Given that HiLo48 resorted to rhetorical insults, trying to undermine the intelligence of anyone who disagreed with him and his take on the Castro case, the inconsistency of your warnings about personal attacks says a great deal. Hypocrisy abounds. Bravo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, why? You're civil. Anyway, can you please look at the chaos that's going on at 68.50.128.91's talk page. My head is spinning. And immediately after I commented, Bbb23 (who wanted to marry me last night lol), protected the page, apparently solely because I posted. You can read my comment there. IP 68 is obviously very sensitive and, as a result, gets very worked up and says inappropriate things on impulse. But the way this is being handled is only making things much worse. It's like this IP is being attacked from all sides. Look at his talk page history. Anything you can do to calm this thing down would be appreciated. It doesn't take a platoon of admins to beat down on this IP, especially consider his relatively minor offense. I've seen him participating in the RfC at Pump and he seems to be a very nice person when he's not being scolded. That's enough for now. I think you'll agree. Haha. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see that Bbb23 just removed my comment from 68's talk page. Drmies, please, you've got to intervene. That's totally inappropriate. Are they're just completely throwing all the rules out the window? This is getting crazy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the appropriateness of the block and duration - the IP is simply continuing his prior disruption that was previously done on the article talk page. It is entirely appropriate to lengthen subsequent blocks for continuation of the same disruption. The fact that he changed from the talk page to the article itself does not dispose of the appropriateness of lengthening blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I really respect the fact that you are commenting here. But the overkill with IP 68 is remarkable. And the removal of my comment is totally inappropriate. Bbb had no right to remove it. Please restore it. And you will see that I try to be as fair as I can in my thoughts. But an admin censoring me and then protecting the page immediately after I post, solely because of that post (read the edit summary) is completely inappropriate. Again, thanks for coming here, but please let's bring the heat down on all this. It's out of control. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can actually see good arguments from both sides on the removal. Unfortunately, it appears to be another gray area in site policy (or, more accurate to say it appears to be a gray area intersection of contradicting policies/guidelines). This is another issue that may be better served via WP:AN, rather than the talk page of individuals. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which removal you're talking about... my comment or the endless things IP 68 removed. Haha. But there's absolutely nothing that allows Bbb to remove my comment. Especially when it's civil, fair, on-point, and tries to calm things down. Again, please restore it and unprotect the page. And I suggest you ask Ymblanter to stay out of this. He was clearly involved before he blocked 68; I mean they reverted each other in an article right before the block, for goodness sakes. How much clearer can "involved" be than that? ;) So the block coming from him is so blatantly inappropriate, that it's going to take an admin with integrity to simply tell him that he shouldn't have had any involvement in the block. And I see that he also has blocked 68's talk page access. Ymblanter is all worked up, and his one edit summary on 68's talk page clearly shows it. Again, thank you for commenting here but please be the hero in this and do the right thing(s). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point about the block by Ymblanter being procedurally inappropriate; but that does not clear 68.50.128.91 of his disruptive behavior, and given the IPs ongoing disruptions to force BLP violating content into the article, I would have done a longer block had I seen the behavior before Ymblanter placed the block. So, if you really want to be procedurally accurate, we could ask Ymblanter to remove his block so I can instead place a longer one - but, I don't think the exercise is worth the effort. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
76, I love you like a brother (I think), but I'm not going to wade into yet another mess, especially one involving a whole bunch of talk page comments and reverts and what not. I don't know what 68 is up, but it's attracting a lot of attention; if three (or more) admins are already involved then I would only hope in vain to do anything useful. If a block was made incorrectly there are places to address it, and that talk page is probably not the right one. I have great faith in Bbb, I love him like a son, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt; if he erred, then Barek (who's already there, and whom I love like a distant cousin) can judge that well enough, I suppose. Ymblanter, I don't know if you're watching--I love you like my neighbor, and if that block was involved that was not good thing. Still, there are levels of involvement, and if a block is warranted the community has a tendency to overlook a certain measure of involvement. Sorry, but that's the extent to which I will get involved. There's way too much heat in this place, or maybe it's just my street which is on fire; I trust it's not Rome that's burning while I'm fiddling. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks, Barek. As I'm sure you know from my prior comments, I fully realize that 68 has done some inappropriate things. But that's not the issue. And I'm not aware of any continuing/recent BLP violations. If I'm wrong, please show me the diffs. The only thing I saw he did was to add a simple tag to an article, like in this edit You keep saying he's done all these terrible things that warrant a two-week block but no one has shown any diffs at all to support it. I saw him revert twice over that silly tag in one article. And Ymblanter was one of the editors who reverted it. What else did 68 do?? I see absolutely nothing, except participating very productively in an RfC discussion. Please Barek, I not only think you should ask Ymblanter to revert his blcok, I think you need to be honest with him and let him know that he should not have done been involved in that block in any way because he was clearly involved. And, for the third time, please restore my comment and unprotect the talk page. That's clearly improper and, respectfully, you know it. Policy without question allows me to post that comment and does not allow anyone to remove it, except 68. (Well, not while his TP access is revoked lol.) As far as blocking him for a longer period, or even long at all, it is unjustified without providing any diffs to show specifically which edits warranted it. If I saw any edits like that, I would be the first one to say it. And I'd tell 68 myself that he was wrong. I've done it before. ;) But all I see are the two reverts of that tag at Rob Bell (Virginia politician). Big deal. A low-key admin like Yunshui would have just talked to 68 calmly, especially knowing how sensitive 68 is, and explained why reverting that tag was wrong and asked him nicely not to do it again or else he'd need to block him. Just because an editor acts immaturely doesn't mean several admins treat him like shit, and like he's worthless. I see not one admin involved in this showing any kindness whatsoever; trying to open a door to getting him back on track productively. That is the biggest shame in all this. But again, you can be the hero in this. If you choose to be. Thanks again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Love you too, Drmies, but a brother would help a brother. Haha. I am not asking for anything unreasonable. And, honestly, I don't even know why I'm defending 68. I just feel bad for him because I know how hurt he gets by criticism and I've seen how pleasant he is in various discussions (when he's not under the gun haha). If one of you wanted to do the best thing, you could've offered to mentor him, or at least hook him up with a mentor. Being ganged up on (not meant pejoratively) by several admins at the same time is an awful thing to watch. And I can imagine how he felt being blocked by the same guy he just traded reverts with. I know when you guys take off your admin uniforms, you are really fun, cool people. But some of you get really tough when your warning and sanctioning people on here. Perhaps it's hard for you to see or understand because you're in the power circle. Well, I'm not. I'm on the outside, impartially looking in. I honestly believe that a few admins here totally forget that there's a real live human being on the other end of your computer screen. Someone who has feelings and is just begging to be understood and treated with a little friendliness and respect. Even if 68 is a pain in the ass sometimes, big deal. Be the great admins you are and find a good way to stay above it, while getting him to do things the right way. If he thinks you give a shit about him at all, he'll respond positively. Enough, you get it. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw Drmies, this thread was actually supposed to be about HiLo's admirer, 153.161.195.137. Anyway, check out this ever-so-cordial response I got at the AN/I I filed on your behalf (while you were dreaming about bacon explosions). See, I try to make your life easier and this is what I get. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know I hate civility blocks, but some people just push it too much. And yes, there's derailment, and the enabling/goading on thereof by some others. I restored DanielTom's TPA after a very polite and friendly message and then saw a complete turnaround. I don't know what's happening on that talk page right now and I don't care; I expect a note from the boss any day (that's a metaphor--two metaphors). Drmies (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, I'm a certified asshole, that is well known. I've never seen your limits get tested. You're the nicest guy I know (well, on Wikipedia--my real-life friend Rob, who is a seven-foot tall carpenter, is maybe the nicest one in the world). I'm not going to start something, I've done enough damage already for the time being, but I am interested to see what you think should be done. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem here is that over a fairly long period, the editing of both of these parties (just as an example, I believe there are others) is detrimental to a collegial editing atmosphere. Of particular concern is the fact that a lot of these editors don't really seem to do anything else other than perpetuate this vitriol (which is, to his credit, not a criticism which could be levelled at IHTS). Dennis - your point about derailment is spot on; I can think of a recent RfA where this debate spilled over and we all know RfA is contentious enough without becoming a platform for the anti-admin brigade. The thing is, these editors apparently enjoy the sensation of being engaged in what they feel is a battle between two homogenous groups and so I can't see how anything is going to change without some form of escalated dispute resolution. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this makes any of the above invalid, and it's not as who should say on topic, but when the nebulous "we" remove people's talk page on personal attack grounds because they said an admin needs to be desysopped, I find it difficult to pin the blame entirely on them. Granted, I'm still not familiar with the entirety of these editors' histories, so maybe I don't have much of a right to talk about this. But I honestly don't care how unsubstantiated or inflammatory it's meant to be: I think that that's something that anyone and everyone should be able to say freely. I mean, it's not like their statement itself will get someone desysopped; it takes a lot of work to actually do that. (Okay, I could see it being an actionable problem if they keep harping on it constantly without actually showing any effort to make it happen, per WP:SHITORGETOFFTHEPOT. But for this narrow instance, that doesn't seem to be the case.) It has a very unsavory appearance of stifling criticism otherwise, and I think many will agree that admins are already accountability-challenged to begin with. The reason that I'm (marginally) participating in the discussion over DanielTom's block without being fully-briefed on the entire history is that I feel that blocks like his are acute, not chronic, remedies, and they need to be used in response to acute, not chronic, problems, which shouldn't require an intense study of edit histories to understand. It just seems to me that this is an acute block without all that serious of an acute problem. Actions like removing talk page access make a little more sense if you look at the overall history there, but I don't think the overall history is the right thing to be basing unilateral actions like that on; it needs to be in response to an immediate problem. Maybe that's naive of me, I don't know.
