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 LaughingVulcan (talk | contribs) at 12:56, 11 October 2016 (→‎Extremely *Important* Question: I want to be Dixie! Or Deimos!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


That's right y'all.

SPI query

Hi Drmies. I hope you're well. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28 has been sitting waiting behavioural investigation for more than a month now. I just wanted to check whether this is usual? It seems a bit unfair on the accused for this to be hanging over them, and equally I don't want to see the case fall by the wayside. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with this, Drmies. Much appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"behavioral behavior"? Another gem from our Professor of Indubitableness at the Marie Corelli Institute of Refined Language and Gentle Pastimes. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. As much as I like to take credit for that, I think it was just a senior moment. Then again, that I can't remember is evidence that I have way too many of those. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Article

I had no intentions of vandalizing my own article. I only fixed a few minor mistakes in my work that may be perceived as racist. "Porto Kick Can" is a new term originating in Harford County describing a human of inferior intelligence. My only intent is to educate on this terminology.

MemeDispenser (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)MemeDispenser MemeDispenser (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't warn you for vandalizing your own article--I warned you because the whole thing was vandalism. Please don't abuse our website for the posting of nonsense, even if you're kind enough to remove some of the most racist stuff afterward. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, I can assure you this is not nonsense. This is an actual term rising throughout Maryland. I stated it originated in Harford County a few months back. I created this page to educate because so many people are asking what a Porto Kick Can is. I wouldn't create such a thing without premise. This is a valid article informing people on the term. MemeDispenser (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)MemeDispenser MemeDispenser (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Wand

Crossposted from the talk page on that article in hopes you see it. But I did make some other notes here that are not on that talk page.

Drmies, 'we' is me as a member of the kink community who is knowledgeable about this obscure niche device and its history. If I was a transgender person explaining the importance to 'us' of certain links on a wikipedia about transgenderism, then you'd understand. If I was a gay person explaining to a straight wikipedia editor, the importance of linking to a web article about Stonewall, you'd understand. Perhaps you'll take a relook at the links after I explain. Or better still, perhaps you can help decide how the important information should go into the article if you don't agree with presenting it as links.

The violet wand is a relatively new invention in the US. Donnie Rice of Erotec began manufacturing them in the late 1990s, but they were little known or used. AFter his death in 2001, they gained a popularity through a woman with the scene name Violetwanda. She is the Henry Ford of violet wands and you can not talk about violet wands without talking about her. Her company invented most of the violet wand products in use today. And the techniques to go with them. If we said Henry Ford invented the assembly line for automobile manufacturing, this would be the same thing. If we said Steve Jobs made personal computers available to the public, this would be the same thing. She trained a US-wide network of demonstrators to teach people how to use it, and like Henry Ford and Steve Jobs, made this obscure device well known and popular in the kink community. The link to her information page, www.violetwanda.net is not commercial and nothing is for sale there, though from her information site, she does link to her two company's websites, completely different domains. But her information page is where everyone goes to get the information found everywhere else. Its an original source for extensive violet wand information.

Another bit of information (or link) that should be in the article is the one to the International Violet Wand Guild at www.violetwands.org. That is not a commercial site, and you should relook. There is NOTHING for sale there. They do product reviews sometimes, and link to new inventions. It is a non profit educational group of several thousand violet wand users, and a board of directors with an elected president. Since violet wands are new (late 1990s) there is no government regulation or standards, and violet wands are electric devices that are used on humans. The International violet wand guild set the standards for their manufacturing and safety, and set the definitions and terminology. It too, is an original source for violet wand information.

The only link that you left behind, Uncle Abdul's book, contains 2 paragraphs on violet wands as it was written while they were still obscure. Since they were developed in the late 1990s, not much appears in print about them, and that is the only book with an ISBN that contains anything. But it is a mere 2 paragraphs and not inclusive and really...no longer relevant. The bulk of violet wand information is put forth in modern technology--on the web in articles by experts. The kink community recognizes these expert sources and they are important to it. The only link you left, is not representative of the available information or history of the device.

