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 99.136.254.88 (talk) at 02:10, 19 February 2013 (→Rick Kriseman: one more.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Me too

I like straight people too, particularly my wife as well =) That made me laugh.--v/r - TP 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A drink for you!

Fresh for you!
Bottoms up!

Thanks for The Offer

Drmies- thanks for stopping by our course web page User:Hakeleh/BI432 Spring 2013 and offering a hand. I've done this project once before with an advanced course on hormone disruptors (still need to clean things up there, too!) User:Hakeleh/BI513 Fall 2011. Excited to do it again, but of course it always takes checking on how the students are doing with their pages! I'm giving some pep talks today in class on how to get their initial work into better shape. If you had ANY inclination to drop by their project proposal pages and make a few comments, that would certainly spur them and help them realize how open their work is to the whole world! Also- thanks for posting the note on the education site- I really need to get my links set up with them. I also want to connect in to biology projects to try to entice other help for the students. No time now of course, have to get ready for lecture! Hakeleh (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Hakeleh--"hormone disruptors"? Isn't that a redirect to Cockblock? Please see Dennis Brown's comment on college professors, above, in the section "D Brown suggested I come to you". That's what they think of us. Thanks for your note; I'll check in and see. Best, Drmies (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi again Drmies- Wow- I can see how one could get totally pulled in to WP! All of my students, pretty much, have added a link to their user pages next to the topic list near the bottom of the BI432 course web page. Just a way you could get to them with your welcome banner! They are going to have a wikipedia working group on Thursday during class time (I'm out of town next week), and I want to set them up with a punch list of the things they need to do to tidy up their proposal pages and get more links to and from our course site, their team member pages, etc. I'll follow up with Sage...Hakeleh (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A candle, yesterday.

Hello,

I'm sorry. Not leaving an explanation was not helpful of me. I removed the language links on the FA because Wikidata went live on the English Wikipedia last night and language links are now coming from Wikidata. Sorry for the confusion. I expect more confusion on language link removal during the next days and me not leaving a note was not correct. Again, apologies, and thanks for your work. Feel free to contact me at wikidata:User:Jens_Ohlig --Jens Ohlig (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gotcha. Thank you so much for your note; I'm about to go look at the link you gave. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following code goes in your common/vector/monobook js file. It will place a link, right below the article's title, to the corresponding wikidata page.

// d:User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js
importScriptURI("//www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript");

Before removing interwikis, make sure all of them have been added to wikidata. Some article's don't have corresponding wikidata pages. Bgwhite (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bg--but I'm not about to mess with anything. Whenever I touch anything more complicated than a candle it breaks. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but then you touched Andy and Giano??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have kids and a wife, it doesn't get any more complicated than that. That reminds me, I need to start faking to be sick so I don't have to do any Valentine's crap with the wife. cough. Bgwhite (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm looking forward to doing some Valentine's crap. Not with your wife, of course. You sound terrible; I hope you feel better soon. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness for online flower ordering (and a 12 hour time difference in my favour). Was able to get them delivered on time and on budget. Also, did you know... that I am visting my first -stan in March? A short connection in Kyrgyzstan on my way to Istanbul (not Constantinople), I will also be overnighting in London. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading yesterday about four, five and six-foot tall rose stems (or is that branches). They have to grow them above 10,000 feet, so they are grown in Ecuador. They were only $300 for a dozen of five-footers. I'm kinda of jealous of your travels. Sometimes I really wish I went into mining engineering as the department was in the same building I studied in. I'll always remember a student saying he just got him a $70k job in Elko, Nevada and one of the two brothels gave a discount to people working for the mining company. Bgwhite (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody would like to present me with a dozen of above 10,000 feet roses, either online or in person, they could definitely have their way with me. [/me tries to figure out how tall that is in metres. Can't believe her eyes.] Bishonen | talk 22:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) By the time I moved to Nevada they had closed the brothel near where I was staying. Although I did drive past the Moonlite BunnyRanch (and others) on the way to Carson City. When we first got there Mrs. K thought it would be a good idea to take my son (not quite one year old at the time) to see the rabbits...until she realized there likely would not be any. As for the roses, I will take a dozen (if you are offering). --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Two-Faced (Tankard album)

You may want to comment at the merge proposal. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're crazy, man