I guess the TL;DR summary here is that I think we're interpreting "personal attacks", "prevent disruption" and "admin discretion" too broadly here, and that if we want to address a long-term pattern of behavior, the way to do that is through community processes like AN or RFC/U, not through isolated blocks. For whatever my opinion is worth. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still eat pie after 20 years? Good for you--Clitoris Awareness Week wasn't wasted on you. Also, I love moonshine, though I'd forgo the apple pie. I made margaritas for us and some friends: it's pooltime, and vacation has started today (for them, not for me--I'm working all summer). Me and my buddy Jim are drinking old-fashioneds, since the girls are done. The Sunbeam will still be there tomorrow; Kitsch might not be, from the alarm I heard earlier. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I was at a meeting and didn't have time to write a more lengthy response. I'm sufficiently concerned about DanielTom - looking at his en.wikiquote talk page I see some pretty nasty comments. This smells of "HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED!" and his criticisms are typically ad hominem attacks now.
Lately I've found admin work less stressful than my content work, however - maybe it's because I don't patrol ANI that much anymore, though I do a lot at SPI. The level of pure vitriol that my colleagues out at the U.S. roads project and I face on a daily basis now has become astounding, as can be seen in my contributions and on my talkpage. We've had to put up with people making wild accusations against us (including calling us the "road cartel") without proof, and without any ability to defend ourselves. We've had people try to force their conception of a road article on us time and time again. And yet our only goals are to create *good* road content and revert edits that degrade quality; we've written 52 FAs and over 850 GAs in the process. If this is how we treat people who write content, then we've got a problem. Yes, I have gotten quite frustrated in my talkpage messages lately, but when you've been constantly attacked from every angle for months, that tends to happen. It's times like this when I enjoy crosswiki work, since I lose the politics of enwiki. --Rschen775411:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen, the number of FAs and GAs is just an indication to which extent you and your other abusive admin friends OWN that wiki project at the exclusion of everyone else. You're probably abusing your tools in the process. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh ... seems that every year at this time these things happen. And every year it gets a bit worse. School lets out for the summer, and young people with the best of intentions try to right great wrongs. As hard as I try to not become that "get off my lawn" guy - it gets old and tiring. Ya know, there are some admins around this joint that I think need to rethink their approach - but here's the thing: We end up with these kids that have time on their hands who want to change the world. The one thing is with Wikipedia though ... all admins. were at one time new users. New users were NEVER admins. WE understand what they think because we've been there - but they can not know what experienced editors go through because they HAVEN'T been there. Yes - there is a divide between admins and non-admins ... I don't know how to fix that. I don't know folks .. I just don't know. — Ched : ? 02:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And don't answer any more emails. Unless there's special circumstances, I respond to them on-wiki. With a bunch of wikiawyers around who all know better after six months than we do after half a decade, gotta be careful. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes think I should slip away from the front line and just plod through the CSD cats like many others do. But I would find that boring. Some of us have to do the dirty work and take the slings and contempt of the audacious youngsters and some older members (some as ancient as me) who still seem to be stuck in a schoolyard mentality. A lot of it comes from the Internet tradition of anonymity which lets people get away with stuff they wouldn't dream of doing/saying in RL. I've even heard that some are actually quite nice blokes in the pub. All the Wikipedians/medians I've met in RL with one exception who is both an admin and a WMF contractor are quite nice people - and I've personally met literally hundreds. I don't care two hoots what people say about me - I've made too many enemies among the children (and not so young) here already to ever succeed to higher office - but I look on with great distaste at those who have a general antipathy towards admins. Most of them reaped what they sowed; I'm convinced that actual abuse by admins is quite rare (although I've been at the brunt of it myself before I got the bit), and it's extremely unfair to tar us all with the same brush. Is it just my perception or is bashing admins on the increase? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know Kudpung .. I should get to know you. I've seen your work, and I gotta admit ... I'm impressed. — Ched : ? 03:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ched, I shared a table for a little while with Kudpung at Wikimania. Don't tell him (don't know if he's vain or not), but I found him to be a perfect gentleman. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good lawdy .. I never met another wikipedian. I probably should some day. Oh .. and up above - if you want to talk about "experience" and "being in all shoes" ... crap ... PumpkinSky/Rlevse ... good hell what has to go through that man's mind. New user, .. admin ... crat ... os ... cu ... arb ... beat to hell and back over a few sentences on a TFA? ... geesh. — Ched : ? 03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, DT has retired - IMO an overreaction as many of these kind of retirements are. I suppose the next thing will be accusations that we have been driving editors away. Perhaps he'll come back when he's reached an appropriate level of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see if he stays retired. Diva-like behavior. Kudpung, if someone is seriously shocked that they got blocked, they were dedicated to the place, then they'd place an unblock request. I have no idea how many edits were made to that talk page, and not a single one to request an unblock. Why? Because a. maybe they figured (correctly) that it would be denied and b. it's much more cool to be a martyr. Throw in some misrepresentations and some misreadings (about my "acknowledgement"), and you got a poster child for a victim of the system, no wonder we're losing editors, system is broken, no respect for content, etc. This continued editing of articles bit is not credible either: they stopped editing articles, basically, at the end of March. Since then, it's all talk pages and notice boards and what not. Anyway, that's water under the bridge, though nit for long, possibly. I hope you are doing well, Kudpung--I did remember our all-too brief chat in DC. I always think that meeting people in real life takes away a lot of this internet distance which easily leads to animosity. Who knows, Scotty Wong and I might even get along if we met in person. Did I tell you I had lunch with DGG? And hung out frequently with Chzz in Boston? Now there's an editor who's sorely, sorely missed. OK, too many words. Time to hop in the pool. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can be envious of me then - I was a guest of DGG's in his home in Brooklyn for several days. It was one of the nicest experiences of my life (no exaggeration). I couldn't have wished for a better welcome for my first (and probably only) visit to the USA.
I know you guys think you know what it's like for someone who leaves for whatever reason, but if you've never worn those moccasins, you'd don't truly understand. I'm truly sorry I've caused so much trouble, I never meant to and but despite my best efforts I caused more last night. PumpkinSkytalk12:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
cont.
Not sure what PumpkinSky "caused..last night"; but just some passing thoughts.
As wonderful as technology is, and as much as it has benefited mankind in so many ways - I think in some ways it has tended to isolate people even more too. No one can truly know another person; hell, we're lucky if we even understand ourselves in just a small way. Would that we could all share a "Vulcan mind meld" - but it just ain't so. When you throw communication such that comes with the Internet, texting, ect. into the mix - we lose even the body language and voice inflections to try to interpret. Is it really any wonder that people all too often feel isolated, and alone? Then you throw in the concept that when you communicate with someone only through digital means - where you tend to fill in the "blanks" with your own/our own thoughts ... when a dose of reality shows up uninvited .. it's a harsh thing to deal with. Don't mind me folks .. just running my mouth on the way through the pedia. For those of you in 'da States .. have a great holiday weekend. — Ched : ? 13:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Jordaanlied
On 24 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jordaanlied, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Jordaanlied, a genre of sentimental songs celebrating the Amsterdam neighborhood the Jordaan, was popularized by a cabaret artist from Utrecht, a composer from Rotterdam, and a singer from England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jordaanlied. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
My dear Warrington, after dinner is over and everyone's teeth are brushed and the guests have gone home, I will have a look at this article and see what's going on. Also, we're having salmon--I would kill for some sik, or however it's spelled. Thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the FA reassessment? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kitsch/archive1. That was seven years ago, pertaining to this version which indeed isn't an FA based on references (lack thereof) alone. When the article was promoted, in 2004, FA standards were quite different, I suppose. To bring this up to anything will require a lot of work, for starters with bibliography and footnotes. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did. But I think it is strange that an article like this got ruined. And it is an interesting subject, thought. Taste, and likes and trying to find a line. How about Dutch taste and American? Do you mean sik, *Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology - SIK or you mean herring? Warrington (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]Rainbow trout with clear spot pattern on fins and body
Well, I don't think it got ruined since it was not a very good building to begin with. I looked at a huge chunk of material that was removed, and while it seemed to be well-written and made sense, it was unverified, and had been so for four years. The rationale for removal was that it's a monk's labor to seek references to verify those statements, infinitely more difficult than writing it from scratch with newly found sources. I couldn't disagree with that. I found a few things in the biblio that helped me add a couple of sentences, but this was beyond repair, IMO. The original author should have come back to help out some; now it's up to us. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, that was funny. I Facebooked it and got a like within seconds from a fellow former English student. Thanks! I'm reading a book, pig! Drmies (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page fills up quickly. I don't know what became of that list article with which you'd intended to replace the rape victims category, or if you still have any interest in the topic, but that discussion was closed as no consensus. I've not added any more antique members since it opened, but will now perhaps, though that would probably just lead to a second nomination. davidiad{ t }02:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of rape victims from history and mythology. Note how incredibly incomplete it is, and note the parameter in the opening paragraph, to do away with BLP concerns. The category still exists, yes, and I haven't done any work on the list since then. BTW, at some point there was some discussion somewhere about history vs. mythology, I think; for our purposes (historical importance and meaning) it doesn't matter, of course, whether a character/god/sacrifice/victim/author "really" existed or not. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start. My position on the ancient members of the category was basically that narratives which informed the early modern rape topos which continues to be the crook in the hourglass that we can't get past needn't be authorized by historians as factual because the historical and the mythological were equally valid exempla in moral discussions which involved rape during antiquity, as they should be in a current epistemology of rape. This is a perennial topic at classics conferences, and I remember at least one panel on the topic at a recent APA conference. I'll see at some point if anything methodologically helpful for the ancient side, at least, of the list has come out of the discussions, hopefully more than an online abstract. In the list as it is, I'm most interested in the addition of Leda, not least because of what the editor who added her entry deleted a few days later. davidiad{ t }03:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my position too, just not in such nice words. Reminds me--I'm reviewing a real academic book: I can't even read the damn introduction. It's not jargon, it's concatenation. You think that editor realized they were giving swans a bad name? You think they're sweeping something under the rug, abusively? If Leda is in there, what about all Zeus's other "girlfriends"? Drmies (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editor probably thought it trivialized the entry, but what I find so interesting about Zeus and Leda is that when gods take advantage of women in Greek poetic texts, it's often pretty metaphoric language (like "take advantage of"): the sort of stuff that's open to modern reactionary attacks about "anachronistic" conceptions of rape if someone chooses to call it "rape" and discuss it as such. But when you read accounts of Zeus and Leda, it reads like rape from the beginning: as though the sexual aggressor has to be a magical animal for the poet to be granted the license of realism. Is the book you're reviewing a first book? I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts it is, if I could afford a donut. davidiad{ t }03:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worse, it's an edited collection. And it's awful. The essays themselves seem to be a lot more readable, at least the first one is. It often seems as if the editor has to blow everyone else out of the water in such collections. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's nice when folks with secure chairs organize these things: nothing to prove, they just write a true, brief introduction to the topic and place the papers that follow within the current state of the question. I can probably one up you on review curses. I have one that's six months overdue and the next (and final) volume in the series comes out this summer. Still more fun: I don't give a shit about the book. My shit, your shit, my cat's shit, any shit: no shit would be promised by me in return for this book. I just said I'd do it since the journal that's publishing the review doesn't generally do papyrology and I thought they'd have to apologize and offer to return their copy like they generally do with these editions, so I'd be a fucking hero for doing a couple day's work and clearing the review from their roster. Now I'm a dick and the review's a burden that I face every weekend. I'm working on it now, though the lady's in bed. davidiad{ t }04:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hey ...
