Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 124.149.116.104 (talk) at 09:15, 26 January 2014 (Hey racist liar, about your your lie in the case of POV problem in Marian Dawkins). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hey racist liar, about your your lie in the case of POV problem in Marian Dawkins

Hey racist liar, I just saw you lied again on the NPOV case of Marian Dawkins. 1)What you said it unture. My link shows, you actually identified one of DrChrissy's own problem in the past. 2)You are on DrChrissy's gang that causes the POV problems, who cares what you are talking about. 3)It will be a good idea for you to study some basic science before you come out talk again, so I won't laught at your comments all the time. But I understand you, because you don't have real skill, so playing politics (lying) is your last straw, you are deeply insecure. 4)you lied last time in my case on the noticeboard, you just did it again 5)why you use those disgusting pictures on your user page? Do you enjoy violence? Judging from yor past behavior I think you do. 6)I don't have more time to educate uncivial people like you, so feel free to remove my comment or block =) 124.149.116.104 (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Burton-on-Trent Editor

Hi Drmies--the problematic IP editor that MarnetteD mentioned to you last week is still at it. Your block of him apparently has expired, and he immediately began trying to revert to his preferred (incorrect) versions of article ledes. I've reverted those I'm keeping an eye on, but I thought you'd like to know there was no change in behavior--at all. Grandpallama (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's back at it--editing under a couple of different IPs.[1][2] Can you take a look? Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's using a third IP recently, too, [3] and even had the audacity to scold another editor. Sheesh. Grandpallama (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grandpallama, every time I look at these edits I wonder what's wrong with, for instance, this. Can you explain? Drmies (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that IP is no longer active so there's no point on blocking it. Is 90.211.104.222 one of them too? Drmies (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 90.211.104.222 is also one of the IPs, as is 90.198.30.134. He's mostly been using 90.196.0.132. The problem with his edits is that they invariably change info presented in the ledes without getting consensus; if you look at the various talk pages associated with the different IPs, you'll see he's racked up numerous warnings about this behavior--numerous. In the example you bring up, you'll see that he changed the classification of the film--and while there may be no problem in calling Machete an exploitation flick, he insists on erasing the comedy classification in doing so. Any attempts to replace that info, or get him to discuss his desired changes, meets with a brick wall of silence. Most of his edits, though, also incorporate unnecessary rewrites that introduce grammatical errors into the text [4] [5] [6] or unduly emphasize certain pieces of information in the lede (he particularly has a penchant for discussing the participation of any member of Asian or Hong Kong cinema in the lede). I know there are other editors who are annoyed at how he arbitrarily (and incorrectly) changes some of the categories attached to the films, but all of my concerns are tied to these lede changes. Grandpallama (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's now on the cusp of violating 3RR with his 90.198.30.134 IP. Grandpallama (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's on the cusp of not being blocked anymore--well, in 36 hours. I hit mass rollback. I agree that this is disruptive. Ask Marnette and Doniago what they think is best: semi-protection probably, since a rangeblock apparently can't be done. Sorry, I gotta go: the kids need their apples cut and the heating guy is coming. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If absolutely nothing else about their edits was an issue, the fact that they're not providing edit summaries nor opening Talk page discussions regarding their edits would still be problematic. DonIago (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apples belong in pies! :) Semi-protection might make sense, but we're talking a lot of different articles, and he moves to new ones all the time. Maybe MarnetteD will have a different idea? Grandpallama (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the cold snap that the US is experiencing you also need heat so your hand doesn't freeze to the knife while cutting the apples :-) I agree with Doniago's assessment. As I've said before (somewhere though maybe not here) not all of this persons editing is problematic. But, since they never respond to messages there is no way to get them to stop the damage they do. This edit removed cats without rhyme or reason. Whack-a-mole blocks and checking the edits and keeping what is productive and removing what isn't is all I can think of. As ever my thanks to everyone for their time in dealing with this. MarnetteD | Talk 18:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another - 90.212.5.172 (talk · contribs) DonIago (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one more - 2.216.204.97 (talk · contribs) DonIago (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can this one please be investigated/blocked? I'm essentially edit-warring with them at this point, and if I'm in the wrong I'd obviously like to know ASAP. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding DonIago's request. This IP is making all kinds of inappropriate changes, and my contributions are increasingly just reversions of his. It feels like edit-warring. Grandpallama (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested protection on one of the articles[7] and mentioned that the IP is doing the same thing on several others; hopefully that might put a longer-term stop to this, but comments from additional editors there might be helpful. DonIago (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Proxy Server

Hi, Drmies.

I see you were involved in a prior blocking of a proxy editor IP 54

54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs)
54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs)
54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs)
54.224.53.210 (talk · contribs)

who was involved in a campaign against Baseball Bugs on the Ref Desk talk page, See Steve Ummit's comment at end of thread and who has now shown up at ANI

diff

to spread further bad news about BB. I am hoping you will see fit to revert this single-purpose editors action at ANI as prejudicial, and to take whatever action seems appropriate.

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Medeis, I'm not sure what you're asking of me. That comment was irrelevant and out of line and I removed it; if they come back again I'll gladly block. I blocked one of the four IPs you mentioned, but I don't know much about proxies (if that's what you were referring to) and I'm not the person to ask for a range block, unfortunately. I am averse to the trolling that Bugs is subjected to and will do what I can, but with limited technical skills my powers are very limited. On a side note, I did have a look at that Arb request and I can't say I agree with you and Bugs; I hope Bugs will stay on the safe side of the topic ban. If that editor returns, please let me know and I'll see if I can act in any useful manner. Good luck, and my regards to Bugs, Drmies (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notified you personally solely because you were the first admin I saw on their records who had blocked one of the IP54 incarnations previously. The user's comment may or may not have been relevant, but when you get an anonymous "witness" saying prejudicial things to a jury you tend to think they should be excluded regardless of the possible truth of their accusation. It's quite obvious someone isn't happy just to let the process work out without manipulating it; the proxy status of these editors (i.e., the fact that they are actively hiding their true identity and location with a paid service) can be seen by doing a geolocate on them by clicking on the geolocate link at the top of their talk pages. If this comes up again it's on Bugs to notify the proper authority. Thanks for helping in this instance. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for reporting a troll I count as a proper authority, I suppose. This one came from Seattle, apparently, by the way. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Seattle", but that's the tricky thing with a proxy. You get the provider's name (in this case Amazon corporate) and the location of their forwarding IP servers, but not the user's actual home location as you would with a normal ISP. The user himself could be anywhere. In this case the goal, making BB look bad, and the MO, using a single-purpose proxy account to do it, are the interesting facts. Amazon doesn't give this service away for free. It is very telling that someone is willing to use a pay service to avoid a fair fight. Thanks agani for your help, and I hope not to pester you further. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this isn't pestering at all. I'll admit I'm out of my league with the proxy stuff. But I cannot so quickly decide that it's all the same person. Anyway, that's neither here nor there; I'm keeping an eye on ANI, but you know better than I where this person can show up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, you recently blocked an editor (indef), and following that, another editor came along, blanked the blocked editor's user page, and added the "{{blocked user)}" template. The template's guidelines state that that should be left to the blocking admin. I'm wondering if you have an opinion on this. Thanks - theWOLFchild 13:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That editor, I think, is a bit of a busybody. I personally don't care so much about who places that template. As far as I'm concerned a blocking template on the talk page is enough, and I see it more as a badge of shame than as a useful identifying mark. I'm not bothered by someone else placing it; whatever the guidelines on the template say I don't take as policy or law. Ha, I just read the instructions: "typically" it's placed by the blocking admin, and " If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't." So it doesn't say others can't place it, but I think the guideline is pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC help

I'm looking at this submission, which I find is already in the mainspace at Ferronigerite-2n1s. What do I do with the draft? LadyofShalott 01:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) What I would do is redirect the AFC page to the mainspace as it appears that the same editor created both. Hasteur (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lady, thanks for spending time at AfC. Hasteur, isn't there a button to click in the pull-down menu that says something like that? Drmies (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really take credit for that. My ignorance is because I don't really spend time there - I probably should start doing it some. Someone dropped a note on a project talk page about this particular AfC that caught my eye. LadyofShalott 02:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hasteur, thanks for the tip. I've done that now. Is that it, or are there beaurocratic checkboxes somewhere to be completed in triplicate? LadyofShalott 02:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orville by Gibson

(these are knock-offs--there is no reason whatsoever to have a directory of models (remember, these are copies) or an extensive discussion of serial numbers. also, rm spam)

The Orville by Gibson page is not about "knock-offs".

Orville by Gibson was a Gibson product.

The history of Gibson and Yamano Gakki is part of the Orville by Gibson and Epiphone Japan guitars.

Guitarspecs (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me that the section on serial numbers is either original research or a violation of someone's copyright on their original research. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guitarspecs, besides the matter of original research (and Xanthomelanoussprog makes a very valid point), this is simply excessive information with no encyclopedic purpose. A list of instruments made by the factory is directory/catalog information and that's not of any use to anyone except for the factory itself and the odd fan. Now, if this information is indeed verified in one of the links you added, then a note can be placed in the article with that link. But without such verification, and without a better rationale for its inclusion in the first place, this simply bloats an already poor article into a terrible article. We are not here to provide a company or factory catalog, and one could argue it's promotional, besides excessive, poorly verified, and possibly original research or a copyvio thereof. So I'm going to revert again. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Brousse Page Submission

Hi,

Thank you for your comments regarding the above page linked here -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Olivier_Brousse

I have updated the page with a few more links to interviews with him. The interviews he takes part in are all about his job therefore moaning about Saur, Veolia or Connex. The reason I am setting up this page is to translate his French Wikipedia page which is now up and running - the link to the page is here https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Brousse.

This page has less references than I have given although it has already been approved. I do hope these edits are now sufficient and you can publish my page for Olivier.

Many thanks

Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraGeaves (talk • contribs) 13:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Laura, I don't think it is likely the article will ever be accepted, and if it was, it would only be deleted later on. The problem with AfC is the way articles are declined it strings you along to the next step "find more sources" when in most cases the quality of sources we need (like a profile story in The New York Times) are not available. It would be more accurate to say that Wikipedia just doesn't want an article to exist on the topic. The French Wikipedia accepting it is most likely in error if they did not review the sources closely enough and the proper next step would be to bring the error to their attention so they can nominate it for deletion there as well.
OTOH, I am surprised you are writing about the CEO, when the topic of the sources appear to be the company itself. It is rare that a CEO warrants their own article, except in rare cases where the CEO is the founder of a very notable company or CEO of a Fortune 100, etc. I don't think pursuing this further with more submissions will end up being a worthwhile way to spend your time. CorporateM (Talk) 19:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Corp: I couldn't have said it better myself, though I think I tried in a previous thread on the same topic, now in my talk page archives. BTW, would you believe I'm typing this from the classroom? Business and Professional Writing? Never too old to set a bad example! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.121.192 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a teacher or just brushing up? Where can I sign up for this class :-p CorporateM (Talk) 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was teaching, and had five minutes to kill during an in-class writing assignment. I tell you what, it's one of my favorite classes to teach. I don't have to prepare, and can speak freely, for the most part. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lenght

No more flyers please, this page is long enough!