??? Which of them is it you think is an admin? [/me tries to think which of Andy Mabbett or Giano would get the most opposes at RFA. Becomes dizzy. Gives up.] You're crazy, man. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I was a "Save page" push away from saying the same thing earlier, Bish, but realized he was probably talking about User:Ddstretch. Not to say he isn't crazy, of course. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tee-hee. I very much doubt Andy would match Giano's support for Arbcom though. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He slunk (slinked?) over to BN on Christmas when no one was looking. But I don't really know Ddstretch, so I shouldn't tease them. Admins teasing people they don't know well doesn't seem to go over really well today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Floq is right, as usual, on all counts. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, I'll have to add Floq to my list of admins who are always right. Will Wikidata make it easier for me to maintain that list?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1] (because I don't understand Wikidata, I had to do it the old-fashioned way.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand Wikidata. I read the introduction and the faq and found it to be woefully uninformative and a bit hypey.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait till infoboxes are tied into Wikidata. That is going to be some real "fun". Bgwhite (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still none the wiser as to what Microformats are, other than something developers like to play with. I occasionally think about asking for a real world example that my grandmother could understand, but fear I'd just get my head ripped off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Developers like to play with all sort of things. I'm sure your grandmother would understand that and disapprove.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is Wikidata? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You tell us. You posted at AN as if you knew what it was, or maybe I was reading too much into that "Ha!".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My message was perfectly valid. Note that you can make a perfectly grammatically correct and meaningful sentence without knowing what the words really mean. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Perhaps you could create a grammatically correct sentence without knowing what the words mean, but the only way you could create a meaningful sentence without knowing what the words mean is through dumb luck. I will now go retreat to my corner or maybe I'll create a Floq-like category called admins who are pushy. Nah, too many of those, I'd get lost in the crowd.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion reminds me of an old coworker.
Coworker: "I can use any word in a sentence correctly!"
Me: "Really? How about aku."
Coworker: "I can use the word "aku" correctly in a sentence."
Me: Facepalm Facepalm
True story! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upper fornication

Something to ponder? The grade I listed Ely Almonry, a late 12th-century Carrstone rubble building with Barnack Stone dressing, is built above a c. 12th-century fornicated undercroft. A present-day restaurant, the upper fornications are supported by ribs springing from central octagonal columns each having moulded capitals and bases.

  • Historic England. "Details from listed building database ({{{num}}})". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 15 February 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  • "fornication". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  • "fornication". Merriam-Webster (online). Merriam-Webster. 2013.

--Senra (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AllRovi movie template

Hello, per discussion with an admin, I decided to close the RfC for {{AllRovi movie}} and to post the template at TfD. The posting can be found here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so

... if our IEG proposal ends up getting funded, we may end up forcibly enlisting you to support a class at AUM. Just a heads up. :p Oh man, I really hope eventually outreach efforts are successful are increasing the portion of serious Wikipedians who are also serious academics; the combination makes me happy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

IP editor 69.231.45.122 has not stopped edit waring on the Lolita (1962 film) article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to talk page issue

