? If you do that, I will gladly believe in your good will. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
either way given the nature of the subject and the talk page is already open thats the way to go on this. Given the nature of the article its going to be impossible to get everything fully referenced. If you look at previous versions of the article then you will see the proposal were taken into account and the article has been changed. I will speak to adam and tell him to take it to the talk page but it shouldn't be turned into an edit war.Warburton1368 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fact remains, I explained, and I have policy (WP:RS, for instance) on my side--he simply hit revert. Also, I'd like for you to acknowledge that I did not revert him four times, and that you templated me (and I think I'm a regular), which is a very different treatment than my counterpart seems to get from you ("I will speak to [him]"). Drmies (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing to do is take to the talk page he asked you to explain why you were reverting and you now have. I have warned adam the same as you now it should be left alone until consensus is reached. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bios - Reply

Hey mate, VASCO here, hope all's fine by you,

i'll have a look at Jorge Nuno Pinto da Costa and see what can be done (bet there's a lot of vandalism there, a LOT!). Regarding Florentino Pérez, of course there's no need for a list of signings in my opinion (that's nothing more than a populist move on the part of whoever wrote it).

No, not a Porto fan, have nothing but utter despise for teams that start/end a game with ZERO national players, as that and S.L. Benfica - just to name a few! - hope Porto gets thrashed by FC Barcelona in the 2011 UEFA Super Cup, "honestest" of truths, and i'm Portuguese as you know...

Attentively, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have a look at the 2011 Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira setups (Vitória de Guimarães is also "fine", with three in 11, after its three replacements, Porto played nearly 10 minutes with ZERO Portuguese players, Rolando is Cape Verdean, and that is not racism, he was born there, of Cape Verdean father and mother, what is he?). You may also want to see the rosters of C.D. Nacional and C.S. Marítimo here at this great site, chilling; did you know that Brazilian players do not count as imports in the Portuguese League? Must be our remorse for all those years of plundering their land and ruling their destinies...

Again, kind regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken version

I think by overturning Zythe's attempt to halve the size of the BLP page, you have returned it to its doubled size. I am still seeing a problem. It began here. The page takes forever to download now. Bielle (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did do so, regardless of his intention (though I disagree with you there; I think he was looking for a solution) and then you reverted that edit. Of course, one of his previous edits is the one that originally doubled the size (the one I linked above). And the problem remains. The page is over twice as big as it should be, and it is almost impossible to download. (See here. If fixing it is beyond your competence (and it is most certainly far beyond mine), could you redirect me to someone who can do the fix? Thanks Bielle (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see now what happened--and just as I'm about to do it by hand, another editor is already working on restoring the proper content. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, i'm so sorry. It was an accident. I'm a long-time editor and I've never been behind a mishap like this before. I can assure you it wasn't intentional, I feel humiliated like I've just broken a friend's TV by letting go of the Wii remote. I was kind of upset by the post on my talk page accusing me of breaking the noticeboard to further my agenda. I don't care enough about some temporary thing to jeopardise my account and reputation way. Thank you and whichever editors have worked towards fixing the issue...Zythe (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Dear Drmies, Thanks for your messesage explainig the problesms with my submissions.

I have prepared a new drafts and put them on my talk page.

May I request you to please review them and help me out.

Your assitance will be highly appreciated.

Thanks once again for your timely assistance.

Blessings, Pramod Vora Pramod Vora (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies,

I have been posting my discussions with User: Huon on my user page. But we have not reached a consensus on the 3 pages I had recommended editing and bringing the information up to date to the year 2011:

Anti-Aging Limb Regeneration (Fingertip Regeneration) Stem Cell Research

May I request you to kindly go through these proceedings and let me know what you recommend me to do further in this matter.

There are many other topics on which we have been researching at our Center, but I have withheld sharing anything further with Wikipedia at this point of time till the outcome of these pending discussions and my further understanding of the situation I have landed myself in.

Your help will be highly appreciated.