I don't understand why people complaining about the lenght of MY talkpage, when this is much longer. Hafspajen (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened also, even sent "uneinsichtig, unbelehrbar und beratungsresistent" to the archive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tea houses!! for Cullen 328 and Drmies
Why are these people walking up to Mount Tai do THIS? Hope Mrs Drmies will not force you to do things like this ! (Warrington)
  • Mrs. Drmies saw something about a path up a mountain in China with a teahouse on top--I'm not sure if it was Mount Tai or not. Part of the path up was along the face of the mountain, where you walk on wooden boards and hold on to a chain. She wants to go there now. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ps: we were in Marzahn in 2013, beautiful, and had different teas next to the lake, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice garden Gerda Arendt! Needs some work, that article. You leave the kids with you uncles and aunts and mothers, because now it is your turn to visit China , yes? Hafspajen (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Next country will be Greece, and I have an invitation to sing the Mass in B minor in the US in April! - Drmies translated Move Like This (Sad Song) to Dutch, you could do Chinese (or Swedish) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, in Swedish, but not Chinese (can't speak Chinese...) if you give me the English text. I can't speak German very well. Hafspajen (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think how you get from Dutch to English? Right: "Languages". In this case you could also replace nl by en in the url. We did German. Move like this, like this move, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, sure. Kind of escaped me. I will, not quite now, but as soon I get some time to dive into a bigger thing. Hafspajen (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely! You could start with a stub if Swedish WP can take it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wooden boards, Drmies? Holding onto a chain? Take her instead to the Italian Alps, for a vigorous hike on a Via ferrata. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, that plank-chain road was very much like a via ferrata, except that it would never pass safety regulations in the EU. Plus, it's difficult to belay when you have to click in to a chain, rather than onto a cable, as you can imagine. I've done wonderful via ferratas in the French Alps--I'll try to find where they were. One was near Argentière. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV template

There's an on-going discussion at NPOV Noticeboard regarding circumcision's neutrality here and here. We've been having numerous content disputes at Talk:Circumcision for months now with no progress being made at all. User:Jmh649 has been making unconstructive edits and generally has been stifling any progress at addressing the NPOV issues the article has been facing. He's removing the NPOV template to stifle the discussion we are currently having at the NPOV Noticeboard. ScienceApe (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not knowing the ins and outs of the discussion I cannot comment, at least not now. At the same time, I don't see how removing a template stifles discussion, but maybe that's just me. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange comment on the templates

Hey Drmies. I must say I find this comment strange [8]. Usually people complain when you use templates with "don't template the regulars" and all. I was always under the impression that a more personal message was superior. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "This is your final warning. Next time you may be blocked." (diff) is a "more personal message", what does an impersonal threat look like? Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With some large graphics and a bunch of bolding such as this.
Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
I am unclear why the latter would have been better? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jmh649. Hey Doc James, maybe you could have added, "I won't block you myself, since I am involved", or something to that effect? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I wouldn't. That would get me justifiably blocked in short order. I am not that stupid :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know that and also know that you do too, Doc. But perhaps ScienceApe doesn't know, or might possibly pretend not to know, so adding a disclaimer of that type makes it unambiguously not a threat that you will block that editor yourself. Since you're writing a personal warning message and all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good point. Will adjust my notes going forwards to avoid any possible confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People complain .... period. Anyway, WP:TTR discusses the advantages of templates (basically what Drmies said). NE Ent 10:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you all. Nothing personal, Doc--my thought is that the formalized, standardized template (which are used by editors and admins alike) take the "personal" out of the warning, making it less a threat than a warning. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y

R people shocked by this salient point?

DLOH:Exists camera right, shaking head and mumbling quietly. Dlohcierekim 17:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty amusing. LadyofShalott 21:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for De Scheepsjongens van Bontekoe

The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaggee

Looks like I was right about them being here simply to stalk me and disrupt my edits... check out their latest post on the Allard J2X-C talk page. The only way they'd find that out, as a "new account", is to be stalking things I'm involved in. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Luke, take it easy, there is no imminent destruction. Your concern is noted and your efforts are appreciated, but you don't have to worry that your work will be destroyed. Do keep me posted, if you like, as long as you realize, as I'm sure you do, that I don't swing the banhammer around as easily as some others might. You're a content editor in good standing and that means that pretty much automatically I'm in your camp. Best, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, and that's why I'm here. The main thing that's pissing me off is the named user here, who is clearly here just to stalk me and try and disrupt things in whatever way they can. There is simply no way a new user could have made the jump from this article to the Lavaggi LS1 issue without being a sock of someone who is already here, or who has been banned from here; sadly, without any idea who the master is, I can't ask for a CheckUser. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you here to create policy compliant articles, or are you here to boost your own ego? If the former, then you would be thanking me for spotting the potential contraventions and deficiencies. However, the way you are attacking my concerns as "disruption", and worse, I suspect you are more likely here for the latter. I had a concern about the website you linked to, and so has someone else by the look of things. You said that if I found a problem I should not flag it in the article, but raise it on the talkpage and you would address it. So I did just that. Now please apologise and keep to yur side of the bargain - or were you perhaps hoping no-one would notice the question raised over the reliability of that website as a source? Your bluster is not helping your case I'm afraid, neither are your very bad-faith allegations and neither is your attitude here to other users.
  • And, just in-case you thought I had some sort of magical powers or underhand methods of tracking you here, may I draw your attention to the field on top bar, just to the right of your user name, with the tool-tip "Your notifications", mine glowed red and told me to come here to see what you were saying about me know. Jaggee (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Potential contraventions and deficiencies" my ass. Perhaps there was an issue with the magazine article, perhaps there wasn't; it's a grey area. You know for a fact that I was already aware of the RSN discussion, and of the DYK issue; you coming back to "contribute" to the Allard J2X-C page was purely to be disruptive, and you know that for a fact as well. And you have way too much knowledge of the workings of this place to not be a sockpuppet. Kindly own up to who you are, or go away and never return. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to stop indulging in these bad-faith rants and defamatory personal attacks before you get into trouble with an administrator who is prepared to stand up to you. Jaggee (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I note that you have got no explanation for how you found out about any discussion on Lavaggi LS1. So you're very clearly stalking me (and I'm well aware of how you found this particular discussion; I never queried that) - particularly as you hadn't edited for four days. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise surprise, they're not heading your advice, Drmies, and are now trying to edit-war their hijack of the RSN thread, despite me telling them (twice now) to file another one if they're so desperate to discredit the source. In the process, they've made it even more obvious that they're a sockpuppet as well, by digging up a long-dead account related to one of the sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or the Lady's advice. Listen, I have to disagree with the edit on RSN: the subject matter does pertain, in my opinion, even if mildly. Such a content matter, for now, can be dealt with regardless of the person involved, and edits and references should be able to stand on their own merit. But that's not to say that I don't agree with the spirit of your removal, because I do, and I do find evidence of hounding here. What I think you should do is go to ANI. For now, given their edits, I would confirm such a charge, and you could, for instance, ask for an interaction ban--or, more simply an "action ban" on their part, so to speak: that the Lady's advice be mandated. That's no problem for you ("separate corners"), since you have plenty of corners and their only corner is you. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you, or someone reasonably level-headed, opens the thread with a proposal, I will agree to it, assuming that means that Jaggee will immediately have to disengage from the things involving me where they've already edited. If I propose the case, I'm going to end up ranting and destroying my own case in 5 seconds flat. So please, propose it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Defour

Hi there my friend, how's it going?

Can you be a sport to WP and insert translations to the references i added in this guy's article please? The "table" has already been set for you, you just have to "sit and munch". The courses are: three in the incredibly unsourced (thus far) hot section of GENK (his "transfer" to AJAX), one at the beginning of his STANDARD one and another in his international career bit. It'll take you much less than five minutes i reckon; ah, and i already took the liberty and translated two of those, don't know if correctly though.

Great painting by Goya on your userpage, almost as creepy and eerie as this one! Cheers, thanks in advance --AL (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Christopher Karas

Hi Drmies, may I please request your experienced eyes at Draft:Draft:Articles for Creation/Christopher Karas. The article was previously deleted for lack of notability, but there has been a recent duo (an IP and a registered user) insistent upon making it an article again. I'm concerned with the POV-pushing being demonstrated by these editors, and how they both seem apathetic about Wikipedia rules, and adamant to make the article happen. They've deleted AfD nominations and speedy delete templates and have taken to moving the article with duplicitous edit summaries. I've attempted to contact the fine folks at WikiProject LGBT studies to get some feedback from that community, but we're still waiting. I think we need some admin eyes over there. (And oh crap, I realize I might have accidentally moved the article to "Draft:Draft:Articles For Creation"--geez, these people! Anyway, thank you in advance, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I don't know what to say. I did some cleanup (not just your mess, haha) and found that there was a redirect from main space to this draft space, which struck me as irregular/uncalled for/disruptive, so I deleted it. I made sure the categories don't make it show up--and what is that "no index" or whatever thing, that suppresses searches? Do you know how to do that? Now, I know next to nothing about this draft space. The draft is significantly different from what was deleted in December, so that's not a reason for deletion. As far as I'm concerned this should be deleted via a deletion discussion, the sooner the better. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Drmies. The thing is substantially better than before. However, is the subject notable? The editors are earnest and intent and not knowledgeable about our rules. I think we can excuse their earlier removal of tags as panic at the idea of the new article being deleted. They seem desperate to bring the article to an acceptable status now that the initial terror has warn off. But we return to the question of notability. I did not see any significant coverage in mainstream media. Should we leave it where it is and let them struggle on? Should we move it back to article space and hope the community can fix it? Can it be fixed? Thanks Dlohcierekim 04:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To speak the plain truth, I actually kind of didn't look at any tag removals, and I'm not opposed to anyone working on it. But I still see this as a BLP1E issue involving a very young person, and I don't feel good about having those kinds of things around for too long. But it hasn't turned negative or tendentious (yet), so that's alright for now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as long as it's in Draft space, it's a draft. I think the same rules as AfC apply. As long as they edit it they can work on it for as long as it takes. The purpose of draft space is to let editors develop potential articles. The thing should not show up is searches. I think it's safe to give them free reign in Draft space or at AfC. And maybe the horse will sing. Dlohcierekim 04:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping to clean up my mess, Drmies! It was a distracted copy/paste move by me, but my attempts to fix it failed. Anyhow, I agree with Dloh, the article needs some participation from users who can help guide the notability determination. The users are earnest, and, well, maybe are TOO earnest, since they seem to have a deadline they are trying to meet. But anyway, eyes. We need eyes. Thanks again! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now it's gone per G4. Dlohcierekim 17:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the WikiProject ever got a chance to look at it. Slow WikiProjects!! Okay, I'm outta here. Bye all! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Coral Island

The Coral Island is back at FAC. No more sighs, we're going to nail it this time, if I can just keep my big mouth shut for long enough. ;-) Eric Corbett 20:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we did it, another piece of unfinished business put to bed.[9] Next on my list is the ludicrous GA review of concealed shoes. Eric Corbett 13:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Onfim