I do understand your point about some of the other links. The author Laura Antoniou is probably unknown to you, but she is the FOREMOST kink author and fiction writer of BDSM and recognized throughout the community. Her use of the violet wand in fiction was notable because it shows that this once obscure device is growing in popularity. Remember, that the incredibly popular and best-selling books, 50 Shades was a self-published book. Technology moves forward. Self-published books have an increasing place and should not be ignored.

I understand that you do not know any of this since the BDSM community is largely self-contained. I also understand that wikipedia is not a collection of links, except as wikipedia says: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." The International Violet Wand Guild as the major source for violet wand information, and the lead developer Violetwanda, are both meritable and directly relevant. Highly relevant. So Im sure you'll work with the importance of these two sources and help find a way as a reputable editor to include the information, even if its not in links. Threatening to report is useful only to get what you want... but what you want is not relevant to this device or to the people who use it and want to look up information on it.

So, how best to get the two most relevant information into back into the article? That in the early 2000s, The International Violet Wand Guild set the standards for the manufacture and safety of violet wands, and set the definitions and terminology. And that the Steve Jobs/Henry Ford in the development of violet wands, making them available to a wide audience, and the development of most products associated with them, is a kink community woman who goes by the alias Violetwanda? There isn't a wikipedia page about her, since she's still living.

Lets come to a consensus on how to present the important information. It doesn't have to be links if you are dead set against them, but its vital and relevant information. Thanks! Awolnetdiva (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awolnetdiva (talk • contribs)

  • Awolnetdiva, I'd appreciate it if you made no assumptions about my sex, my gender, my gender identity, or my specific kinkinesses. I do not believe they matter greatly here--thanks. What matters, in the rather closeted and limited environment of Wikipedia, is what the reliable sources say. Anything beyond that easily runs the risk of unencyclopedicness or, as was the case here to some extent, promotionalism. What you need to go get anything in that article is find the reliable sources that say so--or, at the very least, the more or less reliable sources. Good luck--and maybe some kinky people who look at this talk page can lend you a hand. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotionally written article needs help

I think this is above my skill grade, so I've tagged it and present it for the expert doc and his expert friends to consider working on: Dixon University Center. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There could be copyright issues as well.[1] I couldn't determine who had the text first. Thoughts, Diannaa? — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) (and not Diannaa by any stretch of the imagination). Nice catch, Yngvadottir, JJMC89 – the whole history section was copy-pasted into the initial version of the page from here (as archived on 8 February 2005). Later copyvio added with, e.g., this edit. I've blanked and listed it for now, on the assumption that it had too much history to be eligible for speedy deletion. Regards to all, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection due to sockpuppetry on Great_Pyrenees?

I noticed you recently semi-protected Great_Pyrenees for a year, giving the reason of "Persistent sock puppetry". In a cursory review of the page history & talk page, I didn't notice any mentions of sock puppets -- so I was confused by your action. Was it based on discussions elsewhere? JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

JesseW - See some details here: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal; the Great Pyrenees article was one of the many breeds targeted likely using this IP, this one, this too and this one. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now, for the first time on Dr Mies' stage, introducing the fabulous Double-nosed Andean tiger hound!!! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Quest

Advice please. I have been scratching my head about this edit today. The (new) editor obviously has access to a significant battery of Proquest material via their University library. Mostly Billboard and Music Week. Unfortunately the editor has slotted in the search link from their University server, which leaves us, with, well this login page. I put a note on their Talk page. I encountered a few other issues with this, notably on the Led Zeppelin page today where another editor was able to replace the reference after I able to access the article. Two questions. Should I request the login page to be blacklisted? I noticed a number of edits from a number of new accounts using Proquest via arizona.edu - would there be any point in initiating a sock investigation? Thanks. Karst (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh we need a smart person for that. I don't know if this is something we would blacklist, having dealt with that only once or twice (for obvious sock URLs). If I link to JSTOR via my university I get a link that includes that identifier in the URL, but in a very simple way; I suppose I could take that out with a simple find and replace operation in Notepad. Does Proquest work that easily? Is that worth it? As for the Arizona thing, it could just be an educational assignment. User:Helaine (Wiki Ed), do you know, or is it easy for you to find out? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good point on the URL stripping. Did that with this one, and as I am on a university server with Proquest access, got this one. Checking the reference and what was included in the article, it now appears to point to deliberate false information about a chart position. I removed it. Karst (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Dexbot_8 coming soon to a wiki near you. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The owner of the reFill tool is thinking about getting a proquest account so that it can generate cite web templates for you. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Karst (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about IB Arb