Blessings, Pramod VoraPramod Vora (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message

Thanks, yeh--it's him I was talking to. AtomHearted (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks on Chateau de la Motte, Joue du Plain

Hello Drmies - thanks for the improvements.

Image on left was leftover from a bad effort to make the intro more compact and less airy, nothing more. I'm new to this and not sure how different systems interpret the layout and images.

The chatty notes were an attempt to record history. I have interviewed a number of aging survivors of the War about the experience at the Chateau and Resistance stories in general. The RAF museum has asked me to record them, since it often involves downed pilots. I thought if I could work out a way to do it in Wikipedia, perhaps more people could use the results. Since interviews are not allowed then I thought notes might be excepted. Any ideas? MlaneMlane (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mlane, thanks for your note, and for your contributions. Unfortunately, what you describe is original research (WP:OR), and encyclopedic info needs to be based on reliable, published, secondary sources. If it gets published, then it can be included here, of course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Nuno Pinto da Costa

Hi there MIES, VASCO here,

have finished (hopefully!) upgrading the article, added some refs. However, i found out immediately after ending, upon checking the "piece"'s edit history, that some of my additions were also some of your removal. I tried to add some refs, none were available in English (strangely enough, as it is a worldwide known club), hope you like the new version.

If not...hit that cut button! Dankiu vel, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vasco! I saw you readded some of the material, but the balance in the article is much better thanks to your good work. I noticed that there was little in English (besides mere mentions of hiring and transfers and such), which is one reason I called on you. Thank you so much--the article is much better than it was before. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THanks!

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyPBailey (talk • contribs)

Roll Tide

If you search for Drmies in the search box it suggests that you might have wished to search for Dummies...Coincidence? Hoyt burrass (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Till then I have no financial condition to live in this borough. For our comfort, a cup of coffee for you and a glass of Coke for me. P.S. I love cats! Malconfort (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Coal balls?

So do I. I've asked the copyright holders of an existing image for permission, or maybe I can draw one. --Σ talkcontribs 05:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Video Sources

...rm some all-caps, redundant italics, redundant white space. also trimmed content: not everything in here was of encyclopedic value. BTW, this YouTube sourcing, it's not good. that album--was it released?

Thanks for the tips Drmies. What is Wikipedia's policy's on sourcing videos. Its seems to me, in the case of biography's, there is NO BETTER SOURCE then to hear it directly from the persons mouth with sound and audio (as oppose to citing abstract websites or even news articles). Please explain why "this YouTube sourcing, it's not good." please and kindly, so I can myself become a better Wikipedia editor. Thanks TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(refimprove tag. article relies (almost) exclusively on videos, whose reliability can be questioned)
The article references many different video sources from different years, not just one video, which is what I spent the last week going watching and sourcing so please reassure me that my time was not wasted. How can video footage not be the best source material? It's much more reliable then hypertext, no? What is the policy on sourcing the same video? Is there a method to keep the same source for multiple paragraphs without adding double sources? TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Video sourcing is not a good thing since there are problems, inherently. First of all, I have not looked at the videos--loading them and browsing through them takes too much time. But I can say confidently that I have doubts about the reliability of those who published the videos. Moreover, you take quotes from those videos--writing words from sounds is, really, a kind of original research (WP:OR). Published sources are always best.

    As for "there is NO BETTER SOURCE then to hear it directly from the persons mouth", that is erroneous, simply put. Encyclopedias should rely on secondary, not primary material--see WP:PRIMARY, a subsection of the original research page, if only because a subject does not necessarily speak the truth about themselves, and because whatever a subject has said isn't really important until someone acknowledged (preferably in print) that it's important.