I'll tell ya what. You, Dennis, NYB, etc. all have etched your efforts into a "hall of fame" as far as great admins., ... but I gotta tell ya ... keep your eyes on Bbb23 - this guy is GOOOOOOD. He has some sort of ESP or something - and he reaches out to people when they are down. Just sayin. Oh ... and by the way - take a break from the AN boards... they will really twist your concepts of the project. You folks have a great weekend and holiday. later. — Ched : ? 04:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I know. Whatever goes on at AN and ANI can't be that exciting since I wasn't notified. Later Ched! Don't forget to lick my dog next time! Drmies (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see that until now. I was confused by the notification system but didn't check the history. (I noticed such edit conflicts on ANI a couple of times recently; I think there was one yesterday.) Feel free to restore your comment, even though I disagree strongly with the content and the context from which it came. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, not my intent. And remember, I know there are many great admins out there. It's no surprise at all that Dennis Brown unilaterally closed the AN abruptly, while there was active participation, no less. And even though Barek is the one who told me to take it there. I let Dennis know my thoughts on the matter. I guarantee you that if I was registered and started that discussion, it wouldn't have been shut down like that. Well, figuring out where to take the kids later. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this comment10 hours after the unblock request was denied. It can certainly be perceived by some as rubbing salt in the wound. The guy is gone for two weeks and he can't even say a word on his talk page. So I don't understand what your point in doing that was. How could it possibly help an already volatile situation. An encouraging word and maybe a nice piece of advice would've been a lot better. Disappointed. I'd suggest reverting yourself. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone left me a link to how to make a chocolate teapot on my talk yesterday (long story). Thinking of you and your children (the ones at home, not the ones you deal with on WP), I thought you might want to stash it away as a school holiday project that is both educational and fun. Mind, you'll need a lot of chocolate. Enjoy! - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can take a stab at it. I didn't put the tag there, and it would have behooved the editor who did to put something on the talk page. But what I see is an article that has lots of borderline non-neutral language in there. There's a section "Subsequent international support and press reviews" which for the most part is a list of--of what? press clippings? (Those articles, if they exist, can be used to reference information in the article; they can't be used to build a resume.) There's too many external links, there's a section with "International Festivals and Tours" that also looks like it belongs on a resume... It seems there are plenty of sources linked in the article to write a decent one. Right now, it has too much "activities" and "aims" and resume-type sections to be a decent article, and tone and word choice just aren't neutral enough. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WK. I revdeled the usual. This is worth keeping an eye on. Roger, usually my page has a decent amount of admin traffic, and those admins provide excellent customer service. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. WK, thanks: you're so much more adept at those things that I am. I take this personally for reasons of historical shame, I think. When I was young, the word "kaffer" still had currency in a racial context. (Now it just means "sucker".) Drmies (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, my proverbial pleasure. It's pretty obvious what needed to be done, even though the unclear filter of Google Translate. SPI's already turned something up, so I guess it was a good thing we checked. (And by the way, I messed this one up already, so I guess I'm not as adept as you think. Dennis is more the mark for SPIs.) I'm sure most of us have similar memories of saying things we would cringe at hearing now, and no doubt we're saying things even now that we'll come to regret. The world moved on, as they say. Writ Keeper⚇♔00:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted a pair of Help page topics initiated by the sockpuppets. BTW in South Africa the word "Kaffir" or "Kaffer" is still a fully serious racial insult - fully equivalent to the American "nigger". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it may be worthwhile asking other South African editors (at WikiProject South Africa) if they have also been targetted by racist trolling? If there are others we might get a better picture of the sock drawer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was time for a change, Crisco. Plus, I really miss ole Spiffy, even though he had a pretty poor taste in guitar players. For the record, I've never watched a single episode of Lost; I am, of course an old fan of the X-Files, though the most memorable show I remember (ha) is Twin Peaks: it is happening again. That still gives me shivers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
Interesting
Actually it is 594. This user is ranked 594 on the list of Wikipedians by number of pages created, you I mean. Do you remember Blue Lacy? Still alive.
... Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Fun would not be the word I would chose either. But we managed, thanks to You... And I think that it gives a certain satisfaction. Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Red Lacy puppy
Happy adminship anniversary and a spoon.
Holy moly, Warrington. That one with the cabbage roses, that's just amazing. And that puppy is indeed cute--ready to be eaten with a spoon. Hej, Sverige made it to the Dutch papers again. Apparently we're modeling our prostitution legislation on yours, and not everyone agrees. New Zealand appears to be a good model to follow: decriminalization and common sense (and health care). Drmies (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Sigh'. Well, we shall not forget that they are also human beeings. You friendly admin, tell me isn’t this lead very long? I think myself that it is slighly too detailed. See lead Cottage garden. If You say it is ok, I will remove my tag. (Too late, somebody removed it anyway.) But just for curiosity, don't you suppose to keep the lead short? That lead is pretty chatty. ( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit chatty for my taste, too, but I see where they're coming from on the talk page; the lede is supposed to be a brief summary, and this one does summarize the article without being really long. It's a balancing act of precision vs. brevity, and I think that this falls within the appropriate spectrum. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. All right. ( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a really cool article. If you like that sort of thing, of course. Writ Keeper is a well-known gardener, by the way, who is probably notable as one for Wikipedia purposes, if only for the variety of weed he cultivates. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone need to cultivate weed? ( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
hello
I have been on the road for a bit, am now In Akron, Ohio, fumbling away at my daughter's laptop, a species of computers that I find even more confounding than the male mind. So I am not exactly sure what was wrong with my edit, (see my talk page, I can't figure out how to do links here) that I re-formatted another editor's posting, or expressed my sometime inability to understand the male mind. As you probably know (though to assume that anyone else is aware of something easily leads us into the trap of projection that is or can be a problem with all assumptions) the female mind has been considered one of the unfathomable mysteries of the universe and it has been clear to me (i.e., opinion) that the male mind is just as incomprehensible. This is wrong to say? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"something you probably know how to do but for some reason (who can understand the male mind?) chose not to" is a personal attack. You're saying someone should have known better but the intricacies of the male mind made them stupid enough to not do what they should have done. And this on the talk page of Men's rights movement, where dicks are waved around constantly, as are accusations of dick snipping and sniping. What I personally find offensive is the essentialism that underlies the remark. If you have an inability to understand the male mind, that's fine, but a. it begs the question of what a male mind is and b. if you don't understand what someone whom you suspect of having a male mind (whatever that is) is doing or not doing, the rhetorical question you asked clearly indicates that you blame the editor's male mind (whatever that is, and supposing that editor has one) for the mistake. That's the essence of essentialism, and in my book that's a personal attack. "You made that mistake because you're a woman"--if I said something like that in all seriousness, I hope that someone would block me for it. It's no different from saying "you're just arguing that point because you're a jew". Not all opinions are to be made public on Wikipedia, especially not if they are offensive. And that's why I warned you. Thank you, and all the best. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. So it was not my formatting. In any case, I consider myself warned and will try really really hard not to upset the guys at MRM. Or you, for that matter. Carptrash (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Carptrash. I would have hoped that people who wanted to contribute could rise above the level of "ew boys have cooties". As for upsetting "the guys", that's not the issue: the problem is that your raising the temperature and it's not beneficial. Coupled with that "admins hiding stuff" comment, it begs the question of what you're really doing there. Drmies (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the question as to what I am doing there is a good one, but my comment about admins was (at least intended to be) that another editor hid a warning (to me) from an admin, thereby, at least from my perspective, rendering it less than effective. Carptrash (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Leap Years, you are supposed to be on duty all 366 days. Don't think you get a day off just because of the convoluted astronomy that I haven't bothered to try to understand :) GoPhightins!02:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that you are expected to be on duty during any ad hocleap seconds added due to the slight irregularities in the speed of the earth's rotation. However, if it ever were to occur that a negative leap second were applied, you may consider that second of time that never officially existed to have been an opportunity for you to take a break. Zad6814:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, why don't you be a real diva and slap a "retired" template on your talk page, and if you get more than 15 messages within two hours, you change your mind? Besides, you'll need a dramatic farewell speech. And did I miss anything at ANI? Oh! I thought of you yesterday: I marinated skirt steak and grilled it for fajitas--directly on the coals. That's fun. Drmies (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Hey, point me to some ANI discussion where I can help (ha, that's a joke). Alton Brown's recipe is here, though the recipe I followed last night was from The Joy. But I'm telling you, blow-drying a charcoal fire and putting meat right on top of it, there's lots of fun in it. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... yes very well thanks. Just don't get the chance to come on here as much as I'd like. Hope you're well too, and that you enjoy this sweet snack. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know I like those, Feyd. Hey, how about I nominate a bunch of articles for deletions and we fight over them, and then we make up? Whatever you're doing, I hope you enjoy doing it. Take care, Drmies (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha Automatic Strikeout; I have no idea if this is the right date but if it is that's a mighty fine coincidence. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I've started protecting these articles indefinitely. It's been going on for years. What we really need (also) is some range blocks. Any talk page stalkers able and willing? Drmies (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who's Eymnshmsddn (talk·contribs). But he's adding good and relevant entries to the Brunei version, but he did not finish those articles though. Those who were editing the American version were vigilant to the vandalism. However, I think they are not aware of the vandalism in all of the other articles. I will continue patrolling the articles as well as those articles which are not yet protected. I have not talk to anyone yet. I haven't raised this issue to proper channel, except for reporting the IPs for vandalism.