(And if this isn't allowed under some sort of ex parte thing.... please do what you need to, of course.) I asked a general question if "The Community" had a general discussion about IB as in the decision. I saw no reply. What zone of WP is proper for such a forum? Village Pump? MOS?? RfC??? And who can step up to the plate in it - regrettably, I'm sure I'm seen as too involved at this point now. (Needing someone who doesn't give a frack about IB who nevertheless gives a frack?  :) ) This may be the wrong place for this - should I transclude it to the Amendment Request? Sorry - I've looked at arb cases but I'm gratefully a newbie to being an involved party. LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 01:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, ArbCom stuff is a labyrinth. But you're not helping me much--I don't know what you mean with "discussion about IB as in the decision". If by "frack" you mean "fuck", I think you're looking for RexxS--the last time I saw him he had already run out of fucks, and that was years ago. If you're trying to figure out how we got to where we are, Rexx can probably explain it pretty good. But you'll have to explain what you want to place somewhere--cusswords? a proposal? a hit list? Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whew... At least you knew or deduced a Battlestar-Galactica-ism, and I think I need the help of EEng or Martinevans123 more to help translate me, though I concede RexxS is the WP leader at not giving one.... But anyway, I was talking about Infoboxes, the current Request for Amendment. And referencing this here of mine which asked if part 4.3.7 of that Arbcom decision there ever got done. And if it didn't, who should start that and where..... Trying to repeat a joke I've typographically failed at before, Help me, Drmies, you’re my only hope!, and I got no idea if you're a sci-fi fan at all. Though I have it on high authority that ostriches are sci-fi fans... or was I high when I thought ostriches were a sci-fi authority. Beats me, now. LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be pleased to know I've found a fresh supply, so I'm happy to give a fuck while it lasts. As for your question, LV, The community never got around to having that well-publicised discussion - after all if you ask everybody to do something, it's pretty much a recipe for nobody doing it. However, I'm sick of the unnecessary strife over something so unimportant as an infobox (although it's true that I see more value in them than many editors), so I've started an essay, which could be used for background if that much-anticipated discussion ever gets started. It may be relevant reading for someone new to the war-zone. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a nice start. Watchlisted! --Izno (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awesomeness. Scanned it, will see if I can help hopefully tonightish or soon. Looks like the right answer. Thanks for stocking your frak supply - thought you might've over on the tech pump.... Now if I can only find a fresh source of Felgercarb as I'm running out of both[2] versions.[3] LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 11:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That community discussion wasn't done, - or was it at at Coward (with nobody courageous enough to try a summary)? And what does it tell us? - Some people think an IB upgrades the quality of an article, others believe it degrades an article. Who decides on a given article, that is the question, open all the time I know of the problem? For example: If those of the latter kind improve an article written by the former, do they have the right to follow their preference, even if it means taking away information that was there to help readers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fracking is a dirty business and I refuse to incriminate myself. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