    Finally, for your question about using the same source multiple times, see WP:CITEFOOT, on the "ref name=" function. I hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make great points for a typical Encyclopedia - however Wikipedia also has a huge catalog of living biographies which automatically show up first in Google search results making the information on the page accuracy much more important - which is an entirely different ballpark from a traditional Encyclopedia where its more accurate to cite reliable sources and scientific journals. You yourself, as a moderator, don't have time to watch all the videos - but fans of the band will over the course of a year watch them, the article will be further and further refined because of it. Good citations in videos can be reliable when many people are viewing the video multiple times - your seeing and hearing the information first hand, it isn't being filtered by an editor or news agency. That kind of information is more reliable in the case of say, a band interview. In the case of living biography's and band biography's this is more valuable information to fans who are interested. It should be a combination of different sources which we agree upon, which is what im trying to do, but I just want to make sure that 5 days worth of citations doesn't go down the drain because I think fans will find the information valuable and as a result it will be a better article. Do you agree with that or no? TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hate to be a stick in the mud, but WP:V, and related to that WP:RS, are really essential... Drmies (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry Drmies, I'll stop harassing you now. Is just nice to have a real person answer questions as oppose to dealing with bots. You don't always get good answers from those help files. Ignore that last comment I posted about citing existing Wiki pages, I'll do more comprehensive reading on the policies, thanks! TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and Twitter

BEFORE On May 21, 2011, The Birthday Massacre announced via their Facebook wall, and their Twitter profile,[1] that Imaginary Monsters, will be released on August 9, 2011 through Metropolis Records.

AFTER On May 21, 2011, The Birthday Massacre announced that Imaginary Monsters was to be released on August 9, 2011, through Metropolis Records.

QUESTION

Here is an example where you edited out Facebook and Twitter links, leaving the reader to question where the information was posted and thus causing the document to be less sourced. Why? If its Wikipedia's policy to not include direct links to Facebook, this I understand and try to abide by - but why edit out valuable information for the reader - ie. they can just go check the Facebook profile or Twitter profile on the date posted and check for themselves. Thanks for answering my questions good sir - or mam. TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, the announcement of an album is hardly relevant, certainly after the album comes out. Second, if something is sourced only to Facebook and Twitter, chances are it's not encyclopedically relevant information. The general idea here, besides the inherent unreliability of those sources, is that not every factoid is relevant and of encyclopedic value. Sometimes factoids do rise to the level of importance--if, for instance, your band is Guns 'n Roses and your album has been announced for a decade--but those are things that are reported on in mainstream publications, that is, secondary sources, and can thus assumed to be at least somewhat relevant. Does this help? You could consider browsing around for your band in Google News, not the regular Google Web. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gottcha, I think, so in other words, if it's already cited elsewhere in the document, there is no sense in repeating it. For example, once there is already a citation to the bands Facebook profile, it's not necessary to repeat it again unless its encyclopedic relevant information. TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusively on Videos

17:47, 10 August 2011 Drmies (talk | contribs) (39,186 bytes) (refimprove tag. article relies (almost) exclusively on videos, whose reliability can be questioned) (undo)

35 videos sources out of 86 total sources is 51 non video sources. I'm citing ALL available sources, including video, Im not singling out videos intentionally, so why do you say "relies (almost) exclusively on videos". How many video sources is too many? TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because I did not include the multiple references to MySpace and other unreliable sites, such as social networking sites and Twitter and such. Moreover, many of the 'other' references are not to reliable sources: I see just added a reference to Dose (magazine), for instance--there is no indication that this magazine is a reliable source--see WP:RS. This one, this one, and this one, to grab just three links from the References section, they are not reliable sources.