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k•14:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in reporting those IPs, except to make a list for a range block. Maybe Beeblebrox is inclined to have a look at it--he's a range blocker with a vengeance. Your table was helpful, but most of the articles were already protected. I propose you move it to something with "Big Loser" in the title, since that's what we're dealing with. Thanks for keeping up and investing your energy in this, and do keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've never done a range block. Too scary. I think most checkusers have experience with them, they have all the fancy technical know how. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought you were so rugged! Renzoy, maybe you should place a note on ANI, with a link to your table. Thanks Beeblebrox, Drmies (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. I recently found an article which is using links like these [link deleted] as sources. Besides other problems, I suspect the link may be performing a copyvio on the book. I am at sixes and sevens about how to deal with this. I thought I should bring this to an admins notice. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Well, one way or another, the links have to be stripped. Cited sources don't need to be online, so the right way to do this is to cite the book directly, rather than the images of the book. I believe you're right that they're copyright infringements, but even if they're not, they're still not appropriate, as they're self-uploaded; we have no kind of assurances at all that these images are of the real thing. Writ Keeper⚇♔13:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right--good call. Hey, I just reverted someone on Regar. The article is better than it was, but all the sources are a bit old. Do you have anything newer on the bookshelf? Drmies (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I know next to nothing about gospel, but I think we may have multiple issues at Stewart Varnado, and I've dropped a stone down the well at BLP [10]. Any insight you can provide while not writing about triple-brewed Alsatian ales will be welcome. Best, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this'll have to wait a little bit, at least until later this afternoon/tonight. Sorry--but nice to see you again. Mrs. 99 doing alright? Drmies (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry on my account. If one of your talk page stalkers takes a shine to this they're welcome to pitch in. The Ms. is improving; thanks for asking. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, I restored the page per a requested and because it was technically deleted under WP:CSD#G8 I agreed with the rationale that the redirect discussion had not considered the fact that both might be deleted. If the article does not meet our notability guidelines it should be deleted through the AFD process rather than a technicality. Hope you don't mind. Mkdwtalk21:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I believe that User:Phead128 was unblocked prematurely. He is still being very disruptive and attacking editors. Edits like this are completely unacceptable. I would have to recommend the user be blocked again, or banned from editing. He has obviously not learnt his lesson. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advice requested
I'm continuing to have problems with Lucia Black, but I'll keep it simple. Since the ANI where numerous issues were brought up, she has continued to refactor and alter my talk page comments. She was warned by RexxS after she altered his post on May 14th.[11] She altered my post pre-ANI at the VPP.[12] Post ANI, she continued by altering the statement in the latest discussion.[13] While it may be a single character, the change is terrible because it changed the context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should I template the user page or is the talk page note enough? I don't know what is most appropriate action at this point. For the underlying conflict problem, I think I've established the need for a full article with my prototype at User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox and probably will need mediation or whatever to address it. Though my biggest issue is how both Ryulong and Lucia have teamed up to disrupt GITS and insert false information and ruin the original topic-level page. If the RFC didn't work and DRN didn't work, what options do I have left? It seems offensive that two people can perpetually reject something on a simple 'grudge' and continue to obstruct the building of the encyclopedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see you issued a block instead, I was wondering if I should template a warning to her talk page or leave the comment the article talk page as suitable warning. What do you suggestion for resolving the underlying content dispute? I don't want to pester or anything, I'm just out of ideas for resolving said dispute. The RFC seems to have failed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we still talking about that title track thing? Someone needs to close that. I think the best thing to do is to place a (NEUTRAL!) note on WP:AN, asking for a volunteer to look into it. (As I said before, I can't do that since it's just not my cup of tea and I don't want anyone to laugh at me if I get those geek details wrong.) IMO it's an easy close, but just a lot of reading. Then you can move on. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to inform you... but the title track thing was not the problem at all. The actual issue started with Ghost in the Shell, which I dropped because it was not being resolved. Now it has moved to Dragon Ball; where I want to create an article on the notable anime series Dragon Ball Z. Two RFCs were opened, one on WP:MOS-AM and that was recently closed with the offending piece being removed per WP:CREEP. When I recreated the page with the lengthy content from my sandbox it was reverted and now its being blocked all over again. I don't see any avenue for the content issue to be resolved if DRN and RFC can be so easily ruined; I need something concrete to end this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you drop some diffs/links to the discussion? What is the objection to a DBZ article? There is enough commentary over the years that its 'not really dragonball' that the TV-series is notable. Given its themes and the large differences between it and DB, I cant see why it would not justify its own article. Even if I am more of an Outlaw Star fan Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, let me see if I interpret this correctly - Lucia is arguing against a dedicated DBZ(Anime) article on the basis that theDragon Ball (manga) covers both the arc of the 'Dragonball(anime)' and 'Dragonball Z(anime)' story/plot? Thats a novel interpretation of the MOS guidelines. IMO The anime/manga's should be split off due to the size of damn DB article at this point... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize the dispute at Talk:Dragon Ball, I noticed their was no page and wanted to create one, apparently it was merged in 2008 for 'violating' MOS-AM. As seen in this discussion.Talk:Dragon_Ball/Archive_1#Merge So I did two things, get an RFC to split and an RFC to alter (later remove) the offending piece from MOS-AM. That RFC is here. It was no contest, but I asked for it formally closed to prevent future problems. Since there was no activity for weeks and my sandbox looked good I went ahead and recreated the page as it appeared the VPP RFC made clear the arguments against were overturned and that the 2008 merge was done for the wrong reasons. Ryulong reverted the page and threw a fit.[14] Now the issue is 'oh previously there was consensus to not split, so don't split it' and rather then argue policy, its "rhetoric" and I'm in the only one active on the support side now, other people supporting in Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z#Split seem unaware or have not been involved in the RFC. With 65 references and content half as long as the original franchise article, it completely lacks the plot and the overview of the works at this point. To be perfectly fair, Dragon Ball glosses over 200 episodes in a paragraph, instead focusing on the first half and the Frieza arc. Lucia has called my sandbox 'pointy', because I'm not adding the content to Dragon Ball before splitting off.[15] But I'm willing to overlook things like that for someone to explain policy. WP:CCC, WP:DETAIL and WP:SPINOFF all seem valid, but the opposition has only "rhetoric" of 'its not a good idea' or 'its not that different'. Lucia even claimed that my article was inaccurate because I mention the Dragon Ball Z manga, but didn't 'clarify it', when I did.[16] Its really just the continuation of their earlier grudge from before, but I've tried to appease them for days only to find their reasoning borders on "its not a worldview" so I address it to get the response that "Dragon Ball Z manga doesn't exist in Japan". USA and Germany both had DBZ manga releases, but most of Europe and South America did not and I clearly stated Viz's role in the brief section in the sandbox. This is a heavy condensed prose, but is an example of what Lucia calls inaccurate:User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox#Dragon_Ball_Z_manga So, I'm just going to work some more on the sandbox because eventually it will be at such a point that it might hit GA or FA despite not being in main space and the whole conflict will look ridiculously silly in hindsight. I believe that it is beginning to become clear already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Chris, but this isn't really becoming clear to me. In Death, you seem to understand this a lot better than I do. Also, it's manga (or whatever) and I kind of don't want to get involved with that and its project: I don't have much time now for learning curves. You said Dispute Resolution has been tried? I didn't see a link. Ryulong, by the way, I don't see his revert as a "fit"--it's unfortunate perhaps but you'll have to get along with some of these people and Ryulong is a dinosaur here--I know cause I disagree with him often enough. Anyway, I'd refrain from that word choice even while I understand your frustration. I taught a class last semester where I successfully installed a bullshit filter in my brain to filter out one specific student's running commentary; I suggest you try the same, and I'm not talking about Ryulong. And DR, if that hasn't been tried before. But beyond that, I'm not really sure I know what to do: perhaps In Death has some ideas. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; I might have a few options left to deal with the issue. And I did try DRN with GITS, I'll wait till Lucia can participate before continuing. Thanks Drmies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to do some more reading but I understand the argument you are facing Chris, and were this a lesser franchise, it would hold some weight. However in this case its a bit tortured given the scope of the franchise across manga (print) anime (TV series) OAV (film) and the videogames. (Although I would use 'Intellectual Property'/IP where you use the term franchise). Essentially their argument revolved around local MOS guidelines trumping notability and reliable sources policies. Thats irrelevant given LOCALCONSENSUS. If its notable as a stand alone product, it can have an article. If I have time I will take a look at the GITS issue as well. Drop some diffs on my talkpage if there is anything specific you want me to look at. Think we have taken up enough of the good Dr's talkpage with manga talk ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Lucia is continuing with personal attacks.[17] She is responding to something pre-block, when I didn't notice and while I did use the term deliberate, that's how such a 'typo' appeared to be. I wanted to point out how she has made such accusations and altering of posts since our first interaction (her second post to me) way back in January.[18] I feel that even if I don't catch every instance; it is not my responsibility to check her posts to make sure their integrity is maintained. Given that "Only in Death" is helping to assist in resolving the content dispute; I don't know if my response is even required at this point. She deleted Ponyo and my explaination at her talk [19] to make that attack. And I haven't yet pointed this out to her; but even in her own unblock request, she altered a portion of my comment. [20] Very trivial; but it is ironic and shows how frequent it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Ed here: close to blocking. I gave UrbanNerd a final warning; I don't see any reason to undo the block on Phead. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as you agree that UrbanNerd baited Phead128, and (I assume) realise that Ed blocked Phead128 without realising the full circumstances, I am rather surprised that Phead128's punishment, or at least the length of it, still stands. He will feel this is unjust. --Kleinzach05:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is getting silly. I'm hatting all of it: it is off-topic. If you got a problem with Urban Nerd's removal of your comments, take it to ANI. FWIW, I did not deny a review of the block: I did review the block and saw no reason to overturn it. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aspects of this are indeed silly. but then this is Wikipedia and an infobox discussion. I only got involved in this because some obviously straightforward, uncontroversial, correct information was being removed from the box. I shouldn’t have bothered. I should have realised that when there’s a fire the best thing to do is look away and leave it to the professional fire service to handle, even if they sometimes drive to the wrong address. I'm not taking this to ANI. I have no wish to be involved in a continuing drama. I am surprised that you hatted my comments after Parsecboy had restored them. Anyway I’m withdrawing from that discussion. I suggest two things need to be learned from this incident (1) the article edit history should be read before blocking any user, (2) if the previous record of the user is a factor in whether or not to block them, and for how long, then this should also be checked properly. (I am leaving a note for Ed so that he can also see my comment here.) --Kleinzach23:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your father
I will think of you, and of your memories of your father, for the next 24 hours, in your honor and in honor of your memory of him. I lost my dad in 2003, and the 10th anniversary approaches. I wish you well. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cullen. I had a father-inflected dream last night--his motorcycles were involved, as was an incident of my complete failure as a father. I woke up in the middle of the night to see if my youngest daughter was alright, if she hadn't really fallen off that mountain. Parenthood changes a person irrevocably--you thought life was a pool of worries before? Now it's real. Please give my best to Mrs. Cullen, and to your engineering son. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is a bad time, but you may be interested to know that idiom dictionary is currently showing at DYK. This is not just a told-you-so as I feel it could still use more work. You and your talk-page stalkers seem to be interested in words and their usage and so may be able to improve the topic while it is on display. Warden (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that references are required under WP policy, not just the DYK criteria, and part of the text was copied from another source. Warden was just taking text from an earlier revision (and I'm not alleging any wrongdoing on his/her part!), but I don't think that this DYK should have passed as-is. Ed[talk][majestic titan]10:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry Warden that may have came out a bit short. I dont have an issue with your work on it, more the general quality of whats slipping through DYK. Regarding references - in the wider encyclopedia its a bit more relaxed/less rigid. However the criteria (last time I checked) for DYK is that the 'hook' is referenced. When I looked at a large amount of DYK's a few months ago, the tendency was for reviewers to only check the hook reference without taking a look at the whole. 'Is hook referenced? Check, pass' was how it was going. Very few of the reviewers were concerned with quality of the article, only that it checked the bullet points on the DYK criteria. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) References are only required for quotations and material which seems controversial — this has been confirmed at the core policy page WP:V multiple times. I'd have liked to do more for the article but the trouble is that processes like AFD and DYK run on a timetable of 5-7 days and it can be difficult to find the time when there's so much else to do too. Warden (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak intelligently about this particular DYK and its quality but Warden, if you want to drop me an "I told you so", you're welcome to do it--after all, if you can, it means the project as a whole has improved. Thanks for the note, and enjoy the (fleeting) fame. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Dutch eat raw fish? On the Swedish wiki Dutch cuisine, the article say the most characteristic thing is Dutch eating habitually raw fish... called Nieuwe. I don’t know, nobody gave me raw fish while in Amsterdam. But then it might be something Dutch do when nobody is watching them? Or it is just fairy tale.
( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not really raw--see Soused herring. It is very traditional and seasonal; the first barrel of nieuwe haring is sold at auction for charity, the boats race back to beat each other getting it to the market, everyone discusses the quality, the newspapers report on it...I never had it as a kid, though I did later. I can do without the raw onions, though. Some of the best is in a stall in the shadow of the Westertoren, in the Jordaan, where Johnny Jordaan (whose bust is on the Johnny Jordaanplein]] used to sing the Jordaanlied--songs like "Bij ons in de Jordaan". That, for me, is what Hollandse nieuwe means. :) Drmies (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but than that’s not raw, it's pickled. Sounds fun with the newspaper coverage and all the excitement around it. I’m going to fix that raw fish issue. ( Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
As it happens (I just read in the paper), this year, for the second time in history, they're postponing "landing" the first barrel (and opening the season) because of low quality fish. I'll need to add that to the article. And yes, not raw, though it's also called "raw herring", I believe. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, no--I've seen enough weddings. I was just struck by the fact that it was televised, and I think there were 235 journalists present. Bonne chance, Vincent Autin and Bruno Boileau. F**k these goodlooking gay guys--they make straight people like me look like fat slobs, and Dennis doesn't look much better than me. Don't know about Warrington; he may be quite the looker--I guess he's over six feet tall, blond, blue-eyed, and ripped like Gerard Butler. F**k the Swedes as well. Why does God hate me so much? Drmies (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Yes, they are beautiful, aren't they? Rosie is my favorite these days. She makes really funny sounds, and says really sweet things. She also doesn't eat dinner, she lies, and she hoards candy and leaves the wrappers under the couch, but that's by-the-by. I'm sure, Lady, you were the loveliest child ever and never did a bad thing in your life. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I am. :) And God loves You, otherwise he would not made your talk page into such a celebrity page. Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You look great, Warrington. I can't wait to show you to my class this fall, in that Beowulf movie. I advertised the class with a picture of you holding a sword in a mighty phallic way, and on one of the posters someone placed a lipsticked kiss just under your picture. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I know only about G. G liberationists, nothing else. Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 31 May 2013 (UTC))Tuscaloosa Catfish served with corn bread and rice, mmmmmmmm
Not a big fan of catfish, but I'm proud of you Dennis. There's a Taj Mahal out there for you somewhere, "Goin' fishin'" or something like that: "Many fish bite if you got good bait, here's a little tip that I would like to relate..." Of course, it's not really about fishing. Check it out, it's a lovely tune. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
. I'm proud of you too, Dennis. The world would be a better place if people would eat more fish. Catfish. Soused herring. Any fish. More brainy people would edit on Wiki.. Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. That's part of the reason why we have to go through them all actually, some were removed or reverted properly, others weren't actually checked, which seems to be the case of that editor. Thankfully the large bios are long done, we only have pieces and parts of paragraphs left to tackle at this point. Wizardman17:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had previously processed an edit war request in this article. At that time, you read the comments and even posted your thoughts about the dispute. Unfortunately, there seems to be another edit ware on this article. Given your previous experience, I would like to ask you to process this one as well. Thank You.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Email
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
For stepping up to the plate (or the wicket, if you prefer) and helping to resolve the "Sallie Parker" episode. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
== Jaffna Kingdom and blocking me ==
This is a sentence in Jaffna kingdom article. It is well referenced.
> The origin of the medieval Jaffna kingdom is obscure and still the subject of controversy among historians.[17][18][19][20][21]
Everyone accepted Jaffna kingdom was there in 1323. Some historians argued that it was there in 1215 and some argued it wasn't in 1215. What are the measurements you used favor it was there in 1215 and end a centuries long debate? Himesh84 (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have NO idea what you're talking about. I have no opinion on any date or content. I have no opinion on history and controversy. I have no measurements, except 5'11" and 210, unfortunately.
You were blocked for edit warring. Then your block was extended because you socked (you edited the article as an IP). You're about to get blocked again for these edits, which, frankly, display incompetence. You included a "reference" to an ANI discussion and introduced grammatical errors into a Good Article. Moreover, you seem to be making the same edits you were warring over in the first place. Continue that behavior and you'll be blocked indefinitely.
One more thing: in this edit summary (that's you socking as an IP), you said "Obi2canibe , Drmies, regentspark Concluded that Jaffna kingdom was established by Magha in 1215. This is not a controversial any more this edit". That is the extent to which you don't understand what it means to be an editor or what it means to be an administrator. I do not endorse any kind of date or whatever--I blocked you because of the way you behaved. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
> Moreover, you seem to be making the same edits you were warring over in the first place.
This is incorrect. Now I am going with consensus. That's Jaffna kingdom was etablished in 1215. It was against my opinion before the block
We needed something to show WP has decided Jaffna kingdom was etablished in 1215 over other opinion. WP did it through consensus. There is only place which state it. That is WP consensus. If it is only there what is the problem of linking it --Himesh84 (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to figure out what you're trying to say, but one thing is clear: there is no consensus on the talk page for your edits. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish Resistance Movement
now he removes everything from the talkpage instead of continuing the discussion so now further disussion seems impossible and his notice on my talkpage is against wp:goodfaith 95.195.223.226 (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that they will. That templated note strikes me as incorrect and I will talk to them about it. Go ahead and edit the article--with a reference. A better one would be better: something not from their own website. Surely the newspapers have reported on this club. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i am not so good in finding third party sources except reading and analyse them, i suggest respectfully that if you did the edit than yes there is doubt indeed 95.195.223.226 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the name of a Swedish expert on dogs and candy. He drops by here sometimes. In the meantime I found a reliable source by reading the article on the Swedish wiki. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the...