Allen3 talk 10:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

I am jusst curious to know howmuch you know about Indian Classical Dance or Gaudiya Nritya? How could you delete an article without knowing the topic properly? moreover you sentenced a comment that the citations are poor!! just for the shake of editing and getting credit on wiki one should behave such!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RupalDel (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to add properly written and properly verified material. "Citing" a horribly scanned translation of the Natya Shastra is not going to cut it: if all this is correct, certainly you could cite something more recent than that. In addition, you restored a YouTube video link claiming it was a reference; that and your "cowardly act" comment indicate that for now I don't have to take your comments too seriously. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you think that way then all other Classical Dance forms are not Classical.Then why some people are behind Gaudiya Nritya only. I think some are insecure with their own art forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RupalDel (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, but I'm quite secure in my art forms (and it requires no YouTube link to a low-quality video with terrible sound), and your objection is ridiculous. I have no doubt that you will be blocked soon for running a disruption-only account. Have a great day. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe with the emergence of Sogkol, we are past coincidence and perhaps into bothering a checkuser territory. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Sogkol is exciting. What I think is happening here is a kind of marketing effort. Look at this Facebook page, which I found after browsing around for a possible source for Sogkol's image. I think we have a professor here who has done a lot of work resurrecting something (whether built validly on a tradition or not, I can't say) and who is now popularizing it--that's the common thread among the edits, the publications, and even the video that was linked in the article. I'm not saying that Mahua Mukherjee has anything to do wit this stuff, but it's done to promote her and her work also, that's for sure. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's doing good work and I hope the article on her is kept, but what they have been doing here will not help one whit. I've put back my gnomish improvements, since I had not yet reached 3R. Thanks to Hafspajen and to Obiwan Bish :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggest Loser Germany

You fully-protected The Biggest Loser Germany last year. Please add a pp- template to the page. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Upendra. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Could you please take a look at this comment to me from user The Ramlbing Man. I do not know what has happened to that user he used to be such a great one but now he is [xxx--redacted by talk page janitor] calling me sick for some reason unknown to me. The Monica Spear discussion at ITN seems to have been rough on him because comments like that are so unnecessary and frankly rude. [10]. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well. Yes, I've seen TRM get a bit hot and bothered here and there. But I don't see the big problem here, besides the "you're sick" comment which I think isn't bad enough to warrant a block or some templated warning--YMMV. I do see where they come from, though: you said the comment was unnecessary, which can be taken to mean that you're saying she did not die tragically. I don't see any trashing of any dead woman either, and I read the entire discussion. He's not trashing anyone there, and in pointing out that one woman died tragically he's not saying that the other died comically, for instance. Now, personally I wonder what it means when someone says "X died tragically", but that's also because I'm teaching Oedipus next week, and that's real tragedy. I'd simply try to shake this off, if I were you. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I did not seek TRMs blocking or similar only your input. Well, honestly I do not see how TRMs point about Eva Ekvall as I havent even mentioned her in my original post. I ment it was unnecessary as he tried to diminish the death of Spear in comparison to Ekvall a totally unrelated case. But that was in no way a reflection of Ekvalls importance or non-importance. Still the "sick" comment was beneath him as an experienced user, as a user you also has to be able to take criticism. I think the user saw in the message what he wanted to see to justify being rude but anyway I have better things to do than to argue with someone who is unlikely to change. Regards :)--BabbaQ (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Maybe we can delete that one? Hafspajen (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more tragic with Wikipedians bitching about which article subject is more or less tragic :) that is a big LOL.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Drmies, thanks for trying, but it seems neither you nor I can get the point across. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move on TRM please. I have. Sympathy hunting is kind of sad.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Get lost BabbaQ please, I never invited you to my talk page to tell me that suggesting a young girls death through cancer as being tragic was "beneath me". This message was for Drmies, not you. You completely got it all wrong. That is very sad. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is comments like "Get lost BabbaQ please," that gets you into trouble. You are willingly or unwillingly uncivil in your comments. But I will not argue with you as you are unwilling to keep this discussion at a mature level since message one. And Drmies talk page is hardly the place. Move on now. Swallow your pride.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood, as Drmies told you. Move on now. Time to learn to link to discussions properly and stop pestering every admin you can find. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, we're done. Babba, I think what we had here is a failure to communicate that got out of hand in the usual back-and-forths. Admins can't solve all problems, and while I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate myself, nothing productive can come out of this one. Diplomatic enough? TRM, one more thing, it's high time that a real editor (not a charlatan) looked at the recently written up Danilo Kiš articles, nicely linked from Template:Danilo Kiš. Much appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HASP award

HASP
How refreshing to see an editor step in, act, speak and leave with Humour-Action,Sense and Perspective. Hence H.A.S.P. Hope you enjoyed your walk and thanks for the bucket of cool refreshing water chucked over us bickerers. The rocket (oh no i meted my mixaphors!) is you. — ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 16:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I appreciate it, I think what's really happening is an inability to really accomplish something. I can't make people behave, cause typically the person who asks me to make another person behave leaves out a few words--"make them behave like me". Besides, I'm a terrible and uberbitchy bickerer myself, so I can't take credit for something I sometimes preach but usually fail to practice... Still, yes, we had a nice walk in the forest, and at lunch all the kids ate all their food, so nobody's complaining. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of power metal bands

Aloha. Yes, I'm back. Apparently in my absence some of the list articles have gone to pot. A new editor has decided to hit the list of power metal bands (and created a number of new articles for borderline-notable bands). I'm assuming good faith in that their newbieness means that they haven't realized that you need to provide a reliable source before including a band on a list, and similarly haven't realized that webzines and the band's record label fail WP:RS. However, I want to avoid a WP:3RR situation, so was wondering whether you could take a minute to have a quick look... Cheers, Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

  1. You recently asked my help with Move Like This but to be true, I don't really understood what you wanted. Article here seems quite ok. So , how can I help you?
  3. I get some itchy feeling at the edits of an IP], throwing in Brian Norton and his book everywhere. This is rather unbelievable that the book is a source for so many articles (only issued in 2013) so I think it is book promo. What do you think?
  5. Some essential youth sentiment: Kunt u ons de weg naar Hamelen vertellen, meneer?. For the non-Dutch: Hamelen (TV series).

The Banner talk 18:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Howdy, Banner:[reply]

  1. I was working on the Dutch version, on the Dutch wiki, and any help there is appreciated.
  2. I'll have a look, after naptime probably.
  3. Yes! You know, I thought I had worked on that article--I think I wanted to but got sidetracked with some other Dutch TV articles. Crisco 1492 and I did a couple of them, including De Kris Pusaka. I never saw much of the Hamelen show, I was just a bit too young. If you want to improve that article I'm all about it. But it's difficult to find the sourcing, with some Dutch newspaper archives not being free or easily accessible, Google News archive being less accessible, not a great many Dutch books being viewable, etc. I had a hard, hard time with all the articles in Template:Wim T. Schippers (I wrote almost all of those); even for things that seem so obvious and were so popular (like We zijn weer thuis) it's really hard to find quality sources. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, the Dutch version. I will take a look. The Banner talk 20:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) You can't find a non-existing ratings template, sorry. 2) I did find an archived version of Spinner, and added it again. 3) I translated most of the comments in the reception section, but I fail in translating "clunkiness". The Banner talk 20:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Banner! Drmies (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pram full of butter

And speaking of prams, I'm going to ask Mr Wadsworth to recite his latest offering, a little pram entitled 'I wandered lonely as a crab' and it's all about ants.[11] Bishonen | talk 18:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

ANI regarding Hans

Hi Drmies. Just letting you know I've started an ANI about Hans, I really feel his personal feelings have made his involvement disruptive. As your involvement has been important I'm hoping you will comment. Thanks. Thread is here. Zad68 21:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand, Zad, and thank you for writing a detailed and neutral report. I don't support a topic ban at this moment, as you may have seen, but I thank you for your efforts in keeping the house clean. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weird enough, me too. Was thinking hard about pursuing a career as a veterinarian. But I realised that I would never manage to take an animal's life, so that's it. Only flyes. Hafspajen (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn

I love your editnotice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green wind

Wikipedians, ugh the unicorn is gone

Green wind. Green branches.
The ship out on the sea
and the horse on the mountain.
With the shadow at the waist
she dreams on her balcony,
green flesh, green hair,
with eyes of cold silver.

"Garcia Lorca" ("Ballad of the Sleepwalker)"

Hafspajen (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are a married man, darling. Sherlock Holmes could have deduced this, - easy - Crisco was talking about [ Wikimacarena] so I presented him with a song about Macarena [12], which made me think of Garcia Lorca, because one of the singers looks a little bit like him, and this made me think of You. Hafspajen (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O, gosh. Hafspajen (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of rape victims from history and mythology

In the wake of the category's demise, an editor has just added Andrea Dworkin to that list - an addition not quite in keeping with how you created it. Perhaps we need a discussion of scope for the list? LadyofShalott 03:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In related matters, I just learned that Category:Mythological rape victims and Category:Mythological rapists now exist. LadyofShalott 03:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being discussed here; I left them a note about the deletion of the previous category and will now re-add Rind. I'm not proud of that detail of the story but, geographical inclusivity. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of rape victims from antiquity and mythology? List of rape victims from ancient history and mythology? I'm wondering if we need more precise terminology in this matter. I'm not sure this it fully formed enough of a though to put on the article talk page yet. Maybe those are too restrictive. (Also, I didn't mean to irritate (if I did?) with the "arbitrary" comment.) LadyofShalott 02:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of rape victims from pre-modern history and mythology? LadyofShalott 03:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator help needed

Hello Drmies,

A pal of mine from my radical teenage years died this morning - no surprise, as he had been in declining health for a long time. He was quite a talent and his name was Gary Grimshaw, and I have been expanding his biography considerably today. During that process, I looked over the biography of another wild man from my youth, Lawrence Plamondon, who was a close associate of Grimshaw. I didn't really know Plamondon well personally, since he was a fugitive during most of that time, but his name was frequently invoked among my social circle in those years. In any event, he has always been known by his nickname, Pun Plamondon, and that is his byline and the name he uses on his website. I want to move his biography to Pun Plamondon, but I am running up against a redirect. I need an administrator to move it to Pun. Thanks if you can help with this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gay wheels

Who knew? I drove here straight from the speeedyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moosezilla

also effectful
Saying hello from Afra

I can't help wondering about Moosezilla's fewmets. Do you think Moosezilla hangs out with the Questing Beast? LadyofShalott 03:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me? No, the terrifying Möösezilla is the unholy creation of User:Georgewilliamherbert. I expect he means to use her as a sock. Anyway, it's cruelly alarming to all and sundry to have her haunt your edit notice. Bishzilla ran like a deer! Bishonen | talk 05:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Bwhahahahhaaaa. urp Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know it would have that effect. Can you please tell her it's just a drawing? (Sorry Georgewilliamherbert, I don't mean that disparagingly.) Drmies (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A drawing? [Peers closely.] Well… all right. I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that helps. How is Bishzilla herself not just a drawing? just several handsome drawings and impressive animations as found under the heading "Personal images" here? As such, she has good reason to be scared of Moosezilla. There's no scan of driver's license or passport as required by WMF as proof of existence, and no authentic-certified photos whatever. Is Bishzilla perhaps just in your head, Drmies? No offense. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
That's ridiculous. So is Bishonen perhaps just in her own head? Honestly. (P.S. Look out, Bishzilla's eating the horses!) darwinbish BITE ☠ 19:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I had a dream within a dream the other day. The content of both dreams is X-rated, so I won't tell you (Zilla, I sent you a note via carrier pigeon), but it sure was interesting. Most interestingly, I was aware within my dream (the "top" one) that it was a dream within a dream. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll just say something completely straightforward to you at this time, then, Hafspaj: those are wonderful horse photos. [Starts to eat the cheesecake factory cheesecake assortment. It's a little off-topic in any case, isn't it? Not a horse.] Bishonen | talk 01:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
(e/c, hello, Drmiesen) I thought you'd like it. Since I'm not The Bishonen (or, in Swedish, "Bishonenen"), why would you be The Hafspaj? Bishonen | talk 03:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Try some horses?