You are correct- I shouldn't have tacked on that comment to a tread that did not involve me. However, this guy (Machine Elf 1735) appears to be evincing a pattern of tendentiousness, or apparent tendentiousness, throughout a significant part of his edits; going through the history on his talk page demonstrates support for this assertion. I won't post any other personally directed comments. Thanks. Randomocity999 (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your note. I'll tell you something from experience: Wikipedia is a place where you can walk away from a dispute, and sometimes that's the best thing. Now, the other editor engaged with you in discussion on that talk page (Begging the Question?), and if you two can keep it cool and factual that would be great. I wasn't really happy with how they were engaging with you either, by the way (or with other editors on their talk page), but I hope that both of you can work it out to agree, or disagree, amicably. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the character assassination resumes five minutes later. Drmies, what have I done to that user to deserve this? I would sincerely appreciate it if you would please clue me in as to what might give someone the impression that my general conduct on that talk page is something to be unhappy about? My first edits from last April are here: Talk:Begging the question#Proposed merge; then August here: Talk:Begging the question#Examples; and finally, from January and this month, here: Talk:Begging the question#Bad usage of "more generally". I certainly meant no offense or disrespect to the OP of that section... and there seemed to have been none taken. I don't mean to argue that you're wrong, I'd rather hope you'll be candid and forthcoming, but perhaps the principle of charity bears mentioning? To be pleasantly engaged in a competent discussion of deceptive rhetorical tactics and fallacious logic may sound like the unpleasant kind of "argument"—but then again, as evidenced more recently, if it quacks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.—Machine Elf 1735 08:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm on my talkpage... be happy, stay off it.—Machine Elf 1735 10:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Machine Elf 1735's character is demonstrated from his or her actions on this site; curiously, the individual has chosen, in the last 24 hours, to disregard the talk page debate here and here, revert the article to the language in dispute (while threatening with [WP:3RR] and including an edit summary of a footnote which misstated and misrepresented the content of the source), and blank his or her entire talk page with the edit summary of "HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY," further limiting the channels of discussion in hopes of an amicable resolution. It seems that the pattern this user is taking is to call for civility and reason whenever it suits him or her, but when it does not, to call others "assholes" and to patently disregard their input and polemics, whether or not they hold validity, employing turgid rhetoric to, ironically, denounce "deceptive rhetorical tactics and fallacious logic" (verily, the irony is two-fold, since the user commits the very fallacy whose article page here is in dispute, i.e., declares his or her interlocutor in error because said interlocutor is employing "fallacious logic", without any greater explication or defense of that statement). That being said, however, I believe the article in question has now reached a state agreeable to both, though any subsequent spurious edits will be analyzed and doubly checked to the maximum extent of my power. Thanks for facilitating the issue to a quicker resolution, Drmies (at least, I hope it is resolved). Randomocity999 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say something in general. Being an obnoxious asshole (or acting like one, for our US readers) is not in itself a punishable offense. (I hope I don't have to point out, to our general audience, that I'm not accusing anyone of being an obnoxious asshole.) One is encouraged, even required, to act in a collegial manner, but that's a hard line to draw. If someone's comments cross the line, there's recourse, but I don't think that's happened here yet.

Now, if someone's personality seriously gets in the way of article improvement, then that needs to be dealt with but usually the best way to do it is to a. bring in more eyes and b. improve the article with a consensus. In other words, by dealing with content, and the way to do that is usually via WP:RFC. If you two agree, at least to some extent, on content, then the problem is over the moment you two disengage, as irritating as that will feel. (It's the equivalent of "yes dear"; Bgwhite (talk · contribs) is an expert on that concept.) There's a bunch of editors I have issues with, and there's one or two I'd like to suffer from a serious flare-up of their hemorrhoids--and I try to avoid them and the articles they work on: they's plenty more articles here. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MachineElf, just one quick comment (I hadn't seen your response here). I am not really complaining about your comments to other editors on that article talk page, but rather on your own. You seem a bit happy to engage in what we call battlefield behavior here, and I think you may have found a match here: both of you seem a bit short-fused. It's fine to blank your talk page, of course, and I don't object to "happy happy joy joy" (I'm a big Ren and Stimpy fan myself), but man--let's not forget that we don't have to act like barbarians just 'cause it's the internet. Now, let us all move on: happy happy, joy joy. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, please show me one diff, just one, where I "seem a bit short-fused" or uncivil towards Randomocity999, either on my talk page or anywhere else. If you can find no relevant justification for such complacence, will you please see that the WP:OR Randomocity999 reverted 5 times explicitly contradicts the sources in the article... perhaps even put a stop to his harassment? I've yet to meet the admin who would... please, impress me. I'm not brawling like a thug, I'm asking for your help, and leaving you to your unspoilt talk page in peace...—Machine Elf 1735 02:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here. "As you've been informed"--where supposedly "move interruption to end of thread", an edit summary, should suffice for informing. That's what I commented on on your talk page in the first place. I can't really fault you for calling out "NPA" and "harassment" on your own talk page given their original response, but at the same time I think you know that tit-for-tak is rarely productive. I'm not willing to make any kind of call on OR etc; it's not mine to make until I know the sources, which I don't. That's not necessarily an administrative matter anyway, but one for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, for instance, or, as long as you all are still active on the talk page, WP:RFC.