Stealing a man's dog when he's away? Just came by to say hi, I'll probably come back to edit a little over the next few days. I hope you have been keeping busy on the cricket betting scandal article(s)? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff17:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all over that, Spiff. Good to see you again. Have you lived a full life while you were gone? Are you ready to tackle Modi's article? Drmies (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing that talk page it appears that I visited you too early! I'm just going to update some of my cricket lists, it's a lot less volatile out there. —SpacemanSpiff18:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category intersections
You had previously expressed interest in the idea of category intersections. I wanted to give you a sneak peek of something User:Magnus Manske has recently developed. To see it, add the following line to your common.js page:
importScript('User:Obiwankenobi/intercat.js');
Then restart your browser, and visit Category:Wikipedia_categorization_intersect_test. You can click on the intersects up top, and it will display all articles that meet the criteria (e.g. American novelists who are LGBT and African American or whatever). This is still very early prototype stage, but since you were interested I wanted to share and get your feedback. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. That's interesting. Next step is a pull-down menu, right? I was surprised to find how many hits I got for "Dutch people" and "Social classes". I suppose that one little move, one category getting added to a high category, would easily increase the number of hits tremendously. Thanks--yes, I think that's the kind of thing that would propel the debate forward. BTW, I still don't believe in gendering everyone. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you add something as a sub-category, it can change things. For example, Category:Guggenheim fellows was under Category:Guggenheim family, which was under Category:American Jews. As a result, James Baldwin came up in the intersection of Category:American novelists and Category:American Jews. If we do this at scale, we need to just be more clear about category membership - for example, the reason that example is broken is that Guggenheim fellows are *not* part of the Guggenheim family, they are simply related, so we need to start using category relations instead of just sub-catting, especially when it comes to people. When you say "I still don't believe in gendering everyone", I'm not sure what you mean - we could do for example what the German wikipedia does, with Men, Women, Third Gender, and Unknown for example, or we could even have 5 or 6 or 10 genders at the top level. In any case, the categories themselves would for the most part cease to be gendered (so they'd be no more Category:american women novelists and Category:American male novelists, you'd just have Category:American novelists, which you would intersect with women if you wanted such a list. But the default would always be an ungendered list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback Notice
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Jcc's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Using Drmies talk page as a billboard - Attn content creators:
Dennis, that Australia article simply needs to be merged into the main one. I don't see any justification for its continued existence. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not quite surprised. We've been trying to merge {{Infobox Australian road}} into {{Infobox road}} (which the rest of the world uses) for years now. The same pattern exists with {{Infobox Australian place}}. Seems like different editors fighting this particular one over, but same mentality of trying to ensure that Australian topics are handled specially. Some serious issues going on there. --Rschen775401:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need content creators, you need a weyr of wikidragons, accompanied by a few wikiogres and a random wikibarbarian thrown in for good measure. Then send some wikifairies to clean up the mess and make it pretty again. I read about 5 minutes before I had to stop, and I still hadn't learned anything except there are debates in the science. So what? Do users need to know the results of every single randomized controlled trial and graphs of bike usage from the 70s? i think one solution for Bike helmet might be to fork out all of the stuff about bike helmet safety into a separate article, and leave bike helmet as a nice, short summary article - when was it invented, what do they look like, quick overview of safety issues with link to debate, etc. Sort of like Climate, Climate change, and Global warming. Then, the debate can continue at the "safety" page without polluting the main page. Either that or nuke it from orbit - its the only way to be sure.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put a split tag on it if you think that will help, and start a discussion on talk, and notify a few places, then see who comes by. Do you think we could get a consensus to split? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A cycle helmet should generally be light in weight and provide ample ventilation, because cycling can be an intense aerobic activity which significantly raises body temperature, and the head in particular needs to be able to regulate its temperature. The dominant form of helmet up to the 1970s was the leather "hairnet" style. This offered acceptable protection from scrapes and cuts, but only minimal impact protection, and was mainly used by racing cyclists. More widespread use of helmets began in the U.S. in the 1970s. After many decades, when bicycles were regarded only as children's toys, many American adults took up cycling during and after the bike boom of the 1970s. Two of the first modern bicycle helmets were made by MSR, a manufacturer of mountaineering equipment, and Bell Sports, a manufacturer of helmets for auto racing and motorcycles. These helmets were a spin-off from the development of expanded polystyrene foam liners for motorcycling and motorsport helmets, and had hard polycarbonate plastic shells. The bicycle helmet arm of Bell was split off in 1991 as Bell Sports Inc., having completely overtaken the motorcycle and motor sports helmet business.
The first commercially successful purpose-designed bicycle helmet was the Bell Biker, a polystyrene-lined hard shell released in 1975.[1][2] At the time there was no appropriate standard; the only applicable one, from Snell, would be passed only by a light open-face motorcycle helmet. Over time the design was refined and by 1983 Bell were making the V1-Pro, the first polystyrene helmet intended for racing use. In 1984 Bell produced the Li'l Bell Shell, a no-shell children's helmet. These early helmets had little ventilation.
In 1985, Snell B85 was introduced, the first widely adopted standard for bicycle helmets; this has subsequently been refined into B90 and B95 (see Standards below). At this time helmets were almost all either hard-shell or no-shell (perhaps with a vacuum-formed plastic cover). Ventilation was still minimal due mainly to technical limitations of the foams and shells in use.
A Giro Atmos helmet, showing seamless in-mould microshell construction.
Around 1990 a new construction technique was invented: in-mould microshell. A very thin shell was incorporated during the moulding process. This rapidly became the dominant technology, allowing for larger vents and more complex shapes than hard shells.
Use of hard shells declined rapidly among the general cyclist population during the 1990s, almost disappearing by the end of the decade, but remain popular with BMX riders as well as inline skaters and skateboarders.
The late 1990s and early 2000s saw advances in retention and fitting systems, replacing the old system of varying thickness pads with cradles which adjust quite precisely to the rider's head. This has also resulted in the back of the head being less covered by the helmet; impacts to this region are rare, but it does make a modern bike helmet much less suitable for activities such as unicycling, skateboarding and inline skating, where falling over backward is relatively common. Other helmets will be more suitable for these activities.
Since more advanced helmets began being used in the Tour de France, carbon fiber inserts have started to be used to increase strength and protection of the helmet. The Giro Atmos and Ionos, as well as the Bell Alchera were among the first to use carbon fiber.
Some modern racing bicycle helmets have a long tapering back end for streamlining. This type of helmet is mainly dedicated to time trial racing as they lack significant ventilation, making them uncomfortable for long races.
after
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Two of the first modern bicycle helmets were made by MSR, a manufacturer of mountaineering equipment, and Bell Sports, a manufacturer of helmets for auto racing and motorcycles. These helmets were a spin-off from the development of expanded polystyrene foam liners for motorcycling and motorsport helmets, and had hard polycarbonate plastic shells. The bicycle helmet arm of Bell was split off in 1991 as Bell Sports Inc., having completely overtaken the motorcycle and motor sports helmet business.
The first commercially successful purpose-designed bicycle helmet was the Bell Biker, a polystyrene-lined hard shell released in 1975.[3][4]
The Snell B85 was introduced in 1985 and became the first widely adopted standard for bicycle helmets, which has been further refined.
A Giro Atmos helmet, showing seamless in-mould microshell construction.
Around 1990 construction techniques shifted and hard shell designs fell out of favor except with some BMX riders, inline skaters and skateboarders.[citation needed] As the years progressed, advances in retention and fitting systems replacing the old system of varying thickness pads with better fitting designs which offered less protection to the back of the head, where injuries are rare. Ventilation was also improved, increasing comfort for the rider.[citation needed]
I just noticed a situation that I'm not sure I know how, or whether, I should address. An article that was either an attempt to further a self-published literary hoax or (I guess it's possible) an overly credulous reader's product is now the author's user page; cf. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 14#Petreius Hyphantes for background (I'm User:Cardiffchestnut in that conversation before a name change). The user page shows up in Google searches. Should I care and should something be done? If so, what? Thanks,davidiad{ t }02:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it as a userspace draft and put a no-index tag on it, so it should eventually drop out of google; I also removed the categories (userspace pages should not have any mainspace categories). You may also want to drop a note to the concerned editor. There may be a reason to blank it, given it is a hoax apparently - I'm not sure if people are allowed to keep hoax pages in their userspace but not sure - there are certainly plenty of joke pages in wikipedia namespace.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies (or one of the admin page stalkers) could you perhaps have a look at this discussion: User talk:Yunshui#User:Jbignell (needs to be an admin to see the deleted article). One of those books was just added to another article by the same user. Looks very fishy to me, but have not time right now to look into it (another administrative form to fill out, in triplicate of course)... --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks legit now, Randy. The guy's for real: I added a reference, from a book (one of those paper things, without a battery). The paperwork can wait til after the weekend, you bon vivant. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I saw from you was fine. Let's hope that Bushranger's warning was enough already; I have added my own, on both talk pages. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least according to Jacob Rees-Mogg in last week's episode of Have I Got News For You, the word floccinaucinihilipilfication means "the estimation of something valueless". According to that TV programme, Rees-Mogg's use of the word in the House of Commons makes it the longest word to appear in Hansard. It is probably no surprise to you that I've never heard of the word before ... but I am tempted to find a use for it, perhaps at ANI. That will sort out the wheat from the chaff among the admin corps! Alternatively, perhaps I could just say that X or Y is crap? - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for giving me a leg up on the competition. However, I can't yet accept the word since it's not listed in the OED... Drmies (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It wouldn't have happened without my old pal Malleus Fatuorum. Chris, when you get a moment, could you have a look at William March? I want to bring it up to GA. I've looked at it so often I have no idea anymore. Is the lead even acceptable? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lede makes it sound as if March only published two novels.
Got the father's name?
he later stated he had composed a 10,000 line poem at the age of 12 but had burned the manuscript. - relation to the earlier clause needs to be explicit
Two years later March had returned to Mobile - Year should be stated instead
His high-school equivalency course should be in the lede, I think, otherwise it's unclear how he went from failure to failure
Images should face in
133d Company or 133rd Company?
WWI fiction needs years
Co F - perhaps spell out Company F?
statistical duties - clarification of the term would be nice
Link on first mention, please
In general it seems you are quite fond of developing extremely extensive and grammatically complex sentences, something which I'm sure our non-native speakers of English will have difficulty with, particularly those who live in nations without any English heritage such as Indonesia or some similar nation which I may not name.
resigned his position - what position
Really, really, really need years for these works.