  • Arabian horse
    Arabian horse

Hafspajen (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation

It's a violation of policy for a user to choose the name of a famous person unless they happen to have the same name. Is it a violation if the famous person is dead?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(inb4ping) I think it depends on the person. The metric I would use is basically: is it plausible for someone to mistake the username as an official account of/representing that person, and/or is it recent enough for the username to possibly cause offense? Someone naming their account Gottfried Leibniz is not going to be an issue, but someone naming their account Ariel Sharon would be. It's a judgement call, I think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This person hasn't been dead for anywhere nearly as long as Leibniz, but long enough that no one would think the user is that person. However, naturally, our policy leaves wiggle room in a parenthetical ("or is related to"). Thus, someone might think that the user is related to the dead person. However, I strongly suspect that the user has been following my edits because he has now added to his user page language like "I am not that person", which is all the policy demands. In any event, I posted the question here more out of idle curiosity. I had no plan to block the person based on their username or even to request that they do something about it. Just musing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What

I don't understand this discussion, Writ or Drmies. Since when Wikipedia sees pictures a a distraction in an article? I fail to understand the whole thing. Hafspajen (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, too many isn't good, but I haven't looked in any detail yet--access to Wikipedia via thee iPhone at the YMCA is very limited. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Well, somewhere it says that we use images to explain or enlighten things that are difficult to do by way of text. I don't think your dining room, as nice as it is, adds anything to the text of that article (Restaurant rating). Now, The Banner, in his customary not-always-so-diplomatic manner, called it a spammy picture; I disagree with that, though I would support the removal of it (sorry). For a somewhat related article that does have a very helpful image, have a look at Bristol stool scale--and whenever I think of that article, I think of SandyGeorgia and her merry male companion. Now, whether Noma should be in the Restaurant article, I don't know. My taste in images (quantity and quality) is probably less austere than Banner's and less exuberant than yours. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doctor M. You know, You know, I was personally and actively involved into the Wikipedia Image Use Policy, back in 2009, and this came somewhat like a surprise to me. I do remember it says that we use images to explain or enlighten things that are difficult to do by way of text. Also, did notice the not-always-so-diplomatic manner, also the topic shifting. IF, we agree that the image was not spam, than I can explain why it would add to the article. That restaurant at the picture illustrated a restaurant that had two Michelin stars, and this is indeed very rare. And Restaurant rating has only 1 picture, showing a picture of a chef who took his life after he was rumoured to be in danger of losing one of his three stars. Well, but I can see it is his/hers article, so I leave it where it is. Hafspajen (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

May I point out that editor The Banner is in the field Wikipedia:Service awards not entitled to the Master editor II level of contribution title, as he displays it on his userpage, since that requires 51,000 edits and 7 years of service. User:The Banner has been editing only 5years, 1 month and 15 days, and has 36, 444 edits only. Hafspajen (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't tell you He started this account on 1 Dec. 2008. I changed my name from Warrington to Hafspajen, but the first edit is still the edit under Hafpajens name that was the Warringtons first. If you change the name the edits are still the same. Don’t know if you can add different accounts, but why should that be allowed? But if you are allowed to add all your edits lets say from all Wikis, well - possible. But can you add time? Hafspajen (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you add up all your edits, as Warrington and Hafspajen and all your IPs and socks, and you get to a certain number and years of service, and it earns you a copy of The Communist Manifesto with a coffee stain, power to you. It seems that all his edits were renamed to the new account; I don't know, Warrington, you'd have to ask him. It's usually not a matter that most admins care for, and that includes me. BTW, there's been some discussion concerning those Tutnum and Labium titles, and my old friend Mandarax may have something to say on the topic. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that for the first time, I won't be able to upgrade on my upcoming Wikiversary. In about a month I'll have been registered for nine years, and there's no award for that. Maybe I can claim an award between the eight and ten year awards. What's "Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate" plus "Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia" divided by two? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think those titles, while recognizing a certain amount of work to achieve them, are mostly for fun. It's not something anyone enforces. LadyofShalott 04:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just made myself a Looshpah. Edit count-wise, I'm the guy who taught Lord Gom how to edit. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made myself a Junior Wrangler at the Teahouse quite some time ago. (Probably soon after they introduced Maître d' as a rank there in addition to Host, Guest, Founder and Awesome Founder.) I've been waiting for anyone to notice or object. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It's not power, but sincerity. And if I go counting ALL the edits from all Wikis, including the Swedish Warrington and Hafspajen, I might have to add at least 3000-2500 more. Eh. But do you remember Writ saying that if merging two accounts you will lose the ones edited? So they are probably lost. But if it doesn't matter att all, then, I can take the highest level, 16 years of editing. The problem is that this will show the real amount of edits and time. And that might be confusing for everyone.
150 00+This user has made more than 150 00 contributions to Wikipedia.
Hafspajen (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still The Banner has been editing longer time than you, Drmies, he claims he is one level above you, the Master editor II level. (51,000 edits and 7 years) Hafspajen (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you don't add years--come on, old timer. This business of merging accounts, it's above my pay grade. I remember Writ saying that, but I don't remember understanding it very well, haha. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me who say so, it's him. His level requires 51,000 edits and 7 years of service. Now that is not possible for someone who started 2008 Dec., or my math is gone bad. Hafspajen (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you added yourself up to 16 years--three years before Wikipedia was invented. No, I see your point, but it's not something I'm going to delve into. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, 16 years, that was a joke. I said that if it obviously doesn't matter how we count, so... why not take the highest level, ...? But I added all the edits on other wikis, and I have 6 years, 4 months, and 7 days. That means Rhodium Editor Star for me. And I removed all the pictures I added to the Restaurant article. Since what Wiki is not, I will stay away from the ->WP:BATTLEGROUND -> battleground-Restaurants. Now it is exactly like it was minus my edits, now that will make the gastronomers happy. And put back the " spammy" Noma and Per Se in New York City has three Michelin stars, written in the caption (not my edits) They can now go on owning Wikipedia:Ownership of articles the article... - as much as they want. Warrington (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the Banner pointed me to a Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts, and that is NOT Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I was personally and actively involved into the Wikipedia Image Use Policy, back in 2009, and essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I don't think this Image dos and don'ts should be used as an argument, since it does NOT correspond to Wikipedia Image Use Policy. Another thing that is not quite is as it is. Hafspajen (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Drmies: in my customary not-always-so-diplomatic manner what kind of BS is this to start whining about a userbox? As you can see in my userboxes I started editing on Wikipedia almost 8 years ago, indeed on the Dutch WP. I made more then 36 000 edits on the English WP and more then 40 000 edits on the Dutch WP. As the page states: How to count your edits is up to you. It is generally assumed that all edits, even including edits by bots and deleted edits, are okay to count. If you want to count edits on other Wikimedia projects, that's okay too. (Wikipedia:Service awards). All the rest (former bot account, other WP-versions) is not counted. In fact, I take this as an attack on my credibility!
Ow, and I don't have a copy of "Het Kapitaal" (Dutch version of "Das Kapital") any more. I am not an economist, so I found it difficult stuff. So I sold the book when emigrating. But I still have the Dutch version of The Communist Manifesto, not with coffee stains (as far as I know) but with orange markings... The Banner talk 22:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I took the service awards as a bit of fun. Not so deadly serious as you seem to take it. The Banner talk 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. I had to check out my copy from the library. I don't think I ever made it past page 3 or 4 or so. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember very well, Warrington. We met through CoM, of course. It seemed like a friendlier place at the time; becoming admin and getting to know all the feuds and their participants took some of the fun out of it. I'll tell you what a novice I was: you had a bouncing Jimbo Wales head on your user page, and I thought that was a picture of you. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It was by com-courtesy, that picture, I wish I was sure where com is now. Don't you notice anything unusual at Cultural depictions of dogs#16th and 17th century? The caption is : Painting by Hendrik Martenszoon Sorgh, Drmies sitting with his parrot. Has been there for some days. Warrington-Hafspajen (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! that's cute. Sadie looks a lot different, though. I'd take administrative action, but that would be admin abuse since I'm invooolved. CoM is still out somewhere in California (or Florida, what's the difference), as far as I know. Imagine how many more articles we'd have on all kinds of topics if he hadn't gotten too involved with Barack Obama and Ayn Rand. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to jump in here, in between friends, but Banner, sometimes you are a tiny but on the curt side, just a little. And that's all I have to say. Both of you, let's drop this matter, at least on this here page, please. I value you both. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible mistake

Would you mind reviewing the edits made to List of high schools in Michigan? If only to verify that the claim of disruptive editing by John from Idegon is justified, as I recall seeing somewhere that links are not permitted in section headers WP:HEAD "Headings should not normally contain links...", and it looks as if the unnecessary accusatory tone of his message caused an abrupt end to that editor's contributions. 69.140.115.21 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left him that warning because A)He left no explanation of why he did what he did, B)The linking in the headers is useful and has existed for a long time. and C)Shouldn't a major change to the layout of an article be discussed? John from Idegon (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can "warn" someone for not leaving an edit summary, but that's a notice, not a warning. Of course we want people to leave an edit summary, but it's not mandatory and therefore one should not be warned for not having done it. And it's not really a major change in the layout: it's a correction of it, in line with MOS:HEAD: "Headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." One could argue that a heading in a given article ought to contain a link, but that burden is on the editor who inserts them or re-inserts them. One could argue that in a list such as this one it's helpful, but Allegan County, Michigan, for instance, has no information on the county's schools or school system. Sorry, but I see no valid reason to accuse that IP editor of disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second Drmies's opinion. LadyofShalott 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observing with complete impartiality, many of the comments being left by John from Idegon appear to suggest he is representing himself as some kind of an authority on Wikipedia, e.g. repeated use of the phrase "We do not". Much of his language and belligerent tone is, however, most likely to alienate editors than encourage them.
When bestowed with even minor privileges, many Wikipedia editors allow the perceived power to go to their heads. Someone with real authority needs to rein them in, advise them what collaboration really means, before their behaviour can get out of hand. 92.18.166.203 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Luisa Piraquive

How come 5 colombian media sources are "too weak" a reference for a BLP? Take into account that the controversy kind of speaks for itself since the main fact is the declaration of Maria P. (which is the person in the video, no doubt) and its comparison with the religious activities she, her daughter and Carlos Baena (who also appears in the video) are involved into. The articles clearly say that there is a controversy and that is all the contribution says. --Anuj odegi (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gambaran budaya terhadap anjing

Someone just copied this article over to an other Wiki. Look at the Dutch picture!!! Lukisan oleh Hendrik Martenszoon Sorgh, Drmies duduk dengan burung nurinya. Gambaran budaya terhadap anjing! Was it ‎Bishonen who copied this article over to an other Wiki? Hafspajen (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shot it all that was a joke. Can you please go over and fix it? Don't know how to fix that. It was in the English article, and I thought that it will ping Drmies, so it will come up as a message for him. Anyway, it got copied over. Hafspajen (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God and Crisco. (Yes it was me - this gallery was at Phil's talk page, and this was there as a joke. And when I put that over into the article it kind of followed.) Hafspajen (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan king your help please

Hi, thanks for all your work on this article, it looked a lot better. But over night JK himself has completely destroyed all your work!! 50+ edits. Can you revert it back to your last version please, I dont know how to do it? ThanksDave006 (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It wasn't really my work that was affected. I saw those edits yesterday and didn't see that much in them; there's other editors with their eyes on the matter now, so I'm going to leave it to them. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection at Superpower article

I noticed in your summary you wrote "seems editors can't get this straight. talk it out". But to be perfectly honest with you, there is little to talk about. The recent edit war arose because of an ongoing problem whereby a number of IPs are trying to push their nationalistic POV agendas. These IPs have no desire to adhere to Wikipedia's anti-POV policy and instead maintain a battleground mentality and an unwillingness to behave cooperatively.