To my opinion, speedy deletion is speedy. Not waiting for two days, as happened with Farahnaz Forotan (twice removed after regular procedure and for the third time published). The Banner talk 18:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a BLP violation, speedy should be as speedy as possible. For this rather promotional bio about an apparently not notable by our standards journalist, well, I am not shaking with rage about a lack of speediness yet. I am sure it will be gone in due course. MPS1992 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps what Mr Banner means is that, if you or someone else does decide it is eligible for deletion under G4, then you should consider create-protecting it as well. But I am not sure. It has turned red now anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salted for three months. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The salting is a bonus but I am rude enough to expect that a speedy deletion should be dealt with rather speedily (i.e. 24 hours). <humour mode>I also expect admins to be active on WP at least 140 hours a week! </humour mode> The Banner talk 21:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, and thanks for the service. Much appreciated. The problem with Faridahmadi.itp that most of his articles are at least poor. Nearly to all his articles are nominated for speedy or normal deletion. And now I have the nasty feeling that there is as sockpuppet active. Mr. Faridahmadi.itp had created Fahim Tokhi that was speedied. And now a new article "Dr. Fahim Tokhi" was created by Kankor123. Very suspicious. Even more as the writer gets compliments on the talkpage from one Ftokhi. An account sleeping for 30 months, but within 32 minutes after creation of the article awake again. Something fishy... (but just not enough to go to SPI). The Banner talk 22:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, usually the CSD categories get taken care of fairly quickly. I was otherwise occupied, but it is possible that a large number of admins were in Courcelles's hot tub this weekend. I understand Kelapstick had picked a bunch of tax-free hooch for the occasion. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not good enough. You are clearly in breach of the Admin SLA, which mandates that all admins are individually required to execute all outstanding admin requests anywhere on Wikipedia within one nanosecond. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I cook dinner before I hand in my resignation? Drmies (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After dinner and before resignation, would one of you folks mind closing this AFD? I put it up last night while doing NPP, and I acted hastily. I just withdrew the nomination. Enjoy your meal. Sorry to see you go... BusterD (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm. Hot tub admin parties are nearly as much fun as bathrobe parties. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. I'm just going to scratch my head and move on. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_Enforcement_review. Thank you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? Links to DMOZ are definitely allowed. Why would you think otherwise? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh, fo shizzle? Because it appears to be a kind of basket of links? As far as I know DMOZ is not a reliable secondary source, and though their article is really yuge, I don't see anything in there that makes it acceptable or useful as an EL link. Look, if you wish to reinstate it go right ahead--but please don't think that somehow this is self-evident. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT Since Wikipedia isn't a directory of links, it's helpful to link to something that is--that's the point of DMOZ. It is not a source--do you see it being cited anywhere in articles? I wasn't saying it was self-evident, I was just answering a question that you asked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • (talk page stalker) DMOZ has for a long time been used to head off the attentions of rabid fans who want every website mentioning their favourite subject to be an EL in the corresponding article. So it's been a pretty common ruse to just say to them "add one EL to DMOZ, and move all your proposed links to there". It's been so useful in that respect that I'd recommend giving a little more leeway to DMOZ additions, even when it's not particularly obvious that it is an ELYES. FWIW, I'd definitely cull that link farm in Alabama. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Justin, whether something is reliable is a pretty important thing to consider if you link something anywhere on Wikipedia. Rexx, I'm very wary of container links, but I gladly submit to your expertise. BTW, folks are trying to cull lots of things in Alabama, sometimes with some success. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Drmies: WP:RELIABLE refers to sources and those definitely need to be reliable. Outgoing links should be useful and not malicious and added judiciously. @RexxS: That's basically what I was trying to say: using DMOZ as a kind of "default" link directory is a very good thing for very many articles (in addition to the fact that it's another free culture community which helped to inspire ours!) I have suggested at WP:EL giving some priority to DMOZ links but others were not receptive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Justin, I know very well what RELIABLE says; like you, I've been here a while, but I was talking about "reliable"--the word. If you didn't find a very good reception, that may be meaningful--but I won't stand in your way of readding, if you haven't done that already. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Beowulf was a card game (which isn't by itself a terrible idea...)