Of paramount importance - according to whom?
gave their approval, though grudgingly, it seems. - according to?
legendary -POV
classic -POV
He won four O. Henry Awards for his short stories, tied for the most wins by any author up until that time. - Since surpassed by?
curious -POV
One curious little book with a March story, "The First Sunset", was printed in a limited edition of 150 copies by Cincinnati printer and writer Robert Lowry's Little Man Press. - Possibly undue weight
Thanks Chris. (Really, all I wanted was a GA rubber stamp!) Well, Company K was still available on Amazon last time I checked, and The Bad Seed is available in a mass paperback. The first is really a masterpiece--certainly for a first novel. It's quite extraordinary. The movie barely does it justice (and I don't think you'll find that easily). The latter is creepy. Good reading, but very creepy, especially if you have children. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but shipping rates are terrifying for Indonesia ;). No wonder I only got a "B" in Pragmatics back when I did my bachelour's degree... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to offer to send you one and then HOLY SHIT I checked the rates--$45. Back in the good old days every country offered lower shipping rates for books and magazines. Plus, it appears that surface mail doesn't exist anymore. Sorry Chris. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, my point exactly. I ordered Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory about three years ago... cost ten dollars for the book, thirty for shipping. Now I only buy stuff that's already in the country or can be shipped from Malaysia or Singapore. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Ape Man's Brother was a work in progress. You kinda Interrupted me as I was searching for more reliable sources. This is a relatively unknown ebook by a well known author. I sort of resent the fact you swooped in and deleted it before I had the chance to finish.PKDASD (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, if a book is notable and has reviews and all that, the wonders of Google will produce those in seconds, and adding them to the article takes mere minutes. Also, I didn't delete it: in fact, I undid your blanking; it's the blanking that's taken as a sign that the only contributor wants it deleted. My move would have saved the redirect. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been written and published as a e-book, something that Joe Lansdale does very little of. Joe is a very popular and prolific writer with many hardcore fans and I think this article belongs in the encyclopedia. Just check out his bibliography. I'm going to redo the article and hopefully this time it will meet Wikipedia's strict standards.PKDASD(talk) 20:20 5 June (UTC)
Schlafly has been in the news for this numerous times.
I REPEATEDLY asked those removing information from the article to come to the talk page for discussion in accordance with what I understand the rules of wikipedia to be. They refused and instead, OUT OF POLICY, engaged in private conversation to get the page locked.
I have placed sections for information, discussion and sources on the talk page to try to get them to show up but I am confident they are not acting in good faith, as I am sure from YOUR direct threats that you are not bothering to act in good faith, and I'm certain they won't bother.
(talk page stalker) Looks like valid protection and removal to me. For example, insisting that Youtube be used as a reference? Ridiculous and against policy. We need to protect biographies from people with axes to grind (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Bwilkins said. As revolting to some as someone's opinions may be, it is not our job to judge said someones for said opinions. You are going about it completely incorrectly. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that one useful indicator that an editor is committed to Wikipedia's core principles is whether that editor is as quick to insist on NPOV and adherence to BLP policy in an article about a political adversary as in one about a political ally. Of course, this doesn't apply to our apolitical editors. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies! Hope you remember me in the ANI discussion. I just want to get your opinion about this edit on the same article Joya Ahsan. Since you warned me for indulging in an edit war, I've refrained myself from reverting that, but please take a close look. This time another user SlawTony is making the same edit that Ricose used to do (suspecting a sock puppet), removing the existing references as well as some referenced contents and putting some blog sites instead. --Zayeem(talk)15:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zayeem, I'll tell you what I see. SlawTony is not doing the article any favors with their poor English. It seems to be they're adding blogs, and those might not be notable. Without even getting into the specifics of content it seems fair to me to revert the change, but see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: if they're bold and you revert, they should discuss. To counter the argument that it is you who should, in fact, discuss, make your case on the talk page (which is still empty). Revert, if you like, and explain in some detail; that will make it much easier to stay out of an edit war. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in that ANI discussion, I had tried to discuss with user Ricose before those edit wars, but it was of no use. Since, SlawTony is also looking like a sock puppet of Ricose, I guess the result would be the same here as well. Anyway, I'll just do what you said, let's see what happens. Please keep that article in your watchlist. Thanks. --Zayeem(talk)18:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their edit patterns are same. Collecting more evidence would be better before moving to the last resort. And again, he has removed those references and the referenced contents from the article here without even discussing in the talk page. --Zayeem(talk)10:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Zayeem. SlawTony edited Humayun Ahmed frequently, which the other hasn't (as far as I can tell, haven't looked at their entire history). I will grant you that their interests appear to overlap, as evidenced by their edit summaries. I must stress, however, that Ricose (with whom you've duked it out before) is not always wrong--in this edit, for instance, they were right in reverting your revert--"right" at least from the point of view of content (and language). I'm just a casual observer right now: it seems that Ricose could do with better manners (or a better application of the BRD cycle), but you can learn something from them, when it comes to style, grammar, and tone... Sorry, but you asked me to look at things, and that's my conclusion. We would all be better off if you two blended your strengths. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know Ricose did make some constructive edits earlier (I've acknowledged that in the ANI discussion as well), the articles were in really bad shape and he did remove some peacocks/original research from some articles, but in some cases I found that he removed more contents than he should have (contents that were not peacock and were supported by the references). What happened is that, when I first came across Ricose and his contributions, it seemed as vandalisms and massive content removals to me, hence I began to revert his edits in those articles (I went wrong here, I know that). However, my reverts were eventually reverted by Ricose later. I couldn't participate in every article that Ricose edited, but I did involve myself in improving some articles that I was interested on. When I started to add those contents (which were removed by Ricose} and add some references to verify those, Ricose again began to revert my edits with the same edit summaries. Now this made me surprised that at first he was removing those contents because of being unreferenced, now when I started to add some references why is he still removing those? I tried several times to sort it out with him in his talk page, but they were of no use. He took some breaks and I thought we might have reached a consensus, but then he emerged again with those same edits. Also, as the edits seem to be vandalisms at first sight, I have asked him several times to first use the {{citation needed}} or {{weasel words}} templates before removing the contents so that other users can add references or reword those contents, but he just ignored it. --Zayeem(talk)17:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. I'm poking around to get a couple more editors involved here if you're interested. It makes me uncomfortable to "argue" with volunteers and I would rather facilitate a thoughtful discussion among impartial editors.
Fair enough. I don't think we have a Wikiproject Publishing or anything for Direct Marketing, so I'll have to keep poking around. CorporateM (Talk) 19:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to help (though not right now). Where's IP99 with his lobster rolls when you need him? And Mandarax? Do you know who knows art like knowbody's business? Johnbod. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'm not sure what kind of help you were looking for, but since I can read both of those I had a quick look and mucked about with versions of his name. I am afraid I found a bit of a mess when I started looking at sources; I left a note on the talkpage. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, could you perhaps have a look at this AFD? There are some BLP issues here, I think. Initially, I was surprised that this was apparently taken to AfD by an IP, but it's a new editor who has also edited this using his IP and doesn't sign his edits... --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any BLP issues. The nominator is a little blunt but I don't see where BLP is being bent. What was your specific concern? BTW, I do agree with the nom, the subject doesn't look notable to me either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Randy, I'm with Niteshift on this one. Blunt, sure, but hardly a personal attack. The article was written by an SPA, Wuzz2010 (talk·contribs), and early on had aspects of a vanity page. On the other hand the nominator seems to be as interested in removing it as Wuzz was in writing it, and it's a nomination that addresses a bunch of things that simply don't pertain, that's a fact. I also see no notability here, and will cast my vote accordingly. Randy, as it happens I was thinking about you since I just wrote up Geschiedenis Magazine; perhaps you have something to add there, even if it's just categories or something. Thanks, and thank you too Niteshift, Drmies (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of gothic rock bands (again)
Just to make you aware that I predict an edit war, or at minimum total waste of everyone's time on the talk page as particular editors refuse to actually read WP policies. Sorry to only get in contact when nonsense happens, but there you go... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have this aggressive person who is edit-warring on K-pop adding unsourced positions and personall attacks in his edit-summaries. Now he is attacking my articles: [27]. I reported them at AIV but I thought it wouldn't hurt to try contacting you as well. Thank you and sorry for the trouble. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Labourers of Herakles? Didn't SM Entertainment announce a pre-video in anticipation of the video for that song (the Japanese version of course, you dummy), and a scheduled come-back three weeks later? With one half of the group singing all the lines, while the other half mimed it for a soap commercial? And a greatest hits tour, of supermarkets throughout Korea (not Japan, you dummy), with a superextra re-release of the extended version of the remix of the single, in a pink sleeve? Drmies (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha! What a concept! Thank you for this fantastic idea which surpasses even Harrison's daring vision. One thing though, the Labourers has some scenes involving getting stuck in wet cement. Not to mention cursing. I'm not sure how well this would translate in a glamorous K-pop video. :) Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις23:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Δρ. Κ. and I are acquainted: whether he's this one or that one, I'm a fan of his work, since he recently brought out an awesome DYK that makes my field seem interesting. (But now I wish I could read suppressed edit summaries to see this shithole I call to mind.) davidiad{ t }01:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Davidiad, you scored a home run with that baseball Dr. K. That was really funny. As far as Dr. Kakridis I know for sure I'm not him, since apparently I'm still around. :) In any case, thank you for your nice words. It is always a pleasure talking to you. Take care. :) Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις01:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha! Any more of these jokes and I will only be able to type just a long chain of "Ha"s. Drmies, I don't know what your specialty is but I am sure it isn't Greek classics. On the other hand you could single-handedly revitalise the genre in a manner similar to Harrison's. Except for an LGBT audience. Lol! Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις01:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies and stalkers, this seems like it might be up some of your alleys. There's some sort of slow brew edit war going on at Edward Said. I can't tell if it's hero-worshiper v. reactionary, but it's a GA and I suspect that nothing too productive is happening. (I only noticed because I tried to get rid of a couple weak phrases and both sides in whatever's going on have reverted me; one appears to think I'm a sock of the other.) davidiad{ t }22:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hot mess. And I just made it worse by sticking my nose in it--that "character assassination" thing is ridiculous. It's not the kind of language we're supposed to use. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see what the folk there think of your bits of cleanup. It needs an editor or two who have the time and resources to make it the sort of article that is written well enough and cited strongly enough to dissuade the lovers and haters from sweeping in with online sourced POV and reverts. I don't have the energy or knowledge for the effort, and toning down the language is just a first step. As it is, I'd delist it as a GA. davidiad{ t }01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited this article before, I think, and wasn't very impressed by it at the time. I also don't wish this to get out of hand and I won't be afraid to use a tool: the article (and the subject) is too important to be screwed with. I got a couple of other things on my plate, but if we could get this back/keep it at GA level we would have done a good thing. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And without wanting to continue the homoerotic conversation started by Davidiad and Dr. K. in the previous section, damn he was a goodlooking man. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's too important an article to get bogged down like this. I'll dig in a bit and put it back on my watchlist if Ed and you and others keep an eye on it, too. And I'll sleep easier knowing that you'll use your tool on this goodlooking man. davidiad{ t }02:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let's see what will remain of it. I don't know (and I don't want to know) who stuck all those "in the event"s in there, all the blockquotes, the faulty punctuation, the enormous amount of excessive detail, etc. But it had to go. The next job, and that's the bigger one, is to improve the sourcing and to concoct a better system of documentation, because right now it sucks. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Said may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