    There is no set limit, or set ratio, for video and other sources vs. things that count as reliable sources--but in this article, the balance is completely off. This may count as a source for chart information, and this is a decent and helpful article from a reliable source--but those are the only two that I found among the 88 references. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies! Dose is a popular Toronto Magazine and so is Rouge Morgue (which has its own Wikipedia page too). Obviously not every source can be known , I myself don't recognize the 3rd link, what makes something a "reliable" source. If it has the information people are looking for and isn't marked as a harmful site, don't you feel its better to include the link and allow readers to make up there own mind?TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From your experience then, out of 100 sources, when does it start becoming too much video sourcing? Again, don't you agree video is more reliable then hypertext? For example the last citation I added (dose) there is currently no way to direct users to the bottom of the page where the citation is located - where as in video I just give the time signature and BAM the information is right there. I reckon you will be seeing much more video citation in the future don't you think? TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not my band, im just a fan. :-) TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. ;)
Well, that argument of placing it precisely at the right moment, that doesn't work for everyone. It doesn't work, for instance, for the deaf, and in most cases it's hardly a problem for readers to be asked to look at an entire article. But more importantly, I think that most of your videos are interviews with the band--and that's primary material, whereas (as I mentioned above), we should write based on secondary material, if only because sources need to be independent from the subject. A release date or who plays what instrument, that's one thing, but the importance of an album, or style, or whatever, that's different. Besides, if you asked Ozzy Osbourne who plays on Blizzard of Ozz in 1980 and in 2002 you might get two different answers, and in 2002 Daisley and Kerslake might not even be mentioned. (Just read the article and you'll see what I mean--third paragraph.) And in general, written material (not the same as hypertext) always gets preference over visual material: we encourage links to for instance newspaper articles, not to video from television programs.

As for reliability, readers making up their own mind is not really the issue here. If something is linked and cited in a WP article, then the appearance is given that this is a reliable source. Verifiability using reliable sources is not an option here--it is a requirement. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, in the second paragraph already. Also, that a website has a WP article doesn't mean it's a reliable source: we don't cite tabloids for important information, for instance, and that a website is notable doesn't mean it's reliable. One can't start citing Perez Hilton, for instance. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again great points Drmies, thanks for taking the time to share, I appreciate it as im garnering a bigger interest in editing articles. You've convinced me about secondary material, and the increased validity of such sources. I'll make note of this in any future articles I edit. The only point I wanted to stress was that - sometimes its more about the content and less about the validity of the content. For example, Secondary material is important for factual information, but for questions such as "why did you join the band", that's a subjective answer that can only be sourced by the subject in question, but yet is still important information for the reader, so it all depends on whats being said. I'm just trying to write a base article that people can improve on over time. I only used a couple quotes for prose and the rest is all factual information. All im attempting to do in this article is build a base in which the rest of the fans can take over. If you view the article from a week ago it was barely a stub. I just tried to source as much reliable sources as I could, while making the article interesting, again, just to lay down a base. Thanks! TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting about Wikipedia:Verifiability - See in my mind this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rue_Morgue_%28magazine%29

Should then render this reliable,

http://rue-morgue.com/blog/archives/2010/08/25/festival-of-fear-preview-the-birthday-massacre-to-premiere-their-in-the-dark-video/

Especially after the viewing the wiki has a long history of existing. Granted I realize moderators dont have time to check all this stuff, but it would be nice to have a system that automatically detects the match here since this is a good source, a really good source actually compared to other sources in the article. I mean, I can't think of any other way to demonstrate to Wikipedia that the source is reliable then showing a page like this with a history to it. And -

'That a website is notable doesn't mean it's reliable.' - Well that can go for the New York Times too. Any website really isn't totally reliable. TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rue Morgue is a magazine. They also have a website that gives access to their articles just like NY times. I'll do further reading to find out how to turn this site into a reliable source unless you can direct me to how I can do this. Im not pulling your chain its actually quite a popular magazine in Toronto, Ontario Canada. TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure--but the question is, can you prove that, using reliable sources? (I'm not kidding--that's how it works!) Drmies (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a discussion at WP:RSN could help. (Others may know of useful sources that show the reliability (or non-reliability) of the magazine.) LadyofShalott 21:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, how do I prove it, that's the question. This gets tricky dosn't it. Here I have a great source but no Canadian moderators to vouch for me. Orange Mike? You must be Canadian? Its probably going to be too much work for me to track this info down when all I want to do is write a decent article for the band I like. Perhaps in the future Wikipedia will implement a better system of verifying sources. I mean, if you can't see from the wikipedia article and the site itself that its legit, well, I don't stand a chance of convincing you. Can't you just go with your gut? Does it look shady? Anyway - Instead im forced to let a good source slide but that's ok because im learning. Have a great day guys and gals.TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
btw - thanks for the improvements! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBMforeverNowhere (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Com' on Drmies