Now, I assume you mean that Randomocity reverted and inserted OR? The "OR" part is not for an admin to decide. What I do see in the article is that you two are both at the same place as far as edit-warring is concerned: both of you have reverted each other four times. Either one of you is welcome to file a complaint about the other at WP:ANEW, and chances are that you both end up being blocked for edit warring. If you really want me to look into it, I can: both of you are warned for edit warring (edit warring is edit warring even if you're right). Any further reverts will be followed by a block. I will give you both the opportunity to handle it on the article talk page, like adults, because I will protect the article for a week. Moreover, both of you should stay away from each others' talk pages for the next seven days: the only edits I will allow you to make on the other's page is a notification of some thread on a noticeboard, such as ANEW, Dispute resolution, or ANI. Good luck to both of you. The moment you reach an impasse, or really just before it, seek dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be apparent to the editors at WikiProject Mathematics that the WP:OR's absurd... why not simply let them handle it?—Machine Elf 1735 04:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with them, then; ask for their opinion, but please do so neutrally (see WP:CANVASSING). Drmies (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the protected edit wasn't an attempt to restore the OR, it's fine like it is as far as I'm concerned.—Machine Elf 1735 05:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was fine as well, which is why your last revert surprised me. I saw your note on the talk page regarding this- at present, the intro statement in question is sourced and coherent, i.e., not original research or tendentious. Randomocity999 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random poetry question

There's a poem I've heard by some famous poet which lists a bunch of beautiful things in the world, and the poet comcludes by asking how he can dare not believe in God. I don't remember the poem's title or who wrote it, nor can I quote it well enough to do an effective Google search for it. Any idea what I might be thinking of with that terribly vague description? LadyofShalott 03:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←A Poem for the Lady:

Roses are red
Bacon is red
Poems are hard...

I found out what the poem was: "I thank You, God, for most this amazing" by e.e. cummings. It's no wonder nobody figured that out from my description. (I'd heard it once, several months ago, and just remembered a general impression of what it was about.) LadyofShalott 22:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lady i swear by all flowers that I was looking into cummings after your inquiry, but before I could find the specific one you were seeking, I got distracted by my favorite poem of his, which includes the classic line And death i think is no parenthesis. My distraction was caused by my discovery that I've been misquoting it for years, saying "parentheses". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I like that one; I don't think I've read it before. I should probably read more of his work. LadyofShalott 04:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And death shall have no dominion. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive infoboxes and navboxes

Am I the only one who thinks that 11 navboxes in an article is excessive? And look at all the infoboxes. I'm sure there are other articles which are worse in this regard as well. Where can I sign up to join Wikipedians Against Excessive Box Use (WAEBU)? LadyofShalott 04:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes...this past week I happened to look at least twice at the user page of some old timer (no disrespect intended) who fulminated against user boxes on their user page. But I can't remember who it was--it's not Giano, but it's someone like that, someone who's written a bunch of real good stuff. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I don't care about user boxes. As you know I have a bunch myself. For the most part, I think you can do what you want with your user page (there are limits, but the number of userboxes isn't one in my mind). There's a big difference between user pages and articles though. Should I be yelling at kids to get off my lawn? LadyofShalott 05:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is actually a policy against giving cover songs their own articles. Somewhere on Wikipedia there is a discussion about allowing it, specifically because there is no article on Elvis' version of Hound Dog (song). Ryan Vesey 05:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I can see why we'd want in general to avoid having an article on every single cover of every single song, but I'd think existing policies of notability and parent article size versus how much there is to say about a particle subtopic would be sufficient to deal with that. LadyofShalott 05:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • At a minimum the infboxes without the song in them should be removed (I think). In otherwords, the k.d. lang version of the song just played on my iPhone, about an hour before I tuned into this conversation. --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about an article just about the covers...or a list, List of cover versions of Hallelujah? --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Common sense, IMO, dictates that the hound dogs stay where they are for now. The article is (currently) less than 30,000 bytes and can easily accommodate all the content. It can always be split afterward, if e.g. the Elvis version starts taking up 30 or 50 k. I hate these cover lists, BTW, and trimmed it considerably. Who hasn't played "Hound Dog"? I wish we'd rely on secondary sources: if it's not discussed (not mentioned) in reliable sources, then it's not of value. Oh wait, we do rely on secondary sources, except that we don't. Oh, this just in: one of the Kardashians tweeted that one of the other Kardashians is a hound dog. Stick it in the article, quick. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's practically what the article is right now. Is there really a policy against splitting out most of the content to an article or list as kelapstick proposes?  davidiad { t } 13:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • We do have such a policy, applicable across the board--it's WP:UNCOMMONSENSE. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The multiinfoboxed article is about a song, about which we are told, seemingly in all seriousness, It is the subject of the full-length book The Holy or the Broken: Leonard Cohen, Jeff Buckley & the Unlikely Ascent of "Hallelujah" (2012). Perhaps there's something about the song that encourages extremes of padding. Within its boxes, the article does attempt to tell the reader much blather about charts. I don't think I've heard the song and therefore don't propose to read the article; however, if I did read the article, I'd be grateful that the "chart" blather was all in boxes and therefore not distracting. ¶ Oh no, wait, it's not all in boxes. Quote: Leonard Cohen's version attained the number 36 spot. Such exquisite phrasing! ¶ Somebody ping me if a cover by Screamin' Jay Hawkins turns up; I'd listen to that. Now excuse me while I attain my bed spot. -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song)