[[File:SaidSis.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Edward and his sister Rosemarie]] (1940)]]
water supplies.”<ref>Martin Kramer, [http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3082 Enough Said (review of ''Dangerous Knowledge'', by Robert Irwin], March 2007.</ref> He criticized the military
I assume that your placement of this comment directly after mine is just a coincidence driven by when we each posted, but still...wow. You are one of a handful of admins i respect in person (as opposed to simply by virtue of the position), but i think you might have missed it here. I'm sure you're aware that Kumioko is always going on about the "us and them" mentality; thus far i've not agreed with him; please don't make me rethink that. I know WP:AN is primarily an announcement board for admins, but that function is acknowledged to lead to general community discussion, especially when regarding something which potentially affects the whole community like, oh i don't know, bans or blocks and their lengths. Cheers, LindsayHello09:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption is correct; I wasn't looking at your comments or contributions. There's a few contributors higher up the list I was thinking of (one of them has 700 article edits and is going to weigh in on Kiefer's future here--he has almost 19,000). I do, however, stand by my comment: AN is used way too much as a public forum. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, i agree with you about the public forum bit. The problem is that the community needs a public forum and, the way it's set up, places like the village pump, which i imagine were intended to serve that function, don't really, especially when things like this blow up. I suspect that that isn't a good solution, unfortunately. Anyway, see you around. Cheers, LindsayHello14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt
Thanks for blocking the not so funny Fun Minister for his attacks on Blackmetalbaz. I'm too involved in that goth rock list for pulling out the admin tools myself. And it seems also that he's quit completely about this whole thing. De728631 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Graag gedaan. That person is a bit too hot-headed and shows no willingness even to play by basic rules (of, you know, verifiability...). I remember "det war rolig" from a vacation a long time ago... Drmies (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In unrelated news, would you mind adding Frisians and Frisian history to your watchlist? There's a recurring IP editor from Malaysia who keeps adding unsourced OR bits about the Frisians being of Celtic origin, which is contrary to what the regular sources say. More watchful eyes would be appreciated. De728631 (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits are terrible. If this goes on, semi-protection is the only way. BTW, De, you're of German extraction--happy birthday Saint Boniface, Apostle of the Germans! And how appropriate to say that in the context of those damn Frisians. [This user is from West-Friesland.] Drmies (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that Frisian is the easiest language for native English speakers to learn? If so, can I sign up for a class? After all, I have failed in my attempts to develop conversational fluency in French, Spanish, German and Hebrew. I don't want to be an "ugly American" any more, but perhaps that's my fate. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say, Cullen. You could email Rolf Bremmer; he's the expert. And personally, I think you're quite an attractive American--Mrs. Cullen made quite a catch. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks about that. No matter how many times I see those templates they just confuse the heck out of me. Can never remember what to put there. BTW I don't suppose you'd know whether or not articles written in the Hamilton Evening Journal in 1929 would be public domain by now? There is supposedly some interesting articles related to the Men's Rights League penned there by the creator of Wonder Woman 12 years prior to her debut. Ranze (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ranze, I just placed a note on the talk page before I saw yours here. Don't be confused by the templates. Above my edit screen is a button "Cite", and clicking on that produces a list of buttons that select those templates. (If you don't have those options, a clever person can tell you what to do--something about javascript or commonsensevectors.js or something like that, or maybe just a setting under your Preferences.) If you have a URL for a book, for instance, you can simply copy that in the URL field and press the button next to it, and that produces a mostly correct template. Same with news, though it doesn't work well for old NYT articles. Something from 1929 should be free by now (but I'm not expert), but citing should be done sparingly anyway, and if you do so, you'll never fall foul of copyright laws. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text_2 and, in general, Wikipedia:Quotations. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pima Air Museum
G'day from Oz; I have just come across List of aircraft in the Pima Air& Space Museum, which is apparently a creation of a COI editor calved off the Pima Air & Space Museum article after you deleted similar info from it late last year. The List is very very badly-done, being unsourced, full of OR and full of spelling mistakes (which is how it came to my notice). I am inclined to take it to AfD, but I don't know whether lists on WP have different standards for inclusion compared to articles and so I'd like your opinion. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and a GAF Nomad, product of Australia. I spent several days there just over five years ago (I have several photos I took there in my User page photo gallery), did the AMARG tour as well; I thought I'd died and gone to heaven :-) Thanks and Cheers again YSSYguy (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tom! I cleaned up the last of the citations though I can't really figure out, from the quotes given (and how they were given) what was really in the original and what was added by the editor. And now that's done--TAG you're it. BTW, the real trooper there is Cailil. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a title given to any Minister who tries to be overly charming, something like this, see picture. That is my conclusion, after much original research. After that they are all put on Cabbage soup diet. Wonder what Malleus Fatuorum alias Corbett would think of that article, since he doesn't like how to do articles. Warrington (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, is there a policy that would prevent me from posting on Malke's talk page after he told me not to, or is it just bad form to do so? Just in case I run into him sometime again and need to put something - I'm afraid that even if it's a notification or something, he'll remove it and try to bring more down on me, from his general lack of listening to people trying to help or explain that I've experienced. Thanks, Ansh66614:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC) (P.S. didn't see the section on my talk at all until over a week later, or else I would surely have apologized profusely on AN/I. Blame Echo!)[reply]
Ha, I can't find it. Opinions differ, but some smarter person will be able to find the actual guideline--I think that in general ANI notifications and things like that are allowed, and at any rate I wouldn't worry so much about those. I mean, some things are done automatically, like AfD notifications, and others are required, like ANI notifications. But maybe someone can set me straight here. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in his wisdom, ended our exchange at Men's rights movement. (1) You might not have seen my reply or (2) you might not want to see my reply, but you may as well proceed with the knowledge of its existance. Your last posting (now removed) did prompt me to add "theory" to my list of words and phrases that mean in my opinion. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(stalker) I'd encourage you to continue that exchange here, if you find it valuable. The bar is always open at Drmies' talk page, and drinks are free :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Drmies, I am very busy off Wiki, but there is some disruption going on that is upsetting User:Miss Bono. See my talk page and hers. User:OneMadScientist seems to be up to no good. Thanks for any assistance that you can provide. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to have calmed down, no? Slash after commentary by two other admins. If admin action is helpful please let me know. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a bit of trouble following the edit diffs, I noticed characters were reduced but since the spacing was compacted it took a bit to figure. Here though, it appears you removed the footnotes marked '2' and '3', which I found essential for interpreting the statement (I didn't make the footnotes, they're in the actual book, probably added by the translators). Number 3 which was removed in this edit "Walter A. Berendsohn was a professor of Scandinavian literature at the University of Hamburg and active member of the League for Men's Rights. He emigrated to Sweden in 1933." I found essential for understanding this interpretation. We seem to have an issue here where translators are recurringly translating "Menchrechten" as "men's rights" rather than "human rights" as it is used today. The term "Mensch" appears to have shifted from back then referring to men, to in a modern sense also including women. This group is spoken of by WW creator also as a "men's" group and his discussion of their issues makes it very clear it's a MRA thing. The problem is just getting a good screenshot of the source documents. I have a text translation but that alone won't stand as a source without the raw newspaper.
Anyway, I'm wondering if there could be a non-confusing way to retain the footnotes. I attempted to keep them in original form by superscripting the notes. Ranze (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was something like that--and I removed it because it seemed not be part of the original text. Yes, there must be a better way to do it, but that probably involves doing it in-text. At any rate, there is a discussion on the talk page about whether the material should be included in the first place; I was not aware of a history of those changes so I'll wait and see what pops up there (I don't have an opinion on it right now). If consensus is that it should be included we'll figure it out then. In general, it's best to keep footnote formatting in a quote in a footnote limited to the bare minimum. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Season 2 table in List of Wild Kratts episodes had been messed up by an IP user which is 99.230.35.247. Please restore the table and try to warn that user. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.91.133 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but neither Zimmerman or Hollisz have edited since last year, and Do Not Delete never returned. I'll tell you what, though. This has gone on long enough. I'm going to indef-block all of them; if they ever wish to talk, they can do that from one single account. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not really involved in the dispute but I have noticed that an article that I have contributed alot too has been the subject of a dispute for a few days. It is a user named Geebee that runs a pro-Jodi website of somekind that has heavily edited the article, and it seems that alot of Pro-Jodi Arias stuff has been inserted. The user is showing the telling characteristics of someone who wants to "win the discussions" as evident on the users extensive use of the talk page. User Bishonen referred me to you and I thought I could atleast ask you to review it. Anywhow If you could take a look at it when you find time it would be appreciated. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Bishonen put you up to this? Thanks a lot, Bishzilla, but you'll have to butter me up for real. At any rate, I just went through that article, removed some text, and warned the editor. Babba, websites and stuff--be careful not to wade into outing territory. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishzilla carefully smears delicious garlic butter all over the little Drmies.] Nothing like an atomic-deathray-grilled little user of a summer's night! [Tucks in enormous napkin to protect spiderman suit.] bishzillaROARR!!17:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the help Drmies, and concerning the "outing" he himself refered to his own site at first and has published info about the "Wikipedia situation" at the site. Anyhow lets see and wait what the user does with your latest warning. Once again, thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No rhetorical questions, please: this is a happy place. Also, probably not, since I just got out of the pool. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pool. It's not even 60 here today, and the dogs won't go outside. When the rain stops they'll be delighted to dig in the mud, though. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yanking plug from wall, hoping to dissolve this IP. At least I'm teaching all weekend, so that will cut down on the free time. Do me a favor, though: if you ever run across me in a different 99 incarnation, just block my account, as a humanitarian measure. And feel free to keep in touch via e-mail. Cheers, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Rschen7754 22:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
... Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Red Lacy puppy
Not done Sorry. You're not allowed to take a break. MBisanz talk 01:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Said may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