(?Violet (2004–06): added a reliable source. rm a URL link to a non-notable director and redundant info about a DVD (not every fact is relevant))

Does having two videos both with over 2 million views make you a non-notable director? That's 4 million people who have seen your video. Who do I have to prove notability to - you? Are you arbiter of notability? Ok, please Drmies, I'm trying to edit this page into a decent article and I don't want to just play tag back and forth with moderators. I know your not making this difficult on purpose but in two seconds you're deleteing away hours of work and research just because you've never heard of the band? Think about how much work im putting into this, do you think I would add some stupid irrelevant fact? Come on. Of course not. Look at all my past edits and make a educated choice. Do I look like im vandalizing the page? This is important info. Go look at the original page. Do a simple search for Dan Ouellette, this is not a nobody, he's a world famous illustrator and painter. Not so much a director but he has also directed too. Do a Google search. Check out his imdb page too. Are Wikipedia moderators ever convinced of anything? Just because he doesn't appear on wiki doesn't mean he doesn't exist or isn't notable or relevant, am I right? The grammar and punctuation fixes are great but this kind of behavior and editing, quite frankly, chases away what would otherwise be valuable wiki editors. TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a moderator. There are no moderators here. I'm just an editor, that's all, but as it happens I am an editor with a certain amount of experience. 2 million views? who says? The bottomline is, such information ought to be reliably sources, not linked to the dude's personal website, and if it can't be reliably sourced it can't be included. That's how an encyclopedia works. And if Wikipedia is wrong in not having an article on him, go and write that article--but don't include him if the very fact that he did the work isn't verified, and if it isn't verified that the work he did was notable. "Notable" means "noted by others"--especially those who write for magazines and newspapers and such. I tried to show you what a reliable source is by including the article from The Village Voice, which is now the third reliable source in the article. BTW, I never said you are vandalizing the page. I also never said I never heard of the band. I also don't think that it takes hours of work to add the director's URL to the page. I am trying to help you. If I wanted to strictly apply the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I could, conceivably, trim 3/4 or more from this article and say "not reliably sourced". Instead, I have already put a lot of time into this article that I could have spent somewhere else, doing the dishes for instance, or playing with my kids. I am perfectly content to let it go--I will leave your article alone. But the tag, for instance, must remain until the ratio of reliable to unreliable sources is better than 3 : 75. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what your saying Drmies, its just a little frustrating to spend days sourcing all this stuff, only to have it deleted within the click of a button(the nature of Wikipedia I suppose). I agree with the points your making and taking notes. I'll go back and add in the director, but this time cite better sources such as his imdb.com profile and other press I can find. For a minute there I thought you were just picking on me as a simple Google image search will load a plethora of results for Dan. For interests sake, here are his two most popular videos, he has a similar style to Adam Jones of the band Tool. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp1FRKc24Zk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SREZ-ggSDjM I will also take your advice and start a new page up for Dan since I think it wont be that difficult to source his work, but not tonight, another day. :-) Sorry if Im coming off abrasive but im sure you can relate to spending a long time on an article, I think I need a break anyway. I know the sources arn't great but I was just trying to get as many citations in there as I could and purge it all later. Thanks Drmies, have a great night TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anaphora (linguistics)