You know I'm a big fan of yours. I especially like that we can disagree in such a collegial way. I don't have strong feelings about this, I just was surprised at how much stuff I found (and I stopped collecting after search page 2). If it's redirected/merged, I could see it returning to mainspace before long. Better to source it right now, IMHO. Best to you and yours. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, thanks, and I'm all for good articles, as are you. I firmly believe that AfD IS for article improvement (don't tell anyone I said that) so that's a good way for you to win the argument. Either way, make sure the closing admin sees "merge and redirect" is an option, which I'll support if need be. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

And characteristically, I'm here to be annoying! I asked at my talk but it might have gotten a bit buried in the mix at that thread: does my font switch, from Broadway to Cooper, fix the legibility issue? And if the answer is no, are you braced for this thread to have about fifty messages from me, all saying "How about now?" with another font in each signature? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 03:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#In ictu oculi

I see you were involved in a November 2015 ANI case. I invite you to the case request about one editor. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, d'uh? You are sort of canvassing an arbitrator? - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's canvassing someone who hasn't edited in three months, too—I assume this is just a general scattergun spamming of anyone he thinks might take his side. ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitush, say that again--it sounds really good. George, what were you thinking. I totally missed the action, but it may have set a record for the number of comments and the speed with which it was declined. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, I do miss Liz. What happened to her? Karst (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heleen Mees

Dear Drmies, Thanks for your edit. You said: "well, you can mention it in the text, with a citation. as a "publication" it makes little sense to list a diss.)". I have actually read all her books, and her dissertation is by far her best. That doesn't matter. What matters: it was her only scholarly publication up to date, and it's available (open access) at Erasmus University Rotterdam. Her new publication (just published) builds on it. When in doubt: take a look and be convinced. Anyway, it's more useful to mention this dissertation (published in English) than to mention 3 publications in Dutch that aren't even translated. Vysotsky (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not going to fight over this anymore: I find it very tiresome. Of course it's available--most Dutch dissertations are. I do not agree with your suggested definition of "useful"; the English Wikipedia does not have a monolingual readership. I have suggested a way in which you can easily get this into the article. Moreover, what you are doing is simply contributing to the bloating of so many articles of living people, where everything gets listed, and especially abuse of the "publications" section--see this edit. If the dissertation is so good and useful, a secondary source will have said so. Drmies (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Drmies, Thanks for your comments. However, I think my arguments still hold (scholarly publication; more useful mentioning an English text than mentioning a publication in Dutch; open accessible -where the other publ. are not). Re "bloating of articles of living people": I am afraid you are barking up the wrong tree here, as I totally agree with you. I didn't add any publications to the list in the article about Edsger_W._Dijkstra (your general example), and always try to choose some important books/articles instead of listing all publications. I dislike complete lists: Wikipedia is not a collection of bibliographies. Vysotsky (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • A dissertation is not a scholarly publication... When I add stuff like that, I add reviews from peer-reviewed publications to prove that something is worthwhile listing. But go ahead, knock yourself out; I'm getting too old for this. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely *Important* Question

This have been bugging me ever since I came across your profile years ago: how do you pronounce your username? Is it Doctor Mies? Dee-armies? Dermies? My head has been switching between those and other variants for a while. I even went so far as to google it (heh) to no avail. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's a doctor and his name is Mies, so I'd imagine that way ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've heard of "Doc Rat"? This one's "Doc Mice". (Welsh: meddyg llygod). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC) p.s. although he is seen, of course, as more of a prison-camp-blackmarketeer-spiv-type around here.[reply]
Huh, interesting. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This came up at my RfA. I feel like Iridescent is judging my gender a bit quickly here, but OK. "I love mieses to pieces." Drmies (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a photo of you on Meta - if you're female, you might want to consider a makeover. ‑ Iridescent 12:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Yeah. That one. Drmies (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA also prompted questions about my username; some folks apparently had some difficulty believing that I was a being of pure intellect. I certainly had you marked out as the "king rat" (should I say "monarch rat"?) type though. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what's in a name anyway. Karst (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh! ooh! I love that song!Very NSFW. And I wonder if I'm now Pixie or Dixie?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=743819515"