I would appreciate it you would create a new thread at the Superpower articles talk page about Wikipedia's policy against POV, and perhaps mention that the current revision (that you protected) is the most appropriate revision as it does not contain any serious POV issues. Hopefully this will convince the IPs to stop their POV pushing. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I can't do that: as an admin I don't really get to choose (at least not officially) which version the preferred version is. I cannot possibly say which one is more POV free than which other version, and I think there are at least three IPs active: I am also not willing to say that these IPs are pushing this or that nationalistic agenda, that is a matter that should be resolved on the talk page. Or, that is the argument you should make there. There are means of dispute resolution, including WP:DR or WP:RFC, but my intervention shouldn't be one of them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. I opened an RfC instead, hopefully this will help promote discussion and may result in a consensus of some sort. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a reply there too. This is a lot of sources on the Superpowers that were removed Dec 28, 2013[[13]] on that article that has been under a lot of heat since Dec 28, 2013. I find it offensive to an editor to call Russian Nationalist for POV pushing (I'm not Russian but the comment made is racist). I stated in my earlier comments on a thread left on Acroterion[14]. The point is, there's a problem with the newer version, it removes too much sources and clearly is sending the message in the wrong direction on edits made by one editor[15] 23:14, 30 December 2013‎ by Antiochus the Great (talk | contribs)‎(37,169 bytes)(-4,976)‎(tidy-up, re structure and paragraphing). I will note, there was no prior talk on these edits, it was push with discussion. Too much at once, is clearly wrong for this article.
Comments here left on Acroterion:

:You can start another dicussion but you appear to be in the mess of the edit war Antiochus the Great. Acroterion I sent Antiochus the Great on his talk page to appear of using another ip and engaged in an edit war using the ip 109.76.220.159 and Antiochus the Great of POV pushing but he quickly removes my comments[16]. I looked at the history of the Superpowers[17] and Superpowers talk[18] but the result has been under edit war since Dec 28[19] and the discussion has been minor on there part. If you start with an edit, then talk first but the action Antiochus the Great has taken has been too much and no real discussion for such. There are disagreements but that is not stoping edit push. I think there is no resolution if this continues like what I see here[20][21][22][23] as this matter was never discussed, it just appeared without any talk, this is a problem.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing your Russian nationalistic POV wont get you anywhere. Why don't you accept Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a NPOV? Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get Russian national POV? I'm born and live in America. I have read Wikipedia's policy on maintaining POV and appeared to be using as required.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--103.1.153.206 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

charity

Ok, but the charity with Brian May is noted on Brian May's web site and Twitter, + articles onthe web. So why do you consider there's no source ? There's a link to May's site. http://brianmay.com/brian/briannews/briannewsapr13a.html#07 And by the way, I have no link with the artist. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.42.172 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrow

The term refers not to my state of mind but a creation of a great man who wrote in Dutch. Could you please look at the three (or four, one needs to be found) quotes and look if the German attempts could be improved. For example "gemoed" is given in the English version as "heart" but ... - A drawing in your edit notice qualifies you twice for the job. (Did you ever see mine? - I remembered sorrow when I asked for import of Sorrow on 16 October.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gemoed...Gemut...mood..."heart" is certainly not incorrect in this particular case. (I don't know all the connotations of Germn Gemut). I'm not that qualified for this job: my written German is awful, no doubt, though I can read it pretty well. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have no comments: good job. I did not find the fourth. If I have a minute, and some inclination, I'll move some of it into the Dutch article. Thanks Gerda, Drmies (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion about BlackLight Power

You need to take a look at this - your rev/del's been challenged as removing attributions. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Following up on Gaiman, the only book by him I really liked (I haven't read many) was Good Omens. He's produced (as opposed to written) a couple of audiobooks I enjoyed. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mrs. Drmies got me The Graveyard Book for Christmas, not realizing it was for young adults. It's a bit creepy for youngsters. I did enjoy it, though, but not in the way that I enjoy "real" literature (oh! the leftist elitist speaks from his ivory tower!). Sorry Mr. Gaiman. BTW, he is a terrifically nice man; I had the pleasure of talking with him for over half an hour at a conference where he was the featured speaker, not knowing who he was--and I had just read American Gods, but forgot the author's name. We talked at length about Joliewulf and I didn't realize until the end that he wrote the screenplay, haha. That's how ignorant I can be. But I told him I read American Gods, and it turned out we had the same favorite god; I think he was pleased with that, with my recollection of it and my appreciation of the passage. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you kill me, Drmies. Thirty minutes with Gaiman, and you didn't know who he was? Has Sippi read Coraline? That is a creepy one. Interestingly, he's said that adults read it as a horror story (I did), but kids see it as an adventure story. I'll put in another plug for Ocean. That's his newest book for adults, although young folks enjoy it as well. There's stuff in it though that they wouldn't fully appreciate until adulthood. LadyofShalott 19:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So who was Gaiman's favorite god? Odin? The Audible book (full cast production)[24] was brilliant. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hear that particular recording sometime. I've read the print edition of the extended version, but the only audio I've heard was George Guidall's reading of the originally published (shorter) version. LadyofShalott 19:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lady, I kill me sometimes. I was indeed mildly embarrassed, but my excuse is always that I prefer dealing with people who've been dead for at least a century or two (tell that to the Category:Rape victim deleters). What was really funny was that we were merrily chatting away, kind of like how Sid the Sloth imagined two bachelors kicking it, drinking a beer and discussing gods (Dougweller, it was that mammoth god, brought in from Siberia--the god died because the last believer died) and poems and stuff, and half an hour in I looked around and saw a line of fifty people behind me waiting to shake hands with him. He and I started talking before the crowd came into the room and never realized that this was a social event--at least, I never did. Perhaps he was just being courteous, not cutting me off; I thought he was just a great person to talk to, and totally cool with his hair and his leather jacket and all.

    I read Coraline, I think--yes, I did. Sippi hasn't; I'll get it for her if we don't have it. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Garden, Ashes

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Great phrase: "loosely connected chronological sequence of half-explained adventures", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I write that? You know I have yet to read the book? I was shocked to see that he's even less available in German than in English (never mind Dutch). I'm sending The Encyclopedia of the Dead to my friend in Freiburg; only hardcover is available, unfortunately. Kis is well worth it, though. I prefer him over Borges. Now I need to read Bruno Schultz. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK review

Hi Drmies, pings don't work on DYK templates so I'm leaving you this note to ask you to drop by the nomination for Thor Heyerdahl Upper Secondary School again - another rather lame hook for you to look at ... PS: I'm hoping Moosezilla doesn't go into attack mode when I press the save button? If no one hears from me again, I guess we will have the answer! SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sagaciousphil and Drmies, I might fix that, just ask the architect. Hafspajen (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mentoz86 likes Xanthomelanoussprog's suggestion about the roof - do you have a ref we can use for it, please or would this one work [25]? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on Moosezilla's part! I just step out for a few minute and in comes Superman. Yes, I like the ALT4 so I guess the (talk page stalker)s can start putting their clothes back on? Drmies, does the ALT work for you? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking The 3RR Wikipedia Rule.

You have edit warred on the Tyler Ward page. Reverting two of my edits and other editors multiple times. I ask you to express your opinion on the Talk page. if you do not do so within 24 hours, I will take the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank You. Joetri10 (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, is doing it again. Sigh. Hafspajen (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum, et tertia non datur. Hafspajen (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Warrington. I'm not going to sit here and ascribe motives and damnation. Can't the third option be silliness, which is in such abundant stock in our pop culture? Drmies (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, Mies. Hafspajen (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lovely sentence. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected Submission - Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Hello Drmies, I was wondering how I can edit my page to be acceptable. I have looked over other society pages, and they are pretty similar. Society_of_Gynecologic_Oncology, American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology, Heart_Rhythm_Society (and many others). One of the major issues in the past submissions were lack of external references, which these pages also did not have many. If you can give some suggestions, that would be great. The society wikipedia page will help link to the Choosing_Wisely and Cardiovascular_magnetic_resonance_imaging wikipedia pages as well. Thank you for your time and attention. Swleun2 (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Swleun2, thanks for your note. I think that with some tweaks this could be a lot more likely to be accepted. (I won't discuss the other article you mentioned--none of them are very good.) First thing: trim language like "the vision of the society it..." (and remove the flag from the infobox). Second, scrap the list of when meetings were held: it's of no encyclopedic relevance. Third, see if you can dig up references in journals or papers that mention the organization, what it does, what it stands for, and how important it is. I think that's a start. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

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.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hogan (politician)

Hello Drmies, I made changes to Kevin Hogan MP page, which were fully attributed. Can you please let me know how I can get it reposted. many thanks 202.14.81.49 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, you are the Kevinhogan account? I'm afraid that those edits that I reverted cannot be brought back in, not in that form. They are not well verified (no URLs inline, and certainly not to websites--we need articles) and not neutral in tone. Thank you. You could, if you like, ask for others' opinions at WP:BLPN. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any American - some references?

Very sad... no milk

[26]

  • In America in the last several decades a popular resurgence has occurred in home milk delivery. Distribution of milk went from multiple farms to a processing plant then finally to a retailer. At the same time translucent blown plastic gallon bottles became the standard. With long hours, with the lights on milk is exposed to more light which promotes the growth of bacteria. As this occurs milk slowly spoils, making the shelf life of store bought milk shorter. These issues and the general move to wholesome and local food has supported the renewed growth of the milkman. Many of these businesses were started by local dairies. Glass bottles have become popular because they don't leave a "taste" from the container in the milk.