Hi Drmies. I wanted to seek input from you on something, since you regularly work at WP:AFD. I nominated the article Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song) at AFD because it did not seem to satisfy notability guidelines. My guess was that a merge with the album article was probably the best solution, but I was not sure, so I opened the discussion. Two editors have said it would be better to discuss the possibility of a merge on the article's talk page. What would be the best course of action here: withdraw the AFD and take this to the talk page, or let the discussion run its course and see how it ends? There may be a rule on this, but I'm not fully sure. Thank you in advance. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway it's in violition of WP:GOODTASTE Basket Feudalist 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a bit of a pinch. It's fine to have a discussion move toward merger, but to start off proposing one probably isn't the best idea: Michig has a point there (Michig, BTW, really knows his stuff). We usually don't start with a merger proposal unless there's something that needs to be forced one way or another. But it's running now, so you might as well continue; if you explain to Michig that he's right at least in principle, he'll understand, no doubt. One more bit of (unasked for) advice: leave Aaron be; don't respond to his comments. I suppose he created the article and is pissed. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting both here and there. Upon looking at Michig's contribs I see they too are well acquainted with AFD and I trust them. I surely won't repeat my mistake; now I know. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to hit yourself over the head, Penguin. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I took your wording too literally and it wasn't an out and out merge proposal (unlike one I saw at AfD today). Don't worry about it too much - no harm done. A lot of mergers are really uncontroversial and see no opposition, so I'd hate to see them all listed at AfD, but as Ryan suggests below, controversial mergers or those that get reverted sometimes need a venue to reach consensus, but at the moment that venue isn't (officially) AfD, although contested redirects seem to be less controversial when taken there. --Michig (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was a tad doubtful since much of the information was already covered in the album article. There's WP:PM, but that's for the more controversial mergers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael v. Guy

Hey Drmies, this is Drmargi. I've reverted your second edit at Rachael and Guy, etc. I'm not sure whether you noticed, but after your first one, I reverted and started a discussion. I agree occupation is a pretty silly way to describe who they are, but given this is a celebrity show, it's nice to know why they're celebrities; I haven't a clue who about half the people in season two are. I've suggested in the discussion that we look for a better way to head (or perhaps handle) the column so that there is some information about who these people are, especially given a good few might charitably be described as B-listers. As for the charity linkspam, I'm neutral on that, since it's another editor's handiwork. I removed other superfluous baloney earlier on (can't recall what, I think it was the order of selection.) --Drmargi (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still scratching my brain to come up with a better heading. Notability and significance don't quite do it. Maybe collapsing the two columns is the way to go. --Drmargi (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile the charity linkspam is gone. --Drmargi (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Class project cleanup.

Drmies, just wanted to follow up on a discussion about a group of articles created for a class project. See User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 16#Curious about some new articles. Some of those articles are still out there. It looks like you moved most of them to the professor's userspace. Was wondering if I needed to PROD or anything the others, because they don't appear to meet any notability either like the other ones, or if you would just move the rest whenever you get a chance.

