User talk:Drmies

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149

Template:NoBracketBot

John J. Maalouf - Attorney

Hi Dr; it's 99, and I could use some help at this new bio. Headstrong WP:SPA is doing a little promo, with external links for buying the subject's book. I'm getting tired of reverting, and have taken this to the BLP board. By the way, hope all is well with you. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B41B:4FC1:242D:5468 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that JzG took care of your problem already, while I was making stuffed monkey heads. Yes, things are no better than last time. I trust you are the same. Bad people always fare well, a Dutch saying goes, which bodes nothing but ill for you and me. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You sound absolutely dolorous, which is how I was last week. I do hope you soon transcend stuffing monkey heads, though I don't have a clue what that means. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B41B:4FC1:242D:5468 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

That material I re-added its not "random" go back through the page history.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did--much farther than you. This is the yardstick. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

whatever. Theres nothing incoherent about it. Also Controversial edits are supposed to be on the talk page. From what someone made a fuss about with me. However. I can tell by the "much further than you" there is no "contest". So if you are picking up an attitude don't even bother with it. I don't get emotionally charged.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. The diff I gave was for the version of the article when it was promoted to FA. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well the addition of that material hadn't and hasn't changed the status of the article being featured, so whats the point of supporting its removal when with all the editors that have and do contribute it reasonably denotes consensus. If "you" feel it doesn't make sense, why not re-write it to make it "coherent". Instead of helping to keep it erased. There is always something to learn. If you can share why it definitely wouldn't hurt. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That material was so completely out of whack that there is no way you can just fit it in. And I don't "feel" things--I argue them. I teach composition and stuff like that. I mean, look at your version. This is an article on a genre, a genre whose historical development is sketched over a few decades. In your version, look at the section "Recent trends: mid–late 2000s and 2010s", where one would expect--you guessed it--an overview of recent trends. And what we get is an opening paragraph of two sentences on metalcore, with an example of commercial success of one metalcore band mentioned. So far so good, but the second paragraph starts "Welsh band Bullet for My Valentine's third studio album Fever debuted at position number 3 on the Billboard 200 and number 1 on Billboard's Rock and Alternative charts, making it the band's most successful record to date." What on earth does that have to do with "Recent trends"? I'm going to assume that this band plays metalcore (it doesn't say it does), and that these charting albums fall in the "mid-late 2000s and 2010s" (it doesn't say that), and that "to date"--well, God know what that means. The sentence in no clear way relates to the topic of the section, and it's not even a good topic sentence for the rest of the paragraph, since the sentence is exclusively about one band's chart success.
So that's poor writing and poor paragraph construction. But the material you restored also controls the sentence "Other notable experiments include Asking Alexandria mixing Trance, this has led to an explosion of bands following this combination." First of all, that's clearly a comma splice there in the middle. Second, it's unverified, so why one experiment would be "notable" is anybody's guess. Also, I have no idea what "Asking Alexandria mixing Trance" means--a band mixes trance (a genre of music) with metalcore? or trance with heavy metal (the subject of the article? Or Asking Alexandria is a DJ who remixed music by a band called Trance? And then, which "combination" is being followed in this "explosion"? I listed three valid readings of the sentence, but maybe the combinations are found also in the previous (poor) sentence, "Bands like Motionless In White have experimented with Metalcore further by including Gothic Metal and Industrial Metal influences".
Now, if you remove all that nonsense, you get an opening paragraph on metalcore, followed by a paragraph that starts "Evolving even further from metalcore..."--that's a perfectly valid rhetorical progression, possibly worth of an FA article. With that nonsense, you get an incoherent collection of undated and unorganized factoids in sentences that don't pass basic grammatical muster. You see, it's not about "feeling". Drmies (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a great explanation. Thank You. I need a new coffee and to read it again and further reply. Thats not "my" version, its the version that was argued to me. I was kind of "debated" to by another editor who said the "making it the band's most successful record to date" and the like, where equal to "recent trends". No one agreed with me or him so I figured they were correct, at least on the page. It seemed like all those other groups mentioned where a continuation and variable of metalcore. So it seemed appropriate. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CombatMarshmallow, thanks. This is the kind of thing we should do more of in Freshman Comp; I wish I had enough time in my literature classes to discuss principles of composition. There's a couple of metalheads here who know how to write. Look, I didn't think this was yours, right--I figured you got caught up in it, and that happens. What really needs to be done here is a comparison between that 2007 version and today's version, to see how it's been expanded, if that still makes sense, if the overall structure needs tweaking, and if (this happens frequently) new sources are properly templated and of high quality. What else happens often is editors stick info in (a name, a factoid) as if the following reference, which was already there, also verifies that new info. It's very tedious to have to check this, but it really needs to be done. Thanks again: we need editors with some passion, and you clearly have that. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thank You.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal only account