Can anyone find some refs on this? Removed from the Milkman . - Hafspajen (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just yesterday I showed to my dad the lead images on Boy and Father, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:) I dropped Kiefer a line the other day to see how they were doing. Haven't heard back yet. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see my math? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well done. Thanks for anchoring--I get lost easily on his talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should we open a category category:Wikipedians who translate articles of missed users? - Did you see my little memorial (top of my talk)? I wish I could translate an article by the one who scuttled, but he never owned one, just helped ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit slow on this - 1) You have a new baby (4kids) or -2) you think of Dutch baby pancake as your baby? And where is the milk-man, Kelapstick? Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(still watching: nobody said "my baby", just "a baby", - it was me who thought of certain pictured babies. I sometimes say "my baby" of a new article when I am attached to it. I wasn't to this, my latest - written on request - but it happened with the writing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Hafspajen (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a kid, we had milkman deliveries. I'm not sure what year they ended, but I'm not aware of any renewal of such here. I did buy milk in glass bottles from Earthfare a few years ago. It was good milk, but expensive, so I had to quit getting it. I'm not sure if they still sell it. LadyofShalott 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On milk bottles - an article from my local newspaper: one of the quotes outlines the process by which milk was delivered [27], and National Association of Milk Bottle Collectors appears to have some decent stuff. My grandfather is an avid collector, but unfortunately, he's not a reliable source for our purposes :-) Go Phightins! 15:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Milkman and Milkman joke need some help. Too much trivia (mentions in South Park episodes, etc.), not enough references. Anyone for nl:Melkboerenhondenhaar? I couldn't find anything here. Also, the Dutch are the "highest consumers of hair gel in the world"? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love Moosezilla

I've done some trimming of Ian Hornak, but am completely flummoxed by 'selected' bibliography. I suspect most of the items are calendar listings or brief mentions as part of larger group exhibitions, but don't know how draconian to be in cutting. All the more difficult given the number of listings and that none link to online corroborations. If you or an experienced stalker want to give it a look, kudos. Otherwise, just glad to wish you a happy new year. Very best regards, JNW (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the current standing of Ian Hornak in the art world is due to the activities of Eric Ian Hornak Spoutz, gallery owner and publisher, who has placed of works of art into the permanent collections of museums. Usually if I do a search for an artist auction results pop up in the first few hits- can't see any for Hornak. This gives a "price" of 25,000 USD for his work. I was at an auction a few weeks back when 6 fluorescent pink paintings of market scenes were sold for 600 quid (1,000 USD). Totally bemused as to why some restaurant art was getting such enthusiastic bidding I asked the bloke standing next to me. "Oh it's Haiti's best-known artist" he replied "He had an exhibition in Nottingham last year, at which his works sold for £1,000". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lists like "Selected Museum Collections" totally rub me the wrong way: it's resume info. If they're based on anything at all it's usually a link to the collection: that's PRIMARY, with no indication that this is notable (I do not believe that in the grand scheme of things this is automatically important, though it is of course hugely important to the artist). I see no problem in getting draconian: it is clear that there may well be some real-life promotional relevance to this article being as inflated as it is. Imagine if we were to have such a "selected" bibliography for Rembrandt--it's not good article writing. I'm cutting, with a note on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing the same thing here; it looks like one or several COI accounts have written a series of such resume/bios. JNW (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I chopped some. Next up, coffee, and a look at the list of contributors. See my edit summaries for some suspicions. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Suspicions shared. I actually know this person; thankfully, it's a more restrained start than the others. JNW (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops--Jhf44's contributions just led me there and I cut the list. That article needs some help. I'm perusing other edits and have sent one to AfD. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the ones I saw were to news stories, which seemed ok. The Art Newspaper is better I expect. Case by case I think. The site is not blacklisted, which is probably correct. It's the gallery owners or PR people who would normally go COI on artists, a point the Spamboard may have missed - ie it could be COI, but not by Blouin people. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. For the most part the site appears ok. JNW (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zonnegloed

. Emile Claus, the painter with no citations. File:Emile Claus - Zonnegloed (1905) - Museum Dhondt-Dhaenens te Deurle 12-02-2010 15-17-56.jpg - What is Zonnegloed, - is it sunglow? Always surprise me how fairly good artist have no international name and fame, only some, embraced by the critics. Can you translate please, I gues it is near the Dutch... Luminism (Impressionism) - no citation either. Hafspajen (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reconstruction of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's German Pavilion in Barcelona. Architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe adopted the motto "Less is more" to describe his aesthetic tactic of arranging the numerous necessary components of a building to create an impression of extreme simplicity by enlisting every element and detail to serve multiple visual and functional purposes
Poor old Conditori Lundagard is gone forever. Sigh. Hafspajen (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Eeuwig Woord, U willen wij bezingen, God uit God, en Lich uit Licht ...nice. Like that. What is recentism, Yngvadottir?Hafspajen (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, start here, but I'm thinking more of the unconscious bias toward recent things (and have totally failed to find a link to give on that, sorry). Because of the unplanned and voluntary nature of the project, our coverage of recent tv shows and films is pretty near saturation, but thins out rapidly even as far back as the 1940s. We are still missing major historical figures even for the early 20th century, and the problem is compounded by bias against non-English-speaking countries and non-popular art - but by "bias" I don't in any way mean to suggest it's conscious. It's overwhelmingly that people vote with their feet (fingers?) when they choose to create or improve articles on certain topics and not others. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC) -- and by the way for a few months I had a ton of books out on Cézanne, but I gave up on fixing our coverage of him. Hopefully someone trained in the area will do so (or has done so since I last checked). Yngvadottir (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Yngvadottir, Paul Cézanne is one of the few artists I dislike. Probably because my teacher in art school were in loved with him and wanted everybody to paint like Cézanne, he actually forced the whole class to paint like him, and ever since than I hated him. I should probably hate the teacher, but - here it is it. Ridiculous - but I can't do it. Maybe JNW can, or someone else. Ceoil, maybe? Hafspajen (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of our coverage of his works, but don't worry, just an example I became aware of (I don't want to say how), and it certainly doesn't need to be you who fixes it if it hasn't been already. But it shocked me at the time. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucio Dalla

Thanks for the edit at my talk page; but watch the article and see what happens to the merest suggestion that he might have been gay, never mind that that is obviously true. I don't know what to do; I've been through - notwithstanding the obvious truth that I am forum shopping - every means of dispute resolution, and bang, reverted every time. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me know if trouble returns. I'm sure some more eyes on it won't hurt. Here's the thing: I entered the debate, so to speak, by reverting the IP, and so I can't really use my magic tool anymore to block, for instance, the next edit warrior. But you have a really strong case here given the talk page consensus, and you have a heavyweight like Martijn Hoekstra (a hardrocking opera lover) who was part of that consensus. So no worries, I'd say. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may now see the difficulty. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What difficulty? :) I've asked for protection. That IP is a hopper, and we'll see what happens next. No doubt more editors will be looking at this, and perhaps some read Italian and will weigh in on the talk page as well. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fear exactly what I expected has happened; revert by User:Guido Lonchile, no discussion save edit summary based on selective reading of references. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to bang on about it, but could I ask you to take another look? Yngva and I don't really know what to do next; no response to talk page discussion. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spam or COI

Hello again, just quickly look through these two cases:

My question is, should these two be reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam? Since these are not exactly spam I didn't know what to do. I posted at the COI so that the user could clarify or be blocked in case the edits didn't stop (I still have to undo all the edits that were made). The second one is about a dubious source which keeps getting added back (be it good faith or otherwise) to that battery-related topics, since it has a good position in search engines. Maybe Xlinkbot can be used or something... So how do you think I should proceed? Last time I came, there was a dog...now, a Mossezilla? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've looked at LKR and dealt with some of its aspects, in a fashion. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the battery thing, I'm not so sure. There is consensus on the talk page on how to proceed, and two options are given--discuss each one on the talk page, or be bold. The history doesn't suggest, at least not to my eye, that there is a lot of spamming or contention, so I'd try being bold, for instance in the first two sentences of "Battery life"--that first one has what appears to be an unreliable source, but the second, isn't that peer-reviews? Study it and make a judgment; if it is to remove, briefly explain on the talk page. And if you want BU added to that list of blocked sites, go ahead and make your case for the blacklist. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much especially for LKR. Have a question, wasn't I better off posting that on WikiProject Spam? (it qualifies right?) it seems more active than the COI noticeboard. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know--I don't frequent those boards so much. They do have different flavors to them, by which I mean different kinds of contributors. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD

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

Enid Blyton

Given the discussion we've been having on Logan Lynn's talk page, what do you think of the new structure for Enid's article? Eric Corbett 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I don't think that years in headings are all that useful, but they do no harm. I just looked at the previous version, and this beast is turned into a beauty. The structure as a whole is very pleasing, and, like you, I look for coherence between sections, so the last sentence of the "Early life" section makes me a happy reader, yes. The enumeration in "Selected works and legacy", first paragraph, is a tad long, but I think you don't like doing something like that as a list (like in the previous version I linked) and I agree. No, that's excellent work; kudos to you and Blofeld. I'll return to Logan Lynn in a bit; I'm kind of interested now, and that editor seems like a person one can work with. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point about the length of the enumeration in Selected works. but it's kind of tricky writing about someone who's written 800 or so books. We can maybe think of better headings than the present ones, but the break points seem about right to me. Eric Corbett 21:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read it again, and it's not terribly long, or overlong. A quick look at her biography tells me that there's more series than those; I suppose these ones are listed because they have Wikipedia articles? A real antfucker (there's plenty where I work) could wonder what the selection criterion is for the list; that's not really my concern. I do wonder about italics and capitalization: "the Barney Mystery series" vs. "The Adventure Series"? How about "the Barney Mystery series" and "The Adventure series", depending on whether "the" is in the name? And doesn't Noddy need the series appellation? Oh, that's a headache! Drmies (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but it's still a work in progress, stuff has just been moved around. Eric Corbett 01:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny you should say that. I received a brief assessment of Lewis's writings (in relation to allegory) today from a former student, who hastened to add he hadn't read any of it. No kidding. This year my book-reading student graduates; he introduced me to Danilo Kis, W. G. Sebald, and Patrick Leigh Fermor. So yeah, some of them read. I'm halfway through the gorilla book, by the way. It is noteworthy that only the lower-class characters use the N-word. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never used that N-word, but I do sometimes deploy the F-word and the C-word. As in, if I think you're a fucking cunt I'll tell you so; the colour of your skin makes no difference to me. Eric Corbett 15:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting to note that Ralph doesn't use it. I think that's a conscious choice. It's typically Peterkin joking around with "ebony-faced nogoodnik" kind of remarks, and occasionally Jack uses racial epithets too. Ralph never does. I've read a couple of gorilla hunts now, and it's kind of hard to take, for a softie like me. It's hard for Ralph too, but he overcomes his weakness in manly fashion--though they kill a bunch of big ones and a few young ones, they save the mother and child, to continue the species and because they are so human-like. It's all the Victorian contradictions in one hunt. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do. A lot. I like Enid Blyton. I don't understand that critizism. In Sweden you can't find any more for example Huckleberry Finn ot Tom Sawyer in the libraries, because it is too racist. Winnetou is gone too. Now they try to kick out Tin-Tin. Racism, too. Stupid. Hafspajen (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never understand why people put upright| on some pics in the article but not on all, it makes the whole page look unbalanced. Some are one size, other an other. My graphic teacher would never allowed that, nor any layout company director for quality books. Hafspajen (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Depends on the picture's aspect ratio. Not putting it on a portrait image makes it appear relatively far too large. Eric Corbett 23:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen images that if upright removed jump up like Jack-in-the-box - clown from a box, and that leeds to the second question: once upon a time, in the good old time, thumb sizes were thumb sizes. Today, -it can be just anything. Why? Hafspajen (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain what your question is, and why you're asking me. I didn't write the software that runs this site. Eric Corbett 23:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wish I could have a chat whith one of them, about this new different all kinds of changing big and small and everything in between - thumb sizes. Makes life difficult. Well, maybe some talkpage stalker knows then... We were discussing this a lot with Yngvadottir, see that talkpage too. Oh, well, everybody is just talking above my head. Hafspajen (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

"I'm trying to figure out what was supposed to be wrong with your user name/signature, and I'm going to have another look at the accusations Lugnuts threw your way".