First, I'm glad you added "contrasted" - I was going to ask about that, but then you fixed it before I could. Anyway, if I'm reading the nomenclature section correctly, defintion 1 has anaphora + cataphora = endophora; definition 2 has anaphora = endophora = all of the above. Yes? LadyofShalott 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Anaphora'/'cataphora'/'endophora' - each of these is being treated as a singular noun. It looks to me like they are meant as collective nouns though for the class of linguistic phenomena. The use of 'anaphor' to refer to an individual instance would seem to bear this out. (More informally, but what actually started my thinking along these lines, is that 'anaphora' just sounds plural to me.) Is this similar to data/datum, or am I way off base here? LadyofShalott 03:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, an amphora is a vase - a single vase. Maybe I am full of it ('it' there is an exophora, right?) with my singular/plural musings. LadyofShalott 04:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it could be--but I think it really depends on how idiomatic the expression is. If "it" simply stands for "shit", then we're dealing with a euphemistic kind of substitution, not unlike example 8 here, but without the first part, so to speak. See also this late response on the talk page. "It" in this sense is certainly never used anaphorically (in the strict sence). I think I would stay on the safe side and call it idiomatic, which (in my opinion) does not require intra- or extra-textual cohesion of the kind mandated by anaphora (strict or loose). Drmies (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're all regular singulars of the first declension. Muse on, Lady, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Thanks. (Now I feel sort of silly. Oh well.) LadyofShalott 14:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That all makes sense. Thanks again for indulging my questions. LadyofShalott 14:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current members of the United States House of Representatives

Sorry, but either you or me is blind. You say that in this article, Oregon's 1st Congressional district is vacant but it isn't.--77.49.154.248 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Brown

Hi. With reference to the Ian Brown amendments, these have come from Ian himself! If you would like verification I will gladly post something direct from his facebook page! (natniss) (----)

Re your message: Sure. I've added it to my watch list for a bit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what a 'reliable source' is. His label? I have already requested they deal with this through their Digital team. Thanks (natniss) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natniss (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For a creating and improving numerous articles and for indulging my questions. LadyofShalott 20:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw them. I appreciate your adding the clarification. LadyofShalott 20:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current members of the United States House of Representatives

OK, I done it myself. It was easy--77.49.154.248 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks to Tod

I notice that you tweaked Tod again recently. Thanks for that. I have just GAN'd it and got a shedload of criticism from Fowler&fowler regarding the lead. I didn't actually write the lead, which is a combination of what was originally there when I found the article + a lot of (appreciated) work by ErrantX.

F&f is not the GA reviewer but if you have the time to take a look at the lead then it would be appreciated. I have put myself on record umpteen times, including with one of Malleus's GA reviews, that I am crap at writing the things from scratch. But F&f's comments seem at once valid and extreme. I am developing a split personality here! And fed up. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, don't worry about it except from the project's point of view. Going to bed but I think that I have had enough of this palaver. I am been accused of that many different things, attacked here and also off-wiki, dealing with complete idiots, finding socks all over the place, been falsely warned, kicked about, messed about, wikilawyered to death, treated as some sort of moronic know-nothing. Oddly enough, the death threat I got rather amused me, as did the blog thing but this is all just getting silly now. There are seriously incompetent people running around in this roost & they appear to have an endless supply of rope. If I get something wrong then I apologise; if they get something wrong then they just move on to the next attack. I am not burnt out but why should I bother? - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel it going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adminly heads up

I just deleted Wild Adirondack Cow as a hoax (I suspect it may be some sort of scouting joke), and in the process I smelt some possible sockpuppetry, COI, and things like that involving Tmercaldo (talk · contribs), Billuconn11 (talk · contribs), Bajekj (talk · contribs), and Thomas Mercaldo. I don't have time to investigate what exactly is going on now (I'm leaving for Bonaire early tomorrow), but perhaps you or one of your TPSs can take a look. Sorry to bother you with it. Ucucha (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am so incredibly apologetic!

Although I have not edited alongside you, I did notice your good faith in the past on the mentioned article. I absolutely feel horrible and suppose after being beaten down by the other named editor and others (one named as a sock who was literally taunted me for months) have effected my judgement of decency. Offending innocent people such as yourself- Not purposely of course has me feeling simply horrible. Again, my sincere apologies. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ The Birthday Massacre's Official Twitter Profile |http://twitter.com/#!/TBMassacre/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=444397801"