Amin_İsgəndərli is basically a vandal only account. Since the users created account they have done nothing but vandalize Armenian related articles by continuously adding West Azerbaijan right after Armenia. It is nothing but propaganda and this user keeps adding it just like they did with Yerevan[1] on numerous occasions, History of Armenia[2] on numerous occasions, Urartu[3] and now Armenia[4]. I think a block should be issued as this is not a constructive user, they are just spreading propaganda. Thank You. Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care of by Materialscientist, a well-known fighter of propagandistic disruption. Well done MS--that's another $5 for you. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to Kill a Mockingbird listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to Kill a Mockingbird. Since you had some involvement with the How to Kill a Mockingbird redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lakun.patra, that discussion got shut down pretty quickly, and it was done so correctly. I hope the reasons given were convincing for you: this was just not a good nomination, and that HOWTO thing didn't make any sense--I think you probably didn't read the book or the whole of the article, but now you know what to do next time. All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kapisa (2nd nomination)

Did you get my email? Doug Weller (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfD closure

Well, if you'd like to reciprocate, I've got some juicy ones for you. [I really should take a break from closing TfDs now. Which is no easy task in this unholy heat, by the way.] Alakzi (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving Dr. Who alone, but I "closed" NNDB--I have no idea how to file that paperwork. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries; thank you. Let's see if we can get a bot-op to orphan it now. Alakzi (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I copied some code from somewhere else for that "temporarily inactive" one--I'm sure you'll check to see if I did it right. Let Kelapstick handle Dr. Who: he's a fan. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please undelete Template:NNDB? It has not been orphaned and currently a red link to it is displayed on each of the 1,000+ articles that contained it. Orphaning needs to be completed before the template is deleted. Example is Ayn Rand, which has the red link at the bottom. Thanks. ~ Rob^Talk 19:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - (talk page stalker) Wouldn't a bot to remove that template from the 1,000+ articles be a better option? I agree with the TfD discussion that there's no way NNDb can be considered a "reliable source"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey, you all are the template editors--you're the clever ones. Make that bot and automate the whole damn process! I say we turn Alakzi into an admin and let them take care of it. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that suggestion alone could start an ANI thread. Heh. For some reason, the transclusion count on NNDB has gone way down according to Alakzi. I had planned to run a bot, but maybe it won't be necessary. Did you happen to delete any redirects Drmies? That may explain it and would need to be undone to find all the transclusions. (Not accusing you of anything, just throwing out an idea since I can't make heads or tails of this). Ah, some digging through the logs revealed another admin deleted the redirect as per G8. I've recreated it to aid in finding and removing transclusions. I'll automate this and submit it as a bot task eventually. ~ Rob^Talk 04:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I should've thought of that. Alakzi (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tell what to do~~
Drmies, you mentioned (referring to this) that if someone tells you what to do you do it. Let's see. After walking your dog, review Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51 for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Genndy Tartakovsky's SpongeBob SquarePants~~
~~Hello, could you please delete and SALT Genndy Tartakovsky's SpongeBob SquarePants.. It's been recreated three times now. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]~~
Wizardman, don't you think it's time to revisit Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_12#WP:ANI_2.0? You're welcome to peruse my archives; there's plenty more. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~This time I'm not asking anything,~~
...but sharing my disbelief. Have a look at this business. The times that I've fucked up and reverted wrongly or bestowed mistaken warnings, I've apologized as quickly as possible. I'm not holding my breath on this one [5]; [6]. Hope you're well, and done with monkey heads or whatnot. Cheers from old 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know. Reading is always more work than hitting revert. I'm fine, though I'd kill for a cigarette. I'd kill you if that would get me one. Stewed monkey heads were very tasty--recipe from Calvin's mom. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really, kill me for a smoke. That makes me feel oh so fuzzy about our virtual friendship. Never having fallen prey to the need for tobacco, I've no empathy for your difficulties. If, however, you voiced similar sentiments over chocolate, I'd understand. Enough. I'm waking in less than six hours, to take a train into NY and teach a group of wide-eyed students. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd reconsider if you've tried smoking monkeys.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you were never one of the cool kids in high school, 99. (I stayed away from monkeys.) Have a good night, and all the best tomorrow, fourteen years and a day later. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never been cool my whole life. But undeniably charismatic, and a tad irresistible to women folk. Take it easy. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for blocking some of the vandals at Central Tech. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What?!?! (Hey, why doesn't this keyboard have an interrobang?!?!) You're a smoker? I'm shocked and dismayed, and dazed and confused (but those latter two probably don't have anything to do with this). But you'd kill for a cigarette, which may (or may not) mean you've quit....
Fourteen years and a day ago, I got the news from Howard Stern. (Yeah, I guess we all have our vices.) I was in a state of hypnopompia, and it took a while for my semi-conscious mind to grasp that what he was talking about was actually happening. Nothing's real until you see it on TV, so I turned it on, and there it was. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 13:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~If I had any I wouldn't have the desire to threaten to kill someone for some. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Thank you~~
At the deletion discussion where you have contributed, I have used your rhetoric formulation, largely or fully, to support views held by myself and others. Thank you for "your formulation". --Burst of unj (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~MusicAngels~~
I appreciate your comments on the Birdman Talk page but if you go back and look at my original edits and if you look at the talk page, the second I made a tiny change he attacked me and reverted the change. Please understand when you look at this history how much MusicAngels escalates immediately! I made one or two changes and he immediately went onto the IP talk page and started bullying me. He will not allow any IP anywhere anytime to question his edits. Can someone please make him stop? 128.90.39.156 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]