Per WP:SIGPROB "Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username... ...can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers)". I'm saying that some new users may not spot the difference between the user's real name and their nickname. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yes, but that does not mean it's problematic, nor that it needs to be changed. It's simply a notification to be careful with one's sig. ES&L 10:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which I tried, an got called a cunt for my troubles. Now where's the ANI for your sig... ;-) Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You wrongly insisted it needed to be changed. He mis-spelled country. Meh. ES&L 12:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm never wrong, and no, he didn't do a typo. Look at his edit history for other attacks on other users. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot prove otherwise - to do so is to ascribe meaning and intent. Yes, maybe he meant to insult you and thought he was being clever to avoid WP:NPA - however, adding 2 letters is logically impossible to 100% say for certain he meant "cunt", and therefore drop that argument. ES&L 13:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You use a lot of words to say nothing. He meant to say cunt, no two ways about it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) You are joking when you say you're "never wrong". Right, Lugnuts? Doc talk 13:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP isn't the place for jokes, Doc-ster. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted... ;P Doc talk 13:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were in his head? Would you ever win that argument in front of a judge? No. you're not very good at stick-dropping, are you? You screwed up by a) insisting he change his sig, and b) taking him to ANI over it. Drop the stick and evaluate why you dogged him the way you did. That never excuses any possible incivility, but it sure explains it. Remember that ArbCom has stated that provoking someone into incivility and action is also blockable ES&L 13:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You use a lot of words to say nothing. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They only say "nothing" if you choose not to read them ES&L 14:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's super. Carry on with the wonderful mainspace editing that you do. Oh. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lugnuts, "accusations" refers to your statements about BMK having to "hide" something by changing user names. That's out of line: you don't know why they changed their name. As for BMK's perhaps foul mouth, you're no better. You might be worse. And the signature, well, you saw what came of your complaint: nothing. I'm not going to criticize your mainspace edits, so I suggest you don't do that to the Panda either. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Panda? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is, EatsShootsAndLeaves (ES&L), whose username comes from a joke involving a panda, and whose main account is User:DangerousPanda (née Bwilkins). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else using another account?! Ha, you couldn't make this up. Did someone say "hide"... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how he declares what his main account is on his userpage, that hardly qualifies as "hiding". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geez Lugnuts, what's with the continued bad faith accusation of other editors "hiding" things? It's getting a little tired. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You again! Are you Panda's lacky today too? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
please don't stop i'm enjoying the cabaret Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, today I am Drmies' lacky, but only because he promised to spike the punch. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No punch today: salted caramel ice cream. Fortuna, did you see I undid a PROD of yours? Drmies (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
H'mmm- remind me? Think I've missed it. The 20s film one? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before I go and do something stupid, is there a case for bringing Lugnuts to ANI on civility grounds (or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lugnuts is still a redlink)? I've seen ridiculously unnecessarily rude posts from him in three different places over the last two days on my watchlist, and after looking at his contributions, these aren't isolated incidents. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there is a case--at least, plenty of people should agree that there is a case--all those who are bitching at certain other editors, and there's a few likeminded editors at ANI right now. I won't be casting that stone, not just because I live in a glass house but also because I have been reticent to act on such incivilities (racism, homophobia, etc. aren't really of that kind, in my book). Having said that, I do see a lot of it, and I don't see much reason for them; they don't seem to come from specific incidents that they were involved in, or from some tit-for-tat exchange. I do thoroughly hate that quote on their talk page--sheesh, imagine being a new editor needing to contact them for one reason or another, and having to read that. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggest Loser Germany (again)

Please consider dropping the full protection of The Biggest Loser Germany down to semi and/or PC1 or removing protection altogether. It was under semi-protection in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 and that seemed to work. It was unprotected from June-August 2013 with no edits other than by an administrator and a bot. Unless there is something that isn't visible in the logs, there doesn't seem to be any reason to protect the article at all.

If you do not remove the protection, please add a protection-padlock template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to add a template but apparently there are no full protection messages other than for pages locked over content disputes. Did I miss some obscure parameter that isn't shown in the documentation of {{pp-vandalism}}? De728631 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--but you'd have to ask a smart person... Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez. First Lukeno94, then Bishonen, now you?! i'm busy people Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Thanks. And I saw the "slow to drop" message above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry--I never saw you responded. Need to archive this chat room log again, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

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.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary

When you gave that link to something diabolical I thought you were being facetious. I commented in similar vein. Your subsequent comment was unnecessary and inaccurate. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? Au contraire: your subsequent comment ("Admins still have a way to go") is unnecessary, and kind of dumb to boot. I was not being facetious: unlike "some admins", as you like to put it, I know a thing or two about article writing. Why would you think I was being facetious? No--don't answer that: I don't really care for your answer. I detest any dichotomizing on/about Wikipedia: this joint is much too multi-faceted, and people much too complicated. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we are at cross purposes. But okay. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA congratulations once more

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of The Coral Island to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 23:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I have no clue! Drmies (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'll give you the full version of User:Bencherlite/FA congrats then... or in other words, you can either volunteer to have your lovely article of which you are rightly very proud ripped apart and vandalised and all your favourite phrases turned upside down and lots of unreliable sources added on a day of your choice, or you can wait in trembling anxiety for your lovely article of which you are rightly very proud to be ripped apart [etc] on a day of my choice (or that of my successor(s)) at some point in the next 10 years. BencherliteTalk 23:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of The Coral Island to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,317 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 23:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haha, thanks. I don't mind the vandals; they're easy to deal with. It's the other editors, assholes like me, who like their own writing and want to put it in other articles. But they don't realize that mine is best. Well, if Malleus don't care what date, then I don't; I don't think there are anniversaries to be found. Thanks Bencherlite, Drmies (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for protecting my back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillas

First, congratulations to you and Eric Corbett on your FA! Now, in The Gorilla Hunters, it says that gorillas were "newly discovered". I'm assuming that means "newly discovered by Western science", for surely Africans had long known of their existence. Can we find a less Western-biased way to say that (or show that I'm wrong)? LadyofShalott 00:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the name is derived from a Hellenized version of Hanno the Navigator's account of encountering a hairy and ferocious Sub-Saharan race (who are often taken to be ... gorillas), the Lady's concerns seem pretty valid to me—beyond the sensible objection of Euro-centrism above.  davidiad { t } 02:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, that's what I meant--why don't you fix it, you font buddies? Drmies (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd fix it if I weren't paralyzed by our need for a reliable source ... Wikipedia and pillars and all that. Lady and I are hardly font buddies unless you're a dirty Mac person. On a PC she's Lucida, I'm Segoe, both derivative of Frutiger. On a Mac we're all Lucida. I'll crawl back into my hole now.  davidiad { t } 07:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the Master of Tongues, can you apply your French skills?

The Musée d'Art Moderne, Saint-Étienne site says this about a painting:

L'identification du modèle ayant posé pour ce portrait reste une énigme. Les listes des cataloguesUn catalogue est un livre qui liste toutes les œuvres exposées lors d'une exposition. On peut y lire des explications sur l'exposition, sur les œuvres ainsi que sur les artistes, souvent écrites par le commissaire d'exposition. où sont mentionnés des portraits font apparaître, au mieux, l'initiale du seul patronyme : ainsi Fénéon évoque-t-il dans sa critique du Salon des Indépendants de 1887 une "mademoiselle B, dans un crapaud" (L'émancipation sociale, Narbonne, 3 avril 1887).

Apparently it's saying that the identity of the model is unknown, partly because exhibition curators often referred to subjects simply by the initial of their last name. Is that right? But then Google Translate apparently says that Fénéon called the painting "miss B in a Toad". Now, maybe it's just me, but somehow that doesn't seem quite correct. If it is, then maybe that could be turned into a DYK hook! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, everyone ought to know that a crapaud is a kind of fancy chair--see fr:Crapaud (siège). Duh.

    Your other issue, yes, you are mostly correct, except that that French text speaks of "des portraits"--"des" being an indefinite article here, so the reference may be to portraits by your artist or portraits in general. I can't really decide from context, since there is no general discussion preceding this paragraph about your artist's portraits in general; I'm inclined to consider this a general statement about recorded information concerning portraits. (It probably doesn't matter much for what you're writing about--I assume you're not writing about portraiture in general.) One more addendum: the text says that for portraits (with the preceding caveat) at best the initial of the family name is preserved: at best, then, the title "Mademoiselle B, in a fauteuil-kind-of-formal-chair". No one's sitting on a toad, unless you're being just extraordinarily filthy tonight. BTW, nice to see you, Mandarax. Have you finished reading Vonnegut yet? Time to move on to The Gorilla Hunters--I need a plot summary. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much! You are a walking Wikipedia, except more reliable.

    No, I still haven't read all of Vonnegut's works yet; I'm as slow a reader as I am a writer. I'll put Gorilla Hunters on my list, but you don't want a plot summary from me. The only ones I ever wrote here were for books which I never read – basically summaries of plot summaries. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haha, as usual you're too kind. That's how I like to write my summaries as well, but I couldn't find one, except for some brief overview discussing whether this book was acceptable for good Christian boys and girls (it had a note on the word "ass", and commented that it was used to mean "donkey" so it was OK--there was no mention that I recall of the amazing racism that must strike every modern reader, though Ballantyne I'm sure was no better or worse than his contemporaries). Have a great weekend, Mandarax, and thanks for dropping by. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Club Excel

...OMG MOOSEZILLA!

Anyways, thanks for pointing out a more appropriate course of action there after my close. I can be a stickler for procedure sometimes, though, but I guess it would have made more sense your way...though then it got A7'd pretty fast so it maybe would have been better to consider it at MfD...but whatever. Yeah.

Cheers, Ansh666 07:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the AN/I thing about it. I'm not sure what the user was trying to do with that page; posted a query to his tl;dr response to the page being speedied. Something to keep an eye on. (also, moosezillaaaaaa nooooooooooooooooo) Ansh666 10:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you moved it, where did it wind up? Edison (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) He moved it to Excel Wikipedia Club. It was then deleted, recreated and moved without a redirect to ... Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel. /me waves to Moosezilla. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't say that I'm absolutely convinced I did the right thing in the first place: I thought for sure that it was intended as an article, and some of the comments made me believe that too. I'll let things take their own course for now. Moosezilla says hi, by the way; she's coming with me to see Beowulf & Grendel on campus this Thursday. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dermies

I just saw you comments on my talk page. I appologies for my mistakes, i agree i should not be so harsh on user:rayabhari, but despite of my appeal on the talk page of the article Aam Aadmi Party that it must be neutral article and unbaised according to the Wikipedia regulations, they are hugely distorting the article to become a party promotion place. If you check the editing history of the article, various users including rayabhari are greatly involved in promotion and advertisement of the artical's subject i.e. Aam Aadmi Party(that is political party in India), they are repeaditly involved in repealing all the negative points and wrong doings of the article, even points or incidents are heavily cited, also they continously mentioning Party's menifesto or declarative bandwagon that party is promising for coming elections. I had tried to make it as close as unbaised and neutral article by responsible edits, and also mentioned in the articles talk page to be fair had appealed to the users to follow guidelines. After this we had taken semi protection to the article to protect vandalization, after also user:rayabhari is deeply involved in deleting negative points, and for justification of his/her action, providing comments like "Too petty an issue for notable party like AAP" or "allegations are unencyclopedic. Moreover trivial,now, for a National level party" or "what he or he says is not important. AAP is big party now". How can anyone just remove full section by providing justification like this. How an issue become too petty or too big and party becomes notable? Any user must not act according to his own personal opinion or perception, and that user can't justify or can't prove him right if facts strongly denies him. Moreover AAP is not a national Level Party, Election Commission of India recognize AAP as State level party(which is present in delhi and most people are totally unaware of it even in its neighbouring state). However, AAP is gaining popularity but at current context is too low. All these points are already discussed in talk page, but this particular user rayabhari had not even tried to discuss and rudely and unfairly repealing the comments. He also deleted admin user User:Utcursch & User:Bgwhite edits, when i tried to handle, he responded in this way. I am trying to explain you the things were running behind and i like to bring you attraction over user:rayabhari role in this article. I request you to look over the issue.