4

No rush, just wondering if anything anyone else needs to do first. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the reminder. I was kind of hoping I wouldn't be the only one stuck with the job, but it seems no one else took any interest in sharing that load. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell you what, I'm tired of it. None of these editors ever came back, the instructor ceased caring about it, and it is very unlikely that anything will ever be done with them. I'm going to delete them under A7 with a link to Dennis's archive: there's plenty of justification there for deletion since they don't make a claim to any importance. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Janicello

Hi Dr, just a note to say that this has been percolating again. Hope all is well. Cheers, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest Loser

Oh okay. Got it. Thanks for the help. They keep coming back vandalizing any Biggest Loser article. I don't know why. Can you page protect these articles too?:

These are the recent articles persistently vandalized by unknown IPs. I'll keep patrolling the other related articles, and report any problems in the page protection page. Thanks again!--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Well, the IPs are not unknown, of course: their number is known. They all direct to Israel. I've blocked one already, just know, and I've protected a bunch of articles. Please see User talk:JamesBWatson also; they blocked one of those IPs a while ago. Maybe they have a better idea on how to handle this nonsense; I wonder if it's a now-blocked editor who's socking. Keep an eye on them, let me or James know--and if a registered account starts making the same edits that's interesting too. Really, we need an SPI, and/or a possible range. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bon appetit?

We all know you like a bit of bacon, Dr Mice. But how about a bit of Ham (Wall) with jelly)? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will try and keep things separate! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you care

List of Crash Course episodes has been created. LadyofShalott 18:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close

Hi Drmies. I think I can explain what the re-lister (Michaelzeng7) had in mind here. The issue is whether the article should be: a) merged; or b) redirected.

You wrote "we have three editors here who propose merging, and it seems like a good solution in keeping with precedent."

But precedent (which you in part base your close on) seems clearly to favor a redirect, not a merge. Overwhelmingly so, from what I have seen.

Secondly, the text that would be merged has been challenged. We don't recreate challenged uncited text. One could always create the same text with inline citations, in accord with wp:v. But strictly speaking, that is something other than a merge, which suggests simply moving the material over as-is (and wp:v is against the recreation without inline citations of challenged text).

Finally, as to the three editors -- one made clear that he proposed merging while misunderstanding nom's position ("Since the nominator accepts a merge"); nom indicated clearly in response that he was not in favor of a merge ("I do not support a merge. Nor have I so indicated."). So the basis for that !vote is less than solid. And the final !vote indicated both merge and redirect ("Merge (redirect)"), so the preference for merge is not clear there either.

I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus is, but since you seemed surprised that our fellow editor relisted, seeking greater clarity, I thought I might point out where I think the editor was reading the !votes properly.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Epeefleche, thanks for your note. Let me quibble. "Precedent" is what gives rise to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and while you may be right based on your observations, that guidelines does not distinguish (statistically or otherwise) between merging and redirecting; they are listed as alternatives. I'll admit that DGG's comment about the nominator accepting something is odd, but you did say a redirect would be acceptable. Now, you also know that "Merge/redirect" is a commonly thrown out vote in an AfD, and Kudpung's vote is just a variation thereof. Moreover, a merge leaves a redirect, no? In the end, then, the discussion is (or should be) just about what content if any should be merged. Gadfium seems to suggest there's something worth merging, and neither DGG nor Kudpung specify, but I suppose that at the very least it could be mentioned in Avonhead that there is such a school. Isn't that enough to call something a merge, satisfying even the nitpickers that "merge/redirect" (often a distinction without a difference) has in fact taken place?