Thanks KLS 10:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswarrior (talk • contribs)

What's good for the goose…

…must be good for the gander.

More to the point, I'd like you, or some other admin or six, to set to work to stamp out the horrendous environment at Talk:Soccer in Australia. It is little more than personal attacks from any number of editors, and it must surely be time to look at topic bans for some of the more persistent offenders. Little editorial work is being done, and if there is a poster child for disruption, this page is it. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked at so many gun articles and Ayn Rand pages that it will take a lot to impress me. I have no interest in policing this talk page, esp. since I only care about soccer when the Dutch play. You can bring the matter up at ANI. As to the matter you allude to, I will deal with it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was more interested in seeing how fair your mind works. My guess was he made an honest mistake because it's habitual to comment on that page and removed it as soon as he realised. A very human thing to do. So, how do I get some eyes on that page going without being accused of breaking a ban? Highly-politicised articles such as gun control/rights I can understand, but this is just a sports page, and it's ridiculous to see editors kicking heads instead of balls. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, disruption at the talk page should, in the first instance, be handled by editors there and/or those associated with the relevant project(s). Admin will step in if needs be on a case-by-case basis, but active patrolling of one type or another typically follows arbitration (like in the Men's Rights Movement issues. Let's hope that won't be necessary. The only policing I'm willing to do right now is of this interaction ban. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to stop right now. WP:BANEX doesn't cover this situation. It's not a request or an appeal. Your note is not an excuse for another round of personal attacks aimed at me. --Pete (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take it easy, we're still on the same topic/same thread. I told him to cut it out; I'm sure he will. Unless he wants the same block you got, in the interest of fairness. You have to understand that in the long run blocks don't fix nothing, and that I will do what I can to avoid them. You may feel that he's getting another strike, whereas you only got one, and a block the second time, but if I remember correctly in your case a month had passed. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed my point here. Your note was fine. As I said above, I took the breach as an honest mistake, and I just wanted it noted. However the response to your note went further than an acknowledgment, or even an explanation. It did not fit within any of the allowed exceptions, and it was another round of personal attacks aimed at me. You don't seriously think that if someone - say Orestes recently - makes a reference to the other party of an interaction ban on my talk page it gives me an excuse to moan about the other party? --Pete (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss your point--I think I rather finished your sentence for you. I told HiLo to stop, a second time, and that's the end of it, as far as I am concerned/I hope. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a subtle point, then. I just didn't get the feeling that there was any sense of having breached the IBAN by responding to your note in such a way. Anyway, I'm now presuming on your good humour, I think, and I'll leave you in peace. --Pete (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm doing what I can to preserve some kind of peace, yes. It's clear that you all don't get along, and it's also clear to me that other editors are troubled by some of the behavior both of you exhibit. But those problems are caused also not just by personality but by content discussions, and I'm just hoping that a way will be found to solve the underlying issues--by way of focused discussions on content. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh

Nice, this one - Pekka's (but probably not modern enough for Mandarax)
Come on in boys, the water is fine!

Dermies, could you add some more to the Sauna about Dutch customs? I you have some spare time and can cut yourself loss from all these intrigues. The - facilities - [citation needed]. Hafspajen (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr Mies. Hafspajen (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax, Self portrait.
Yes. There are orphans like him, poor Pekka. Hafspajen (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: XXXXXX is not Christian, (just terrorist, minus Christian ) but abnormal. Hafspajen (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring him up on my talk page, Warrington, or I might commit a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not not modern enough for Mandarax? One can sitt in that boat, think about nice things and enyoy silence... Looks good, I think... Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandarax is a modern hippie who likes his art non-representational. I don't think he even allows representations of representations. Ask him what his favorite work of art is. I bet it's some black square or something like that. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Pollock and such... Jackson Pollock. Hafspajen (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vincent van Gogh: Stars and river 1888
Puuhh, I always thought that WikiFairies are considered essentially friendly creatures ...Hafspajen (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fairies are; the bloodsuckers aren't. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being mischaracterized! Although I enjoy and appreciate most kinds of art, including nonrepresentational, my favorites are the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists. Some of the strongest evidence I've provided regarding my artistic taste appeared right here three months ago, when I wrote "the greatest museum in the world: Musée d'Orsay". If you've ever been there, you know what I mean.

As for that black self-portrait, I've seen that painting! Well, probably not that specific one, but someone who either copied or was copied by Malevich. I think it was at the Lenbachhaus.

(BTW, your inclusion of a link to me in the image caption did not generate a notification. I think that only happens for signed posts.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember you mentioning the Musee d'Orsay. I may have said, at the time, that I've been there and that what I remember best is a desk. (All your isms don't mean much to me, Mandarax--so many fancy different ways of smearing some paint on a piece of wood, I don't get it.) I may have mentioned to you that I saw two of the black squares in the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, and they were magnificent. One day, Mandarax, we'll have coffee in the American Hotel and then saunter on down to the Van Gogh Museum. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ism, that Mandarax likes, a post-Impressionist painter Van Gogh. Hafspajen (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need attention on Voltaire

You interested in solving a issue on this page? Like you had done previously on Christian terrorism, I remember you from there. Let me know. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I told before, I have actually got the 100% reliably sourced, and multiple reference backing version for the section Voltaire#Islam, but other user keeps removing it, and since revert on that page are done by only 2 users for now(me and him), it always ends up into edit war, since he don't ever explain why he is still keeping unconfirmed primary sources... So I would like you to participate with this one, if you found my version to be well enough, let me know on the talk page.. Okay? Bladesmulti (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the changes, check. Thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in

There is need of an English grammar professor at WP:VPT#Mobile interface contains bad English, where there is some major confusion about sentence structure (in particular, when using the imperative mood). Please chime in there. LadyofShalott 00:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence without an explicit subject?! Don't be ridiculous. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta pee first, and make coffee, and see if this piloncillo-pecan pie turned out OK. For now, I'll send Moosezilla, for emergency purposes. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and Moosezilla both. That was a strange discussion. WK, I know; I must be crazy! LadyofShalott 04:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health Psychology

Drmies. Thank you for dealing with Mrm7171. I debated posting here, but it is hard to be attacked and remain silent. Mrm claims to have consensus on points that I deleted or modified, but that is not the case. Mrm is overly aggressive and when people give up and stop responding to his walls of text, he claims he has consensus. Almost everything I have done on wiki, Mrm has reverted, and there is little if anything I've done that any other editor has reverted. When three editors (Bilby, Richard Keatinge, and WhatamIdoing) tried to mediate the dispute that was mainly between Mrm and Iss, they too became the target of Mrm's wrath. The blocking of Mrm7171 allows me for the first time to edit articles without worrying that someone is going to immediately revert my edits, and then claim to have references that show I am wrong that do not exist.Psyc12 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I too appreciate your work with Mrm7171. I observed that Psyc12 wrote here, and thought it would be okay to write here too. I write to admit that sometimes I have lost my patience with Mrm. But losing my patience took time. Five months. I won a barnstar in late May 2013 for being very patient with Mrm7171 between Jan 1, 2013 and the end of May, while working on the OHP entry and related entries. Other editors have made large changes to the OHP entry. Richard Keatinge and Bilby completed some major editing of the OHP entry. I had no conflict with them about their edits and deletions of what was largely my writing. Mrm, on the other hand, made it very difficult for me to accomplish any editing at all. For example, he repeatedly engaged in editing that made OHP-related learned societies "clubs." The edits over this club thing went round and round with little resolution until other editors stepped in. In another train of events, Mrm tried to make OHP into a subdiscipline of organizational psychology; then he shifted to attempting to make OHP is a subdiscipline of the broader i/o psychology; finally, he proclaimed OHP to be a subdiscipline of health psychology. He has made my attempts to edit on Wikipedia almost impossible. Iss246 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're still blocked, right? Enjoy it while it lasts. If they come back and repeat the same pattern of disruption, report them again. Note, though, that they were blocked for continued personal attacks, so not really for the content issues. A next step, if the content disruption are or continue to be unworkable, is to get a topic ban for the article, the talk, the specific area, whatever is appropriate. I really want to think that they are trying to improve the project, but good faith only goes so far. Thank you both, and keep me posted if you like. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopper from Talk:Animal welfare

Has now brought their feud with everyone else to WP:NPOVN. I'll probably have to ask for a range block if this continues (not something I know how to do). Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • More complicated than just a rangeblock, but I can take care of it. Someone give me a paragraph on exactly why this has gotten so bad that I'm going to spend time working on filtering it, and I'll go ahead.—Kww(talk) 15:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Responded at KWW's talk page - I'd already asked at WP:AN#Range block needed again for disruptive IP. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent--thanks Kevin. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on baseball player articles

Could you please take a look at user 68.40.217.90 (talk)? The person keeps making changes to MLB player articles that are not true and he or she knows they are fake because they will make editing notes saying things like "someone said on TV that he is a pitcher so I changed the name to a pitcher) or just make up fake trades and such. The person has been warned many times. They recently made an edit on Travis Hafner without a source. You can see vandalism from this user on Jeff Francoeur and various other players through his talk page. JimmyPiersall (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

He already did Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshua Jonathan. Interesting read. Yesterday I realized he broke the 3RR, when I listed all the reverts and insertions (see SPI); the bottleneck were the twice-removals of a {{dubious}}-tag, which he hid in other edits, without reporting this in the edit-summary. I'm not sure though if I should report this at the edit-warring notice-board. Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey racist liar, about your your lie in Marian Dawkins POV case

Hey racist liar, I just saw your lieon the NPOV case of Marian Dawkins. 1)My link shows, you actually identified one of DrChrissy's WP:OWN problem in the past. You just wanted to mislead people so they don't look into the evidence I provided: the evidence is solid. 2)you lied last time in the case on the noticeboard, you just did it again 3)You are on DrChrissy's gang that causes the POV problems, who cares what your opinions is. 4)It will be a good idea for you to study some basic science before you come out talk again, so I won't laught at your comments all the time. But I understand you, because you don't have real skill, so playing politics (lying) is your last straw, you are deeply insecure. 5)why do you put those disgusting pictures on your user page? Do you enjoy violence? Judging from yor past behavior (your harrasment to me), I think you do. Agressive people are usually not good at science/thinking. 6)I don't have more time to educate uncivial people like you, so feel free to remove my comment or block =) 124.149.116.104 (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=592452702"