    Yes, I am still a bit surprised at the relisting: of course the three participants wanted the content merged, but they don't have to dictate what content should be merged. That's an editorial decision. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies, for your thoughtful note. Sure -- good faith, friendly quibbling can sometimes lead to great insights.  ;) Some observations.
First, you refer to SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and call it a guideline. It actually is not a guideline. Rather, it is an essay. This distinction is not unimportant. Essays may, I understand, reflect the views of one or more editors (including the views as to what common outcomes are), but they lack the force and guiding power of policy and guidelines. I'm told that the reason it is not a guideline is that it has been impossible to gain consensus for it to be a guideline.
Second, the essay is not in the least a "this is what you should do in the future" essay. It is strictly an observation (by one or more editors) as to how they have observed "most" AfDs on schools have closed in the past.
Third, this "non-guideline view of one or more editors", reflecting what they say they have observed in the past, happens with "most" such AfDs, does not bear on the issue of this AfD. This AfD has support (at this point) mostly for a redirect or a merge. Either would be in accord with what those editors who support that essay say mostly happened in the past.
I also have a view as to what has happened in past AfDs on such schools. It goes a little beyond what the essay says. My view, from what I have seen, is that such AfDs are far, far more likely to close as redirects than as merges. In no way are those alternatives anything close to equal, in terms of our actual "common outcomes" at school AfDs.
I still have the same thought as to the merge !votes, and appreciate your taking note of that issue.
Merge/redirect actually isn't tremendously common at school AfDs. But where it appears, I take it to mean that either approach would be fine. Just as I as nom said either a delete or redirect would be fine. My point on that !vote is that it does not stand for the notion that only a merge (and not a redirect) would be acceptable.
If one were to only mention in the target that there is such a school -- that would be the precise outcome from a redirect, as I've seen them post-AfD. Merge suggests -- especially when the text has been challenged, as here, that there is text (inline-supported if challenged) to be moved over, which is not the case here.
I think under the circumstances, a merge close was not the best. 1) The !votes were unclear on which had consensus support. 2) The essay in question provides zero assistance. 3) The actual precedent of actual common outcomes -- if that drives our decision -- drives us to a redirect, rather than a merge. Without question. 4) The text is all challenged and lacks inlines citations and could not be merged in accord with wp:v in any event, unless one created new information in the target (inline cites), which would not be a merge but a creation of new material in any event. 5) What you describe as a reasonable result -- just mentioning the school at the target -- would be consistent with a redirect, and would not raise any of the issues raised by a "merge" close, at odds with how most AfDs of such schools close in actual common outcomes, leading a merger to inappropriately merge material that violates wp:v.
Not the biggest world beater issue, I grant you. But given the circumstances, I can see why one might either: a) close it as a redirect, in accord with actual common outcomes; or b) let it remain open, for more input.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Singer

Professor Drmies, meet Professor Singer. Happy Professor's President's Day.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Kriseman

Did you say swimming? Lucky bastard.

I could use your input here, as I'm getting close to edit warring a well-meaning user who's accused me of vandalism for 'un-bulleting' the resume and trying to turn it into an article. Who says style isn't everything? Also I think the user has other issues, like use of primary or unreliable sources for many articles, but that's another rabbit hole. Bring a flashlight. Very best, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your edits. I've made some changes and tagged it. It's now on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the follow-up by both you and Lady of Shalott. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Bbb, have you finished season 3 of D.A.? If not, we'll compare notes later. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We recorded the season finale last night and plan to start watching it tonight. I keep trying to avoid spoilers on the web (not easy). So, later. Btw, did you see the profile of Maggie Smith on 60 Minutes?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Missed it--was it interesting? I read somewhere online today where a wag was miffed that all her mots are being compared to Oscar Wilde's--they maintained that one could hear better lines on an American sitcom. There's a thought--Seth Macfarlane writing gags for Downton. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If D.A. means Downton Abbey, I'm also watching it; I saw episode 4 last night. I'm watching it along with a friend who has introduced me to Doctor Who. After that episode (DA3.4), she asked if I wanted to watch another of those, or DW. I decided I needed to watch DW rather than continue on straight with another episode of DA. LadyofShalott 00:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the sticky web of public tv; now we're watching Doc Martin, too. If they can ever get Savannah Guthrie and the rights to Yankees games they'll own me. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy of pogroms in "See also" section in the article Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre

Please see this. Best, Konullu (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

same ol same ol on National Radical Camp

Since last time you lectured me on reverting POV pushing IPs SPAs, I'll let you deal with this.Volunteer Marek 01:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Volunteer Marek, I see you didn't like my lecture, whose topic, incidentally, was edit warring, not reverting. Why would I have to explain to an experienced editor such as yourself that there's a huge difference between the two? I'm not here to stop you from reverting--I left you a note because I didn't want to see you blocked for edit warring. In light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krzyzowiec/Archive, you could drop the blocking admin for your former counterparts a note, who might well block on sight per DUCK: I don't have the expertise in this subject matter to make that call (Krzyzowiec is hardly the only Polish antisemite right-wing nationalist around). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=538970033"